The Social Dynamics of
Fundamentalism
Simon Western
Abstract
This paper is exploring the relationship between
the totalising mono-cultures arinf from transformational leadership styles and
the dynamics of religious fundamentalist movements. This research finds that it is not just parallels and
similarities that link the two but suggests specifically that there is a
connection between the rise of Christian fundamentalism in the USA and the
emergence of the transformational leader as a significant managerial character.
Exploring in some depth the dynamics of religious fundamentalism we find
unexpected dynamics (fundamentalism as a post-modern movement) as well as the more
expected cultures of denying difference, rigid thinking and a defensive
spirituality. Finally the paper outlines some initial thoughts
on the
psychodynamics of fundamentalism,
which will be discussed at the conference. The question this paper is
addressing is how can leadership be both potent without leading ‘the flock’
into the totalising corporate cultures that are reminiscent of fundamentalist
movements.
This paper is a work in progress and part of a
larger PhD thesis.
Introduction
There are growing concerns regarding the dangers of
unchecked power being wielded by transformational leaders (Appendix 1) The most
senior of these leaders have iconic status (demonstrated by their rising
remuneration packages) as CEOs of the worlds richest corporations. With this
new leadership comes the growth of
‘totalising cultures’ developed (Axtell Ray 1986, Smith and Wilkinson
1996, Tourish Pinnington, Grint 1994). This trend has emerged from what began
as a move away from hierarchy and overtly controlling, authoritarian
organisational structures, which were being replaced by flatter structures with
individuals and teams taking more responsibility for their work, and personal
development. This change is represented in Chapter one through three proposed
management characters based on MacIntyre’s (1997) description of character,
which differs from role as is has symbolic relevance to society as a
whole. The ‘Controller’, ‘Therapist’
and ‘Messiah’ Character. (See
Box one below)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Box 1.
The three characters
follow a historical path via the enlightment and the rationalistic/scientific
movement; through to the Humanistic and democratising post war period linking with
the personal growth/therapeutic phenomena in the 1960s, and finally into the
recent past which has seen quantum physics, post modernism, post- industrialism
and globalisation take front stage. The management characters represent
these three phases, which to repeat are not clean phases, with abrupt
breaks. As debate continues as to how
to respond to and shape social, economic, religious, political and cultural
dynamics the signifying role of the manager as a cultural character will play a
key role
|
Character |
Controller |
Therapist |
Messiah |
|
Vision Aims
|
Iron
cage Maximise production through control |
Comfortable
Iron Cage Maximising production though increased motivation
and promoting personal growth |
Internalized
Iron-cage Maximising production through belief in personal
salvation via new meaning. |
|
Source
of Authority
|
From
Above Science The Boss/Owner passes
authority down the pyramid and the techniques of management control gain
authority from |
From
within Humanism Drawing on ones internalised authority gained
through self-actualisation |
From
beyond The
Godhead Secular (morality) or spiritual the source of
authority is transcendent |
|
Perceptions
of Followers or Workers |
Worker
Ants/cogs in a wheel To work within a mass of other workers, with
little personal identity |
Patients To be healed and made whole through reparation at
work |
Disciples To follow the Leader and learn from his/her
individual consideration, how to create a meaningful identity |
|
Manages What? |
Soma Controller focuses on the body to maximise
efficient production, via incentives and coercion. (e.g. piece work and
discipline) |
Psyche Therapist focuses on the psyche to understand
motivation, designs job enrichment, creates spaces for self-actualising
behaviours |
Soul Messiah focuses on the soul. Followers align
themselves to the vision, a cause greater than the self (the company) therefore freeing them. The
Messiah is also a role model, linking success and personal salvation. |
|
Organisational Metaphor |
Machine Takes technical and rational view of world,
thinks in closed systems, tries to control internal environment to maximise
efficiency |
Organism
Principles of growth both personal and social
(learning organisations), Thinks in open-systems, tries to optimise growth
potential. |
Network
Leads through connections and linking the network,
personal networking, understands organizations as matrix/networks, dispersed
authority/leadership within the net |
Managing Style
|
Cogs
in wheel Ensures each individual, team, department works
optimally, keeping to strict tasks, and that the cogs are oiled and work with
each other to maximise overall efficiency and performance |
Boundaries Managing relationships between the environment
and the internal organisation and between individuals, teams, and across
functional boundaries. |
Image
-Communications Creates images, markets a vision, communicates a
culture fitting for the organisations success. |
|
Signifier Of
moral and ideological tensions |
Manipulation,
coercion, scientific efficiency Holds the tensions between scientific progress
and the role of the individual, between coercion and autonomy. |
Reparation, therapeutic governance Holds the tensions between wholeness and
fragmentation, and also therapeutic governance, taking what was private into
the public domain and utilising it as a social tool |
Personal
Salvation/ hope and faith Holds the tensions between personal/social
salvation and chaos, prophetic vision and technical jargon, hope and despair.
Puts faith back in business. |
|
Control Axtell
Ray (1986) |
Bureaucratic Control
via manipulation Strict
policing |
Humanistic Control
via need for reparation- Paternalistic overseeing |
Culture Internalised
control Policing via self and peers |
The Messiah Character, embodied as the
transformational leader no longer needs, or is able, to control using
authoritarian structures as did the ‘Controller’ character’ a
bureaucratic figure based on a transactional management style. Nor does the
messiah character rely on individuals being motivated through the use of work as
a site for self-actualisation with support via the therapist character. The new totalising control comes through
creating cultures, whereby ‘followers’
align themselves to the leaders values and morals and work not only for
material reasons or for their own self-actualisation. According to the
transformational leader literature they are taken beyond their own expectations
of themselves and beyond self (ish) development, to serve the greater good of
the company and the leadership. Through this process they apparently gain a
sense of belonging and true meaning from their work. The
two key questions which arise and which this chapter will address are:
1)
why and from what source, did
this messiah character emerge?
2) what
are the dynamics which support the messiah character and what is the
nature of the totalising cultures they create?
The thesis proposes that in the United States two
different fundamentalisms have converged, one religious, the ‘New Christian
Right’ and one secular, ‘Corporatism and the Neo-liberal Free-marketeers’. The transformational leader has emerged
from, and become central to this unlikely alliance, as the embodiment of the messiah
character, signifying new hope and salvation in a turbulent world. This
thesis does not suggest that transformational leaders knowingly create
fundamentalist cultures, or that Christian fundamentalism has planned and
succeeded in actively taking over and ‘subverting’ corporate life to its
agenda. However it does argue that
there are similarities and influences in which a synthesis and co-colonisation
has taken place between Christian fundamentalism and Corporatism/Neo-liberalism
and which require naming and understanding.
Following an analysis of the transformational leader it becomes possible
to initiate the development of a more appropriate leadership character, which
pulls back from the negative and destructive forces of creating totalising
organisational cultures and which are conceived from and give birth to
fundamentalist mindsets. To begin to
unravel these issues we need to visit the fundamentalist literature and be
clear about the definitions of terms, and then the underlying dynamics from
which religious fundamentalism assumes its power.
What is
fundamentalism?
“Fundamentalism is a
disparate phenomena- a confused category”
(Hardt M, Negri,
2001:146).
The achievements of religious
fundamentalism in returning religion to the main political stage, as well as to
the personal lives of millions of people is testimony to its rise and
influence. This at a time when religion was thought to be in serious decline.
Appearing in such diverse places as India, Pakistan, Israel and the Middle
East, North Africa and the United States fundamentalism has shown itself to be
a global phenomenon. Its impact is huge and influences society in explicit but
also implicit and unexpected directions.
This thesis will explore the dynamics of fundamentalism from two
perspectives:
1) The
social dynamics of fundamentalism
The macro: How fundamentalism relates to the
social and political world
2) The
psycho-dynamics of fundamentalism
The micro: How fundamentalism operates within organisations including
those submerged unseen dynamics and group emotional states which fuel certain
behaviours. These unconscious dynamics help explain the relationship between
leadership, sub-cultures and fundamentalism.
I will offer a brief overview of how the term fundamentalism is used
for religious fundamentalism and clarify how and why it has been used to
describe corporate/neo-liberalism. When using the term fundamentalism I will be
referring to religious fundamentalism, unless it is specifically referred to as
secular or corporate. The latter has fundamentalist traits but operates on
different dynamics to religious fundamentalism.
In the past decade, media coverage of
fundamentalism has largely focused on Islamic fundamentalists and the rise of
Christian fundamentalism in the USA. Fundamentalism is also a term applied to
other religious reforming movements including Buddhist, Hindu and even Confucian
fundamentalists (Armstrong K. 2000).
The term fundamentalism has also been applied to the secular ‘movement’
the neo-liberals/corporates (Ali T. 2002)
reducing the term fundamentalism to its most populist meaning ie to a
movement which is rigid, totalitarian in its aspirations, believing it has the
‘truth’ and is convinced of its righteousness, therefore denying difference and
pluralism. It acts with evangelical and religious zeal. Unlike most religious
fundamentalist movements neo-liberal/corporatism is not fighting from a
position of oppression or as a movement of resistance, it is regarded by many
as the oppressor, a colonising movement of expansion, with totalising
power.
Corporate Fundamentalism
“Corporations,
the contraptions we invented to serve us, are overthrowing us, They are seizing
powers previously invested in government, and using them to distort public life
to serve their own ends.” (Monbiot 2000:4)
Corporations and multi-national companies led by
transformational leaders’ are the key collective actors within the neo-liberal
agenda. Together they are an interdependent dominating power elite. Some view
them as a hugely successful economic force set within democratic structures
and a means of providing wealth and
economic growth throughout the world. Others see them as “fanatical preachers of neo-liberalism”’(Ali
T. 2002:312) a hegemony, with totalitarian tendencies, creating homogenised
mono-cultures within companies and globally denying difference, colonising
public and private spaces, and trampling on ‘otherness’ or resistance encountered
to their ‘economic liberalising and politically democratising’ project.
Corporate, secular fundamentalism operates on different dynamics to
religious fundamentalism. It shares some of the traits which I list below,
·
Conviction of righteousness, certainty of the
truth- ‘there is no other way’
·
Charismatic leadership (Transformational
leadership)
·
In conflict with opposing ideologies
·
Conspiracy theories and paranoid mindsets
·
‘Religious’ evangelising zeal
Its key differences are that
Neo-liberalism has risen and become established no more a marginalized
voice, but dominating the world economy
exercising powerful influences within political structures in the richest and
most powerful countries and world agencies.
Susan George (1999) writes: “So, from a small, unpopular sect with virtually no influence,
neo-liberalism has become the major world religion with its dogmatic doctrine,
its priesthood, its law-giving institutions and perhaps most important of all,
its hell for heathen and sinners who dare to contest the revealed truth”
. Corporates are the collective actors
of neo-liberalism. Now dominating they differ from other fundamentalist groups
by not operating from a position of oppression, or the fear of domination. They
are in the ascendancy and are operating from a position of righteousness, to
protect their own economies, and freedom, and also to expand and to ‘save the
world’. Habermas (1987) calls this process the ‘colonisation of the lifeworld’
others book titles agree with this process but use different language; Hertz
(2001) The silent takeover, Hardt and Negri (2001) Empire and Monbiot (2000) ‘Captive
state: the corporate takeover of Britain. This silent takeover is
perceived by others, including religious fundamentalists as pervasive. Fukuyama’s influential book The End of
the history and the last man (1992) is a reflection of the
totalising view, that the United States form of capitalism (neo-liberalism) and
liberal democracy “should be
expanded and the whole world brought into its purview” (Williams et al,
1997:174). This end of history is seen by Fukuyama as optimistic and he says we
should be confident about it. Fukuyama goes beyond intellectualising as can be
seen by his signature aligning himself to the right wing think tank, The
Project for a New America
The
Project for a New America: Statement of principles
Final paragraph: June 3rd 1997
The history of the 20th century should have taught us that
it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet
threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught
us to embrace the cause of American leadership.
Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to
draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:
• We need to increase defence spending significantly if we
are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
• We need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and
to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
• We need to promote the cause of political and economic
freedom abroad;
• We need to accept responsibility for America's unique
role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our
security, our prosperity, and our principles.
Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral
clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States
is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security
and our greatness in the next.
Elliott Abrams
Gary Bauer William J.
Bennett Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky
Steve Forbes Aaron Friedberg Francis
Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle
Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz
Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz
Fukuyama is seen as an intellectual and mainstream
commentator, Donald Rumsfeld is now the most powerful civilian military
commander for many years. There are many who hold far more radical views than
these. Exporting and promoting
corporate growth, and American/western values are a fundamental policy goal of
the American right, who are now in power.
It
is not the task of this thesis to comment on the morality or political
correctness of the neo-liberal agenda. However the rise of the transformational
leader and the corporate cultures associated with them is the subject matter of
this thesis, as a key element in determining whether corporates (followed by
other sectors and organizations) develop cultures which veer towards
mono-cultures which are themselves controlling, totalitarian and are a product of
‘fundamentalist’ mindsets or whether they achieve what say they aspire to i.e.
flexible, non-authoritarian cultures, which support and encourage followers to
achieve self-actualising tendencies beyond their own expectations, working
towards personal and organisational success within a corporate vision.
Fundamentalism and management
The contemporary literature on
management and leadership is vast and broad; as is a literature on religious
fundamentalism, currently a very hot topic, but they stay in their separate
spheres. The management literature rarely, if ever sees any influence from
fundamentalism to its own practice, despite a strong link between U.S. politics
and the religious right, and having its own form of secular fundamentalism, as
observed by outsiders. It is ‘as if’
there is no connection, link or impact of one on the other, despite religious
fundamentalism and managerialism/leaderism being two of the most influential
movements of the past 30 years. In the management or organisational literature
the only overlap is a few articles on leaders (hero/villain figures) from
religious fundamentalist movements, a little is written on how
fundamentalist/terrorist cells and networks organise, and some fringe writings
on how secular organisations take on religious symbolism is about as close as
the management literature comes to recognise any significance between two of
the major influences in today’s world. The rise of literature and activity on
workplace spirituality (Bell and Taylor
2003) completely ignores religious fundamentalism, focusing mainly on
new age spirituality.
Perhaps this is because so much of the literature
is written as though management and organisational life operates within its own
realm, being influenced by economic factors and social policy, and the
protective hedges that have been grown around University Business Schools and
Corporation culture are thick and high, defending these citadels. Management thinking and research remains
within this closed self-referring system, which actually limits the ability to
reflexively view what is happening within its own sphere of expertise. It has
its own discourse and takes a narcissistic view, seeing its own reflection and
is unable to situate itself within the wider context, critical management
theory is the exception but also on the periphery, particularly within the USA.
If management researchers commentators and scholars were to situate the
transformational leader, within a wider political, social and global world,
‘fundamentalisms’ would be very much a part of their context. Leaderism, as a
tool for creating a one-dimensional company persona, aligning followers to the
same morals and values within the new vision of corporate culture is described
by Smith and Wilkinson, (1996) as a ‘totalitarian’ culture. Smith and Wilkinson’s research takes us to a
progressive non-hierarchical company ‘Sherwoods’ which shines as a beacon of
the new collectivist organisational paradigm. They describe it as hugely successful
part of a multi-national, working in open planned offices and pursuing ‘furious
interaction’ with a religious fervour, anti-bureaucratic with job functions
rotating between managers and consensus and cooperation has been
institutionalised. Smith and Wilkinson then describe this as a total-itarian
culture with nightmarish qualities due to the tight control, which co-exists
within a high degree of autonomy. They make an analogy with a penal institution
saying it is like an open–prison. The lack of privacy precludes dissent,
control is not located specifically but generically, “everyone is at the
heart of things but everybody also has several others within their gaze and
everybody is clearly observed by others”. There is an obsessive degree of
quality control within the company and conflict is apparently obliterated. They
are paid above the industry norms in order to keep them in ‘golden
handcuffs’ and “they are their own policemen” (Smith and Wilkinson,
1996). They say that when people join ‘Sherwood’s’ they think it ‘a bit funny
at first, but then soon see it as normal’.
What exists is an internalised culture of control (Axtell Ray 1986)
policed by the social group, in which to be different is not an option, and
more worryingly perhaps not even a thought. What Smith and Wilkinson are describing
is a corporate fundamentalist organisation, albeit with a post-modernist,
progressive, and anti-hierarchical culture.
This type of organisation, with its many cultural variations, is one of
the ascending visions within contemporary management literature for company
cultures and management approaches. This type of organisation is usually traced
back to different collaborative and cooperative initiatives, including Ouchi’s Theory
Z (1981), which was based on the controlling cultures within Japanese management
styles. It also has resonances with
the cultures of fundamentalist religious movements, who win souls through
charismatic leadership and as a result create cultures, which are very much
self-regulating and demand commitment and allegiance to the movement. To explore how this operates with religious
movements and how this influences on business we turn to religious
fundamentalism
Religious fundamentalism
“The
age of information becomes the age of confusion, and thus the age of
fundamental affirmation of traditional values and uncompromising rights”
(Castells
1997:97)
Religious fundamentalism is a contested and
confused category, Castells says
“That religious fundamentalism has existed throughout the whole of human
history, but it appears to be surprisingly strong at the end of this millennium”
(1997:13) whereas Armstrong stresses that whilst other religious reforming
movements have existed in the past, “Fundamentalism is an essentially
twentieth century movement”(Armstrong, 2000: xi). Both agree that religious
fundamentalism is a reaction against modernism and secularism and that its rise
has been remarkable and very successful, “Religion has once again become a
force that no government can ignore” (Armstrong, 2000:x)
Religious scholars use the term “fundamentalist” in
different ways. This thesis cannot cover the huge diversity of fundamentalisms
from all religions and within each religion, so I will focus mainly on
Christian fundamentalism and briefly outline some of the common dynamics within
Islamic Fundamentalism, Jewish Hindu and other forms are equally politically
active and present in their regions of influence. It is widely accepted that the term fundamentalism was first used
in the early 20th century to describe a movement within the protestant
tradition in America.
“The word fundamentalism appears to have been
derived from a series of booklets entitled ‘The Fundamentals’ which were
published in America during 1910-15. In them the term was used for elements of
traditional doctrine- the inspiration and authority of scripture, the deity of
Jesus Christ, the virgin birth and others- which are dear also to the
fundamentalist of today.” (Barr 1981:2).
Cole writes of ‘The Fundamentals’ “they (a group of earnest
believers) delivered their orthodox manifesto as a test of Christian loyalty
and as a corrective to the position of the liberals. In this action the
historian finds the clear emergence of fundamentalism” (Cole, 1931). Some
religious scholars see fundamentalism wholly in this Christian context and
believe it cannot easily be used in relation to Islam, Judaism, or Hinduism or
secular movements. Barr
(1981) takes this traditional view and pronounces the following three general
characteristics of Christian fundamentalism:
1.
A very strong emphasis on the
inerrancy of the Bible.
2.
A strong hostility to modern theology
and to the methods results and implications of modern critical Bible study
3.
An assurance that those who do not
share their religious viewpoint are not really Christians at all
Interestingly he challenges the general belief that
Christian fundamentalists core belief resides in the authority of the Bible. He
maintains that fundamentalism is a particular kind of religious tradition that
controls the interpretation of the Bible rather than simply treating it as
inerrant (Barr 1981: 11). Frosh (1997:422) agrees expanding this to all
fundamentalisms, saying that all sacred texts require an interpretation and he
says it is the ownership of the texts and the authority to interpret them that
is important, not the literalist adherence. For the secular fundamentalists the
‘sacred texts’ are taken from a various sources, Adam Smith and Karl Marx are
examples, but the same principles apply, those whose interpretations fit the
mood of the times, claim the authority to shape the religious or
political-social realm,over which they lay claim. Armstrong and others point
out that religious fundamentalists usually begin with a spiritual war within
their own religious group. Fundamentalism is now used beyond its
Christian Protestant origins and has a much broader meaning, which is
pluralistic rather than singular. The term fundamentalisms’ is more adequate
than the singular fundamentalism as it takes into account different forms in
different religions (Vuale E. 2002). Armstrong believes fundamentalism has been
applied in a way that suggests all such religious movements are a monolithic
and she states, “This is not the case. Each fundamentalism is a law unto
itself and has its own dynamic” (Armstrong 2000:Intro). She does
acknowledge its wide common usage and says that despite their differences these
fundamentalist movements bear a strong family resemblance.
Islamic Fundamentalism
Islam like other forms of fundamentalism has a variety of roots
and expressions. Most commentators agree that Islamic fundamentalism is not a
traditionalist movement but a modern movement which reconstructs a cultural
identity and is related to the disruption of traditional society, the failure
of the nation state and modernism to develop the economy and distribute
benefits of any economic growth fairly, countries such as Iran, Egypt and
Algeria are examples of states which have gone through a painful nationalist,
secularising and a ‘modernising’ process whilst disenfranchising many, “Thus Islamic identity is (re)
constructed by fundamentalists in opposition to capitalism, to socialism, and
to nationalism, Arab or otherwise which are, in their view failing ideologies
of the post-colonial order.” (Castells 1997:17)
Tibi points out one of the key underlining
factors of Islamic Fundamentalism is the Islamic concept of Umma, where the
individual can be fully him or herself amongst a confraternity of believers
sharing, supporting and creating equality and solidarity. The Umma overrides
any notion of identity and the nation state, which is an anathema to the belief
that all Muslims are a community of believers. The middle east is an example
where the nation state is a novelty and even alien and has been imposed on
societies; “the rise of Islamic
fundamentalism in the middle east is inter-related with the exposure of this
part of the world of Islam, which perceives itself as a collective entity, to
the processes of globalization, to nationalism and the nation-state as
globalized principles of organization (Tibi 1992:7). Castells
discusses how traditional teaching asserts itself in a very modern way against
globalisation: “Through the negation of exclusion, even in the extreme form
of self-sacrifice, a new Islamic identity emerges in the historical process of
building the umma, the communal heaven for all believers” (Castells
1997:20). Fazlur Rahman puts Islamic fundamentalism specifically
in a different light challenging the term as it is misleading, “Actually it is something of a
misnomer to call such a phenomena in contemporary Islam ‘fundamentalism’.
Contemporary Islamic radicalism is
primarily based on ‘ijtihad’, original thought” (Rahman1984:142). Islamic fundamentalism
has been linked to radical liberation movements from the 1960’s, being inspired
by writers such as Frantz Fannon and Jean-Paul Sartre, its latest
manifestations through radical movements such as Al Qaeda have gone beyond the
usual boundaries of fighting within ones own religious tradition and nation
states (although this continues) to challenging the global hegemony of
Westernisation led by the United States.
This takes us to the wider
question of is religious fundamentalism a backward looking movement or a
progressive movement, of the modern or even post-modern era?
|
Violence
and Terrorism When
used in relation to the ‘otherness’ of a westernised culture, for example
with Islamic and Hindu fundamentalists, the media portrays them with strong
connotations of militancy, misogyny and terrorist or state violence. The link
between fundamentalism and terrorism or violence is neither consistent nor
inevitable and too often the words are used interchangeably. Religious
fundamentalisms are usually embattled forms of spirituality based on a fear
of being consumed within a secular or worldly movement. As Barr (1981) says
of Christian fundamentalists, but is
true of other faiths and non-faith fundamentalist movements, “Fundamentalism
produces a psychological stress, it is intrinsically suspicious and has a
need for an external authority”. This
can lead to paranoia (often based on or supplemented with real persecution)
and classic fight/flight responses. The more fundamentalists face oppression
the more likely a violent reaction will be the response. “Americans have not resorted to the
same degree of violence as Islamic fundamentalists because the attacks on
them have been far less extreme. But they inveigh against the "secular
humanism" of the federal government in language that often seems as
paranoid as that used by their Muslim counterparts against America or Israel.
In small-town America, people feel almost as "colonised" by the
alien ethos of Yale, Harvard and Washington as do some of the inhabitants of
Muslim countries. (Armstrong K, 2002). There has been violence in the US
between government versus Christian fundamentalist war with lives lost on
both sides. Eighty men women and children died at Waco Texas when the FBI
besieged David Koresh’s Branch Davidian sect and Timothy Mcveigh’s bomb
attack on the federal building in Oklahoma City on April 19th,
1995 was said to be inspired by the ultra right, extreme fundamentalists such
as ‘Christian Identity’, who want rid of the federal government (which they
call ZOG :Zionist Occupation Government believing it to be dominated by Satan
and Jews) and are preparing for the last war (Armstrong 2000:363). Terrorism and state
violence emerge for many complex reasons, from secular as well as religious
movements but this thesis will concentrate on fundamentalism as separate from
terrorism as this is another subject matter in its own right. |
Fundamentalism: Past, Present or
Future?
One of the commonest themes,
often refuted by scholars is that fundamentalism is inherently conservative and
wedded to the past. According to Castells (1997: 25) fundamentalism is a
reactive movement, idealising a past, looking to a utopian future in order to
overcome an unbearable present. Castells view is limited to the idea of the
utopian future whereas others would argue that fundamentalists are also very
effective and innovative in the present, as well as looking to the utopian
future. Armstrong agrees “The term also gives the impression that
fundamentalists are inherently conservative and wedded to the past, whereas
their ideas are essentially modern and highly innovative.” (Armstrong K,
2000: X).
Fundamentalism
is very much a modern movement and some suggest a hyper-modern movement (Gole
1995) others a post-modern movement (Negri, Hardte 2001, Frosh, 1997). Fundamentalists in various traditions teach
that there was a ‘perfect moment’ an idealised past and they endeavour to
recover that moment. This often involves reacting to threats in realizing this
ideal, even if the ideal never actually existed. The perfected moments
themselves are usually ‘remembered’ and elevated from a plethora of options in
direct contrast to a system which threatens the fundamentalists ‘traditional’
communities. Hardte and Negri cite the
“return to the traditional family” as not backward-looking at all, but
rather a new invention that is part of a political project against the
contemporary social order”. (Hardte and Negri 2001:148)
Frosh
discusses religious fundamentalism generically, across religions and suggests
it is a specific anti-modern movement. “A
response to the crisis of rationality which draws on the same emotional forces
as do feminism and postmodernism but to different ends” (Frosh,1997:417).
He characterises it by the “acceptance of absolute
authority, militancy, and anti- humanism. It casts women as both ‘ideal’ as
(mothers and bearers of the culture) and
‘other’ (as sexual objects) it embodies the a failure of the imaginative
capacity to tolerate difference and otherness, linking it with other
narcissistic responses to the tensions of modernity”(ibid). Frosh
describes the fragmentation of social life producing uncertainty over roots; “The
sense of tragedy degradation and annihilation being just around the corner” (Frosh S 1997:417).
He then makes the unlikely link to postmodernism. “Fundamentalism
is like postmodernism in that it is a response to the crisis of rationality to
the despair of modernity. Fundamentalism responds in a time honoured way ; it
refused them absolutely.”( ibid)
Hardt and Negri agree saying fundamentalism “ is not a
re- creation of a pre-modern world but rather a powerful refusal of the
contemporary historical passage in course.” (2001:146-7).
Fundamentalism is much more than an escape route to an idealised time in
history. The anti-modern thrust that defines fundamentalisms is better
understood not as pre-modern but as a
post-modern project. This is an
odd coupling, according to Hardt and
Negri: (2001:146 –150.) “Post modern discourses appeal to
the winners of the process of globalisation and fundamentalist to the losers”. The evidence for this is not always evident and I would
contest this, when one considers how the exported fundamentalism from Saudi
Arabia and also the rise in American Christian fundamentalists, both winners
from globalisation in material terms, with the televangelists using new global
technology and gaining wealth and followers and yet are still
fundamentalists. Fundamentalists being
labelled as the losers in the process of globalisation is an interesting
proposal, but also unfortunate in that it envisages fundamentalism as a single
entity, within a Marxist framework and class dialectic and as this thesis will
discuss later, social movements show that this framework is no-longer adequate
to deal with such complex social phenomena.
Roy supports this view, linking Islamic fundamentalism to globalisation
he renames it as neo-fundamentalism. “In
fact, this new brand of supranational neo-fundamentalism is more a product of
contemporary globalisation than of the Islamic past. Using two international
languages (English and Arabic), travelling easily by air, studying, training
and working in many different countries, communicating through the Internet and
cellular phones, they think of themselves as “Muslims” and not as citizens of a
specific country. It is probably a paradox of globalisation to gear together
modern supranational networks and traditional, even archaic, infrastate forms
of relationships, tribalism, for instance, or religious schools’ networks.” (Roy, 1994).
Armstrong uses Khomeneini of Iran to further the point that fundamentalism
is much more than what it appears on the surface, “The
Ayatollah Khomeini was essentially a man of the 20th century. Instead of
harking back to the Dark Ages, he was really introducing a revolutionary form
of Shi´ism that was, in fact, as innovative as if the pope had abolished the
Mass. But most of us didn't understand enough about Shi´ism to appreciate that.” Armstrong
K 2 (2002).
Taking into account the
diversity within the term fundamentalism one must look beyond initial
appearances of conservative, reactionary and anti-modern, movements.
Fundamentalism needs to be understood within a wider historical, global and
social-political contexts. Religious
fundamentalisms today usually take on the paradoxical position of being
innovative in their anti-modern stance and radical in their conservative stand.
They are far from antiquities though and the descriptions of them as modern or
post-modern movements seems apt.
Fundamentalism and leadership
Leadership within fundamentalism is commonly
informal rather than an institutional style leadership “it is the leadership
of the great evangelist, the advisor the scholar known to be a conservative in
his tendencies, but the authority of such persons is much greater than the
authority of bishops and other church leaders in institutions or churches. The fundamentalist emphasise the guru, the
teacher with his following” (Barr, J. 1981: xix). It is interesting that Barr specifically identifies the
fundamentalist leader as having more authority than an institutional leader.
One would naturally assume that the opposite would be the case that the leader,
sanctioned by an institution, e.g. a Bishop in the Church of England would
carry more weight than a leader without this sanction. This view of leadership is precisely the
view taken by those theorists who have created the transformational
leader. They have seen the powerful
transformational roles from the ‘great evangelists’, specifically in their own
culture Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson amongst others and the
growth of the Christian fundamentalist movement under this leadership.
Consciously or unconsciously they have taken this model and refined it for the
world of business, attempting to tone down the guru and the charismatic
aspects, which go against the management ethic of logos, control, and
rationality, and against the empowerment ethos, firmly established since the
manager, a therapist character from the 1960s to 1980s. The new sanitised
transformational leader draws on these Christian fundamentalist leaders,
learning from how they use their personal authority and charisma, and enjoying
the privilege of maverick status. They have morality on their side and must
have a vision, to which all followers can align themselves. One of the most
important attributes of today’s transformational leader is a corporate
prophesy, “Where there is no vision
the people will perish” Prov 29:18.
This is a central tenant of today’s corporate culture.
The transformational leader has
been created in the image of the ‘great evangelist’
sanitised and blurred to fit
into the grey suits of the boardroom when appropriate, (except your true
maverick gurus, e.g. Apple’s Steve Jobs…….) but in essence the transformational
leader, i.e. the manager as the messiah character, has learnt much from
the fundamentalist movement.
Communities of
meaning: a fundamental challenge to atomisation
Rarely mentioned as an explicit feature of fundamentalism
is its provision of a ‘community of meaning’.
In modernity’s atomised and individualised social fabric, the idea of a
community to which individuals identify and for which they are even willing to
sacrifice themselves is a counter-culture in itself, a direct challenge to
atomisation. A community of ‘believers’ of identity and meaning,
such as a fundamentalist community with strongly held values and beliefs,
stands as a symbolic witness to the power of the group and to a reliance on
relationships. Symbolically the reliance on a deity and practically a reliance
on others. By presenting as a
collective actor, this poses a direct threat to the view that individual
freedom is the highest aspiration, the view which underpins liberal democratic
society. One of
the stated aims of transformational leadership is to give the follower
something to believe in beyond themselves is the leader’s and company’s vision
and morality, as
Bass states “These leaders will generate awareness and acceptance of the
purposes and missions of the organization, and stir the employees to look
beyond their own self-interests for the good of the overall entity” (Bass,
1990). How leaders manage this, and whether they do
infact manage this is another question. Followers
of secular business leaders, where the end product is greater outputs and
profits, rather than spiritual ideals, raises serious doubts. This is where spirituality re-enters the
workplace in an attempt to resolve this dilemma. Rose (1990) believes that
spirituality is an aspect of a management ideology aimed at managing
subjectivity and the engineering of the human soul. Hertzberg (1984) suggests
that Eastern philosophies can be appropriated by western managers, as a way of
introducing a workplace spirituality, which they perceive, will give them total
obedience amongst the workforce. This quote from the national press in an
article trying explain why some British Muslims join fundamentalist Islamic
groups in the Middle East reaffirms the attraction to community: “Many
British Muslims go to Damascus seeking a spiritual experience: One local
student studying there said, ‘They are known as "spiritual refugees",
escaping from the soul-less wastelands of modernity. Some of them go native -
they don't come back.”
(Bright and Alam, 2003).
Putnam’s research in the US shows a decline in civic
engagement - membership of clubs, voting in elections, going to meetings, but
also socialising with friends. Putnam says this grew in the first part of
the 20th century, but has been on the decline since the 60s. However one
reversal of this trend is the evangelical Christians, traditionally a
Protestant Quietist movement. “Religious conservatives have created the
largest, best-organized grassroots social movement of the last quarter
century. It is, in short, among evangelical Christians, rather than among
the ideological heirs of the sixties, that we find the strongest evidence of an
upwelling of civic engagement”. Putnam, R. (2000:162) . By
creating communities with meaning, collectively acting on the religious,
political, and civic front, under the banner of Gods agents; drawing on deep
moral and spiritual commitment, fundamentalists challenge the culture of
modernity which implies individualism having ascendancy over the community.
Whilst part of their ‘manifesto’ supports individualism, which is deeply
embedded in both Protestantism and American culture, this individualism can
also be a form of collective identity (Castells 1997:7, Lasch 1980) and the
Christian fundamentalists have created a very strong collective identity with
individualism as one of its bedrocks. Community itself is a revolutionary act
in cultures, which continually erode community at the expense of individual
rights, and promote atomisation rather than a collective individualism.
Christian fundamentalists civic engagement in USA, Hamas in Palestine, the Muslim
Brothers in Egypt, Jewish fundamentalists in Israel and the diaspora all, in
different ways create community both of spirit but also actively engage in
community actions be it to feed the poor or create a gym at the local church
for the youth group. The success of the
fundamentalist movements in creating this collective actor, which gives
individuals belonging meaning and commitment, is exactly what the
transformation leader is attempting to replicate in the business world.
Liberal reactions
Fundamentalism is a complex and challenging
contemporary phenomenon, which raises high emotions when discussed. From a
liberal position, (the arch-enemy of fundamentalism), one often gets a negative
knee jerk response. Huff (2000) sites six of his early responses which he now
reflects upon., “To my way of
thinking, fundamentalism, at least in its U.S. Christian form, had six
dimensions. Sociologically it was related to the outdated values and repressive
code of small-town America. Culturally it manifested an inclination toward the
lowbrow and the vulgar. Psychologically it was marked by authoritarianism,
arrogance, and addiction to conspiracy theories. Intellectually it was
characterized by a lack of historical consciousness and the inability to engage
in critical thinking. Theologically it was identified by literalism,
primitivism, legalism, and tribalism. Politically it was linked to reactionary
populism and the "paranoid style." Barr (1981) says of Christian fundamentalism, it carries the
suggestion of “narrowness, bigotry obscurantism and sectarianism, though
this may be unpleasant it may also be true and just” (Barr 1981:2). However
the word is used, fundamentalism arouses strong emotions. Those who are named
as fundamentalists rarely acknowledge this title themselves, Christians who
once proudly called themselves fundamentalists now use different terms, to
avoid the links to ‘bigotry and narrowness’.
However one must take into account their social constructs and biases
when trying to understand fundamentalism. One person’s fundamentalism is
another’s protector of faith or civilisation. The liberal tradition
particularly has a duty to place fundamentalism in a critical context in order
to make sense of it, without overlaying it with the hegemony of western liberal
ideology. Observing how the media
reports fundamentalism, which has become a ‘bad object’, it is those who claim
to support and represent liberal democracy, who so often take up a position of
‘unthinking’ reaction to religious fundamentalism, mirroring the intolerance
and rigidity, they claim to despise.
The social dynamics of fundamentalism
Fundamentalism is not usually considered in the
same category as a social movement, this is probably because social movements
are often seen as progressive social phenomena and fundamentalists a throwback
to a past era. However they have much in common with social or new social
movements and some include them in this category. Using social movements theory
shed new light on religious fundamentalist movements. In his study of social
movements, Castells includes religious fundamentalists alongside the extreme
right wing U.S. Patriot movement, the Zapatistas and the environmental movement
amongst others. He defines a social movement as “Purposive collective
actions whose outcome in victory as in defeat, transforms the values and
institutions of society” Castells (1997:3). A social movement would be too restricted by a single
organisation; this is as true of religious fundamentalism, as it is of feminism
or environmentalism. This also would be one of the boundaries separating a cult
(a highly structured organisation) from a fundamentalist movement, which has
organisations within it, but no single organisation speaks for the movement.
Different fundamentalist movements (like other social movements) arise as
communities of resistance (Melucci 1986, Etzioni 1993, Castells 1997), to what
they perceive as a threat. This is usually from within their own faith
community initially and then against modernity and secularism, which they
perceive as threatening their values, lifestyle and belief system through
colonisation by an opposing ideology, which Habermas (1987) describes as the
‘colonising of their lifeworld’. For the religious fundamentalist this process
has an additional dimension, which gives it a dynamic energy beyond other
social movements. Not only are their lifeworlds being colonised’ there is a
belief that this is also an action against their deity, and so becomes a battle
between good and evil, a defence of their religion, and for fundamentalists a
struggle with apocalyptic dimensions. Feisal Abdul Rauf describes this from his ‘liberal’ Islamic
point of view: “We in America have
as our social contract our Bill of Rights, our Constitution, and the preamble
to the Constitution. When we feel our personal rights are violated, we tend to
react by saying, this is unconstitutional. The Muslim's social contract is his
or her faith. So when we feel that we have been violated at some level, that
our social rights have been violated, we respond by saying this is un-Islamic” (Rauf , 2002)
This explains why there is often such a radical and
seemingly, over zealous reaction by religious fundamentalists, and also one of
the reasons why it is so difficult for religious fundamentalists and those with
liberal and pluralists mindsets to find a common language to discuss
grievances. Sussanah Heschel speaks of her Jewish experience and how
fundamentalists from different religions can find a common language but cant
speak to liberals within their own cultures and vice versa:
“Fundamentalists of different religious communities often come together and
speak. And liberals in communities come together and speak. I can speak to
liberal Christians much more easily than I can to ultra-Orthodox Jews. Why
don't we have that ability to speak within our own community? How can we
develop the language so that I can speak to my cousin who is the head of Agudas
Israel? The question I would ask myself is what do I have to offer to that
community, to that part of my extended family that's Hasidic? What do I have to
give? On the other hand, they often missionize me. They would like me to become
a Hasidic like them” (Heschel 2002)
Melucci’s work is very important as it distinguishes old and
new social movements saying of new movements they are: “not
a unified subject but a class of phenomena with three dimensions
1.
Solidarity
2.
Conflict -engaged in a conflict
in opposition with an adversary who lays claims to the same goods or values
3.
Breaking the limits of compatibility
of a system beyond which it can tolerate."
(Melucci
1989:29)
All
three dimensions would fit with most religious fundamentalists. Differences
between new social movements, and religious fundamentalists exist pending on
the differing definitions of terms. Melucci’s work is important in that it
reveals a social dynamic that is valuable to the understanding of religious
fundamentalism. He says that moving beyond grand narrative and single order
systems of explanation have opened up possibilities to move from reductionist
theorising, to theories that attempt to account for the complexity that is
involved in the new social movements and the society and environments in which
they operate.
"Social movements are cast as figures in
an epic tragedy, as heroes and villains who are moving towards some grand ideal
or dramatic destiny, with the public having to side with one or other of the
plays main characters- the hero or the villain- since this choice determines
the destiny of the society, its progress into civilisation or its descent into
barbarism”. (Melucci 1989:25)
Melucci
believes this view of social conflict still dominates and we continue to speak
of the workers movement or women's movement as homogenous entities. This is a
19th century view and influenced later by the theories of deprivations from Marx, Freud, emphasising
objective and structural contradictions or subjective psychological
motivations that draw people together.
It is the imagery of social movements as a single personage that needs challenging
and a rejection of the assumption of collective action as a unified datum.
Melucci states "Only
then can we begin to understand the plurality of perspectives, meanings and
relationships, which make up any given collective action." (Melucci 1989:25). This I maintain is also
true of religious fundamentalists and when we consider the linking of the New
Christian Right to Corporatism, it is vital to hold onto ‘a complexity and
plurality of perspectives’ I do not
suggest a clearly defined grand narrative or planned agenda as to how and why
this has happened.
The movement is the
message
In 1964 Marshall
Mcluhan wrote the "The medium is the
message” (Mcluhan 1994). Fundamentalists
as movements, provide the message. See Appendix 2
Religious
fundamentalism should be viewed through two dimensions, in order to understand
why it has such an impact on individuals and society,
1. Explicit Aims: Aims,
objectives. The religious, political and social aims
2. The Message: Fundamentalist
movements act as signs and messages. How they organise their communities and
their collective actions, specifically conflicts, are signs and messages to
‘the world’.
The
first dimension was, and often is, the only lens through which fundamentalists
are viewed often with incredulity, as they seem so out of place with modernity
and particularly with liberal democracy. The second dimension is often
misinterpreted, collective actions confront a societies way of doing things.
For example, the Old Order Amish who dress plainly, are considered to be
interesting and quaint, they have become a tourist event thousands take a buses
and watch them in Lancaster County ‘stuck in their timewarp’. But their plain dress and lifestyle is much
more than a frozen historical moment being re-enacted, it is a living a sign, a
statement witnessing that all are equal under God, that one shouldn’t be vain,
that consumerism isn’t the only way of life, that continuity is as important as
change. This is not a movement stuck in the 17th Century but one
that considers innovations and changes very carefully and decides whether a
change, mobile phones for example, would or wouldn’t benefit the community and
its relationship with God (Western 2000).
Melucci describes how the message operates for new social movements:
“The
very forms of the movements their patterns of interpersonal relationships and
decision-making mechanisms operate as a 'sign' or 'message' for the rest of
society. E.g. the women's movement for instance, not only raises important
questions about equality and rights. They also, at the same time, deliberately
signal to the rest of society the importance of recognising differences with
complex societies. Participation within
movements is considered a goal in itself.
Actors practice in the present the future social changes they seek.” Melucci
(1989:5-6)
Religious
fundamentalists operate on this same symbolic realm as new social movements.
The conflicts they choose are on symbolic grounds, they are not just operating
on an explicit level as characters to gain political power, but as signs
translating their actions to symbolic codes, that overturn dominant cultural
codes. The effect of this is to “Render power visible…..The
power in complex societies is often concealed- submerged diffuse, hidden behind
bureaucracy administration or show business politics” (Melucci 1989:76)
Once a
hidden power is made visible and explicit it can be challenged or may even
begin to implode. The social dynamics
and hidden power structures revealed by religious fundamentalist movements are
obviously manifold and diverse.
Summary
Let me summarise
how religious fundamentalism operates as ‘collective actors’
a) An idealised past based on the fundamentalist’s particular
interpretation of sacred texts, creates a new movement.
b) Fundamentalism is a form of collective resistance against a
perceived threat, (often rampant secularism and modernity).
c) Charismatic leadership is usually a powerful agent within
fundamentalism
d) The anti-modern thrust of fundamentalism needs to be
de-codified to reveal its deeper meaning. These messages reveal challenges,
which for the fundamentalists are magnified but are relevant to all of society.
e) There are two ways of interpreting Fundamentalists, through
their explicit aims, and through observing
the movement as a message and sign in
itself.
f) Fundamentalism acts as a modern or even post-modern movement
because:
·
Within fundamentalism there is a
critique of the existing order albeit expressed in an inverted way.
·
Innovative new forms of religion and
community are created
·
A new order overthrowing the old is
visioned, usually in the following five stages.
1)
The new order is enacted within
individuals and faith communities, led by charismatic leaders. New collective identities are constructed.
2)
The initial social conflicts take
place within the conservative religious order of that particular faith
community.
3)
This challenge is extended to the
state and secular social order through evangelism, conversion, persuasion and
conflict (this does not infer violence)
4)
This challenge exposes and unmasks,
the hidden power structures within society and the tensions they provoke
5)
The final stage is the attempt to bring the vision
of a utopian future, based on an idealised past, into the present changing the
whole society.
Armstrong claims that one of the
commonalities which links the religious fundamentalists, is their defence of mythos
against the omnipresent logos. The impact of logos on everyday life is huge and it is this which
the fundamentalists challenge, exposing the hidden power structures.
Max Weber is renowned for
his sociological insights and particularly his work on the protestant work
ethic and the rise in capitalism (Weber 1930). The rise of fundamentalism must
also be seen in a sociological context and this chapter will demonstrate how
the fundamentalist mindset (religious and corporate) is closely linked to the
mindsets and goals of moral ‘transformational leaders’. This thesis will argue that
contemporary American Christian fundamentalism has co-created with corporate
fundamentalists a New Protestant Work Ethic. The morality from this new ethic,
like the old protestant work ethic, has been taken on as a mainstream
internalised ideology and as such, is not consciously recognised, it is just
how things are. This explains why it is
possible for the many statements like ‘To
be transformational one must be morally uplifting” (Burns 1978) can be
used without the authors feeling obliged to further define, in any depth, whose
or what morality? The assumption is that we all understand what kind of
morality is being discussed, its just how things are…. this I suggest is
because the morality gains its legitimacy from the internalised New Protestant
Work Ethic. This enables those advocates promoting transformational leaders and
their project of transforming followers and organisations, to do so with moral
righteousness because at the same time they are ‘doing good’ for all
involved. This alliance has created an
unusual and unconscious bond between a religious fundamentalist movement ‘the
New Christian Right’ and a form of secular fundamentalism the ‘Corporate
Neo-liberal free marketeers’. Differences do exist between the two divergent
interests and these have been kept to their separate spheres of spirituality
and secularism. The common interests are material and also linked to human
desire, but there is a secondary interest. This is the message, signified by
the Christian fundamentalists, and far less obvious, but which draws on the human
need for a rational and secular experience of the world to be balanced by an
unconscious, mythical and spiritual realm.
This is the battle between mythos and logos.
Mythos and Logos- Spiritual and
secular realms
Mythos and logos represent two
ways of thinking, speaking and acquiring knowledge, which have evolved from the
pre-modern world. “Both were essential; they were regarded as complementary
ways at arriving at the truth, each having its own special area of competence.
Mythos was regarded as primary (in pre-modern times)” (Armstrong
2000:xiii). The Enlightment and modernity has placed logos firmly in the
ascendant position and mythos has been marginalized. There is an interesting dynamic when logos (rationality/secularism) and mythos
(spirituality/myths) cross over into each other’s spheres, sometimes with
disastrous results. Armstrong points out that when one tries to make mythos the
basis of pragmatic policy, major problems arise. She cites the Crusades as an
example of when logos was in the ascendance, the crusaders were successful,
performing well on the battle field, and they learned to relate more positively
to conquested peoples. However when mythos took ascendance and policies were
based on mythical, apocalyptic visions, that terrible atrocities were committed
and were usually defeated. Armstrong
makes a strong case that mythos should not be a feature of pragmatic policy,
but that it does fill an essential role. That is making sense of that which logos
cannot, “logos could not answer the question about the ultimate value of
human life. A scientist could make things work more efficiently and discover
wonderful new facts about the physical universe, but he could not explain the
meaning of life. That was the preserve of myth and cult” (Armstrong
2000:xv). Armstrong’s contention is that logos has dominated since the
enlightment and that fundamentalism in many diverse ways, is an attempt at
bringing mythos back to foreground.
Adapting to logos
Many religious groups have
attempted in recent years to accommodate modernity through internal reform by
turning their mythos and faith into logos trying to find a space in the
dominant culture of modernity’s logos. This article with the headline
Church ‘must join wedding market’ in the British National press is an example of how this is
happening in Britain.
“The report full of
management-speak suggests churches like other public service providers needs to
be more client focused, use ‘place branding’ and needs to compete in the
increasingly competitive ‘marriage venue market’…churches need to look at how
they can support non-married, divorced,
gay and lesbian couples. The
report suggested marriage should be more like a process than an event and that
clergy should offer couples ‘after sales service’….there is no reason to
believe (the report said) that
religious values negate the values of
the market.” (The Guardian May 1st
2003)
This article shows how mystique,
faith and religious values (mythos) become subservient to ‘the market’
logos in order to keep pace within the rational, secular world around
it. During visits to the United States
I have witnessed a much greater openness to discuss logos within
churches, particularly the idea of a church as a growing business. Aiming to
expand the church, to become a ‘million dollar church’ was the explicit sermon
of one African-American Pentecostal church I visited. The radio and television presence is vast (more than
200 Christian television channels and 1,500 Christian radio stations) and
these openly use management techniques whilst brashly asking for and relying on
dollars to support them. Some TV evangelists have gained vast sums of money,
which initially sat uneasily with the Gospel’s demand to abandon material
wealth. Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker
however changed this trend and openly displayed wealth, opening a Disney-like
religious theme park, attracting a huge number of visitors. This seemed
deliberately brash with an ‘emphasis on performance and spectacle’ rather than
the literal fundamentalist Word (Armstrong 2000:356-7). Armstrong cites Susan
Harding (ibid) an anthropologist who believed the Bakker’s were consciously
challenging the literal fundamentalist movement and creating a new post-modern
phase. Because of their emphasis on
practice, Jewish and Muslim fundamentalists havr taken logos and
attempted to turn it into ideology. “They had sought to meet the modern
criterion for efficiency, in which a ‘truth’ had to work effectively to be
taken seriously” (Armstrong
2000:355). In essence they attempted to turn mythos into logos
through pragmatic programmes and sometimes governments. Armstrong claims that
because of the Christian concerns with doctrine, Protestant fundamentalists set
out on a different direction turning their myths into scientific facts, and at
the same time overlooking the intuitive and mystical, losing touch with the
unconscious, deeper impulses of the personality with an end result of an “American
Revivalism which became anarchic and neurotic” (Armstrong 2000:355). This
led them to take on board ‘creationism’ as a key battleground, arguing that the
inerrancy of the Bible was an indisputable scientific fact, and trying to
support this with scientific rationalism, rather than reading the Bible as a
rich narrative text within the sphere of mythos. As Armstrong says, this neither makes good
science or good religion. To the logos centred political and secular
left, the challenge posed by teaching children creationism was too much: Noam Chomsky was asked whether he was
"perturbed" by the Kansas school curriculum decision against teaching
Natural Selection.... “They (school children) deserve much better than
the rule of superstitious hysterics and extreme authoritarians, who try to
instil obedience to their Holy Texts and chosen Divinities -- and we should not
fail to see that the terms are appropriate, if anything too kind. But when this
is happening in the richest and by far the most powerful country in the world,
with a huge capacity for destruction and harm, it's no laughing matter. And it's
not just Kansas. This is just one part of a wave of astonishing irrationality
and fanaticism; other states have introduced similar measures” (Chomsky
2003)
Religious movements, including
fundamentalists have been replacing mythos with logos in
different ways to cope with the ascendancy of rationality and science within
modernity. She suggests that in pre-modern times people understood the
importance of mythos, and it had primacy whereas today it is treated as
inferior, or as merely symbolic or superstitious. The pre-modern peoples also
understood the importance of separating mythos and logos.
Fundamentalism in essence sends a message that we need to re-sacralize a cold
rationalistic society, breeding alienation and emptiness. This has often become
a ‘battle ground’ due to religious groups feeling excluded, impotent and
embattled, their religious beliefs distorted by omitting compassion and
becoming increasingly aggressive. This has been escalated by an aggressive
secularism that showed scant regard for religion and its adherents. Armstrong
(2000:371). Iran, Turkey, Algeria, and Egypt are examples in the Muslim world
of experiencing a brutal and sudden transition to modernity, one common symbol
of repression was the forced removal of traditional dress and the enforcement
of westernised dress (the Taliban mirrored this, in reverse in Afghanistan).
The holocaust is the most extreme expression of a rational approach to genocide
and the attempts at erasure of a religious culture. The latest onslaught is
coming from the economic and political structures associated with globalism and
neo-liberalism. This onslaught seems so powerful and insidious that for many
religious communities it is represents the final battle for their faith and
‘lifeworlds’, the final battle between mythos and logos.
This process of mythos
bring reinstated is taking place in three distinct ways:
1) Logos challenged
Management’s claims to
effectiveness, using solely empirical methodologies and focusing on
reductionism and rationalism is being challenged in management literature,
through post-modern writings and critical management studies. MacIntyres work is one of the clearest
expressions why the manager is being critiqued so strongly. MacIntyre (1997)
suggests that managers claim effectiveness as their expertise, which is
legitimised through ‘management science’.
The manager here is located wholly in the realms of logos.
MacIntyre challenges ‘managerial effectiveness’ saying “it is the name of a
fictitious but believed-in reality… which disguises other realities; it’s
effective use is expressive” (MacIntyre 1997:76). The evidence for
the effectiveness of the managers role is empirically neither proven or
disproven, however there are a growing number of sceptics such as MacIntyre,
who are challenging assumptions about management, and where it gets its
legitimacy and power from. Mintzberg challenges its functionalism and how it
has become specialised and compartmentalised. He argues that the MBA is
outdated (founded in 1908) and that, “It
is more B than A, more about the functions of business than the practice of
management”, he goes onto suggest that managers need wisdom more than
specialised knowledge, and that management cannot be codified because it is
rooted in tacit knowledge as much as explicit. (Mintzberg and Gosling 2002)
Management
writers using new science, quantum physics, chaos and complexity theories draw
on the counter-intuitive which takes us to the mythos in new forms.
Post-modern theories are also used to legitimise ‘new’ forms of leadership and management giving them a plurality
of forms, which I suggest remain in the sphere of the messiah leader
character because the ideas they represent, whilst not always situated in an
individual, still signify an idea that provides hope and salvation, albeit
through accepting a fragmented existence. Paradoxically through claiming that
truth no-longer exists, post modernists are claiming this is the new truth. The
deconstruction of rationalistic texts and reclaiming the use of narratives in
order to construct meaning is a direct link to older forms of mythos. Post-modernist theories may promote dispersed leadership, through
self-organising in non-hierarchical forms, but always they deconstruct the logos
and replace it with a search for identity and meaning amongst the
multi-realties that exist.
2) Mythos desired
The bureaucratic manager
typified by the character of the ‘controlling manager’
lost ground to the
character of the ‘therapist manager’ who signified a move away from the
inhumanity of scientific management in
an attempt to reclaim some humanity and reconnect with the mythos, through the human relations movement. This
worked in parallel with the rise of the therapeutic movement in west, where
individuals looked to heal themselves from alienated states in a wish to
self-actualise and become whole. This movement took on board theories and
philosophies from many disciplines including
psychotherapy, psychology, spirituality from various sources,
particularly the Eastern religions and New Age spirituality. A glance at
management literature shows books and journals full of references to these
subjects, writings on Zen and Taoist management techniques, Benedictine monks
and Gaia management books and courses, American Indian symbolism and rituals in
training and development for managers with much use and overlap of therapeutic
techniques, including executive and life coaching, which is a hybrid of
counselling and consultancy. “For at least a decade the press has reported
company leaders speaking about spirituality and business, while multiple
publications have advocated links between corporate success and issues of the
soul” (Calas and Smircich 2003:329).
The whole emotional
intelligence discourse adds to the momentum of bringing emotions, and with it
‘spirit’ back into the workplace and at times this is used as a tool to
transform individual personality in a manner that mimics the religious
conversion experience (Ackers and Preston, 1997: Heelas 1992). Even Mintzberg’s
call for wisdom and tacit knowledge to be recognised, is a ‘management speak’
way of pushing logos to the back room and elevating mythos once
again. The multitude of offerings point to the desire to find a way for mythos
to re-enter the field of management and create a balance with the domineering logos.
3) Mythos born- again
|
This religious fundamentalist revival began
during the late 1970’s and had the Moral Majority as its symbol, headed by
Jerry Falwell The fundamentalist movement has been dominated by protestant evangelicals
but has also grown to encompass other Christian dominations and become known
as the New Christian Right, which, “
was declaring war on the liberal establishment and fighting a battle for the
future of America” (Armstrong 2000:110). The movement believes in
biblical inerrancy and is politically conservative. This movement has
impacted on millions and grown through expert communicators using the media
in new ways (televangelism) and offering a transformational, visionary,
charismatic leadership based on strong moral values. The movement has been
hugely successful and influential on American economic, social and political
institutions, including the right wing think tanks, the Heritage Foundation,
the American Enterprise Institute, and the Hoover Institute (Armstrong
2000). The movement felt powerful
enough in 1986 to support Pat Robertson to make a serious attempt to stand as
president. The influence this movement has on American policy through the
White House and the wider business community is widely discussed. The size of the fundamentalist population
depends on ones definition of fundamentalism, suffice to say that there is
huge open support for their agenda,
even if these people aren’t themselves defined as Christian fundamentalists. In a recent Gallop Poll 44% of people in the
USA describe themselves as born-gain or evangelical Christians (Gallup 2000).
These communities are now some of the most politically active in the
U.S. "Prior to 1974 ... most
studies found evangelicals less disposed to political participation than
other Americans.... After 1974, by contrast, most studies have found
them
more involved politically than other Americans. …” (Putnam., 2000:161). Others who support the conservative, rightwing values extend to other religious
groups and fundamentalist types often share similar agendas across religious
boundaries. The agenda also fits to the patriotic agenda as we shall
see. |
This thesis proposes that the
Christian Fundamentalist movement has aligned itself with the corporate
‘fundamentalism, through explicit political manoeuvring. Business deals,
legislation via intensive political lobbying, and of course advertising and the
use of the media and the financial markets, all of which have a large impact.
However the bigger impact has been through the mythos route, whereby an
internalised subconscious work ethic and widely accepted morality has become
mainstream, which I will call the New Protestant Work Ethic. The Christian
fundamentalist movement has colonised many of America’s institutions (Armstrong
2000) the multi-national corporations being some of the most powerful. With it
the Protestant work ethic has risen strongly once again, only this time with
adaptations to modernity. The
colonisation takes place through a new morality, explicitly led by
transformational leaders, but implicitly it takes place at an unconscious level
where assumptions are taken for granted.
This morality is not new but is an adaptation, which is why it has
managed to become culturally embedded.
It has emerged from existing culture from various sources religious,
commercial and ‘traditional’ American
values including the ever-present American dream. Added to this comes some
innovative new moral messages from radical fundamentalist preachers who have
adapted their ministry to recognise present social trends, anxieties and
pre-occupations and then selectively shape the gospel to harness the energy
from these trends. The outcome is a powerful new morality and ethic, which
captures the social mood and fits neatly into the workplace, which has become
our most significant community.
Weber’s
Protestant Work Ethic
To present the new protestant
work ethic, we must first revisit Weber’s version.
|
Weber: The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of
Capitalism
"It is said that God sent his Son to save the human race,
but that was not His purpose, He only wished to help a few out of their
degradation--I say unto you that God died only for the elect" Calvin
(1609) The concept of the
elect was central to Calvinist belief.
John Calvin was a French theologian whose concept of predestination
was revolutionary; it divided people into those who were chosen by God to
inherit eternal life and those who faced damnation. Nothing could change this
since God was unchanging. A persons
destiny was however associated with ones outward behaviour. The fear of hell
and damnation was very real and people became extremely anxious about their
destinies. The idle and lazy and those showing a lack of concern, were
considered the most certainly damned; if diligent, hardworking and austere
here was the only evidence that they may be one of Gods elect. (Tilgher,
1930). Weber’s
Protestant work ethic was based on two key elements: 1) Work hard as your
duty to God of us
a place in the world so that we could carry out his plan. Godly persons would
carry out their roles in his plan diligently and enthusiastically—whether
their place was high or lowly. Whether elect or not a Christians role was to build Gods
kingdom on earth and one’s only chance of being saved was following Gods
design 2) Consumption and
excessive enjoyment distracted one from God Indulging in material goods led to avarice. Protestant asceticism,
piety and frugality was a virtue. Wasting (Gods) time was a sin, sexuality a
perversion This second tenet was that anything that
distracted one’s mind from God was evil, therefore material consumption and
any leisure activity or excessive enjoyment were minimised. The equation was a
recipe to support a dynamic capitalist economy
Good
stewardship occurred because of the belief that what one owned belonged to God. It was a duty whilst on earth
to take good care of wealth. Wealth itself wasn’t deemed to be bad, it
demonstrated hard toil and good work. It was only dangerous in the sense that
it may be seductive and produce idleness or leisure activity. Re-investment
to create more wealth and ensured that the owner worked hard to develop the
business. Note 1 Because of the fear of not being one of the
‘Elect’, I wish to draw attention to two of the many consequences of this. Firstly the
increasing anxiety over certainty of salvation, whether one was Elect or not,
created a neurosis imbued with guilt about anything one did which involved
pleasure, even resting or sleeping too much. Secondly: although Weber states a strict Calvinistic interpretation the
‘elect are invisible saints amongst us’ and cannot be seen through worldly actions,
still the desperate wish to be one of the elect and have some control over
one destiny this was dealt with in two ways As Weber writes “On the one
hand it is held to be an absolute duty to consider oneself chosen, and to
combat all doubts as temptations of the devil, since lack of self-confidence
is the result of insufficient faith, hence of imperfect grace. On the other
hand, in order to attain that self-confidence intense worldly activity is
recommended as the most suitable means. It and it alone disperses religious
doubts and gives the certainty of grace.” (Calvin himself was convinced
he was one of the Elect which puts some perspective on his theory) This also led people
watching and being watched by others, to see if you were living a Godly life,
working hard enough and measuring ones actions against others. “It comes out for
instance in the strikingly frequent repetition, especially in the English
Puritan literature, of warnings against any trust in the aid of friendship of
men. Even the amiable Baxter counsels deep distrust of even one's closest
friend, and Bailey directly exhorts to trust no one and to say nothing
compromising to anyone. Only God should be your confidant.” (Weber
1930) "The
deepest community (with God) is found not in institutions or corporations or
churches, but in the secrets of a solitary heart",
Dowden cited in Weber (1930) Arising from this came
two cultural by-products: 1 A
culture of surveillance by peers 2
Atomisation and individualisation, as loneliness was a way to find the Lord. |
Weber’s views are contested.
There are two main views as to what came first the religion or the economy.
From a Marxist perspective the economy came first, and the religious base
followed to support the industrial changes which required workers to work hard
for low wages (Anthony, 1977; Berenstein, 1988). Berenstein believed that the
theological leaders of the Protestant Reformation did not deliberately
construct a belief system to support the new economy and its requirements but did
believe that they played down the dreadful poverty and unemployment of their
day. From Max Weber’s perspective, the
economy followed the new religious belief system which laid the ground for the
economy to flourish. He also concluded that protestant countries prospered more
under capitalism than those which were predominantly Catholic. Michael Rose challenges many common
assumptions about Weber, saying people who know little about the debates around
Weber use the term protestant work ethic too confidently, (Rose,1985:29). Rose himself challenges Weber particularly
on the basis of whether the work ethic, which he summarises as, ‘diligence,
punctuality, deferment of gratification, and primacy of the work domain’ did in
reality exist and to what extent (Rose, 1985:31). Rose moves quickly between Victorian values and the Calvinist
protestant work ethic, which at best is a derivative and may be something quite
different. Whilst Rose acknowledges this, he carries on to use the Victorian
values as his benchmark hence his summary of the ethic is no longer linked to
the ascetic quality which underpinned Weber’s Calvinist ethic. Weber himself
cites Franklin at length saying that even though he is a utililitarian, and his
writings could easily be seen as a philosophy of avarice, he acknowledges that
Franklin (a colourless deist) goes beyond business astuteness, “it is an
ethos”, ‘the real Alpha and Omega of Franklin’s ethic are virtue and
proficiency” (Weber 1930: 51-3). We can see from this that the Calvinist
belief in the elect, the terrible fear of not being saved, the key to protestant asceticism, differs radically in
intensity from a later ethic of ‘virtue and proficiency’, even though they may
have developed from the same Calvinist source. Rose acknowledges that the
economic growth did occur with the rise of Protestantism in the late 17th
century. He states that as social organisation alters, pressure mounts to alter
work values, however these are integrated into a broader cultural framework “and
those with vested interests in the established patterns of social relations or
who cannot imagine a new moral order will resist the cultural disruption
threatened by this challenge” (Rose, 1985:17). Fundamentalists are renowned
as movements, which gain strength at times when a new moral order threatens and
disrupts. In contemporary social
relations
I am suggesting that Christian
fundamentalism, initially a site of resistance to the new secular order, has
broken the trend of most religious fundamentalists by adapting the message to
the new moral order and actually colonising it. The ‘silent takeover’ has
happened not just as a secular capitalist project, it is part of a wider
fundamentalist backed agenda, with an underlying morality to support it. Rather than resist the changes in
work/business and social relations they have aligned their values with the
business world, creating a New Protestant Work Ethic, which is acceptable and
just like the old one, supports economic growth only this time in the
hyper-capitalist, global milieu. The balance of how much they adapt and how
much they lead is debateable and probably unknowable. The transformational
leader/messiah ‘character’ certainly could have arisen from either, the
changing work environment or the Christian fundamentalist movement, but
probably from both and from other sources and influences as well.
Breaking out of the iron-cage of
asceticm
The Calvinists had broken the psychological link
between production and consumption but this has long been re-established in the
United States and other industrialised capitalist nations. Consuming has become
not only mainstream but also one’s very identity is linked to what one
consumes. Lifestyle consumption is a part of
identity; who you are depends on what you wear, what you drive, what you
eat, what house you live in, what music you listen to etc. Consumption
has also become an essential part of the modern economy so much so that
it is now regarded as patriotic to consume and we are reminded of our
responsibilities to both produce and to consume at times of national difficult
the slogan ‘Buy British’ being one example. After the 9/11 attacks, emails were
circulating throughout the U.S.A calling for citizens to spend in the economy
and also to buy U.S shares in order to prevent an economic collapse and in this
way show solidarity and not be defeated by the evil attackers. This advert is
from Project America, a charity set up post 9/11.
“No matter where the battle takes place, for most
of us, the front lines are at our local grocery stores, shopping centres, auto
dealers and lumberyards. Frankly that’s where we can do the most good. It’s
where we were before, and it’s where we should be now. So as we get back to
living our lives, lets get back to supporting our local merchants as well.
Because in this war, keeping our economy strong is half the battle.”
Project America:
Kansas City Star, October, 14, 2001 cited in Adbusters 2002
Fukuyama claims consumerism is hugely important as
it gives rise to a market economy (to supply the consumer) and in turn leads to
demands for political liberalism.
Consumerism then becomes a key weapon in the battle to export ‘liberal
democracy’ and to help others come to the end of history by adopting an American
style society and values. (Fukuyama, 1992). The fundamentalist New Christian
Right movement has managed to weave together the new culture, which accepts
both production and consumption as being good for the individual, socially
beneficial and even patriotic. To this they have added the heady mix of ‘good
old religion’, giving this new culture the social moral legitimacy it requires
to alleviate the guilt previously associated with spending and
consumption. The Christian
fundamentalists initially learnt from the capitalist system and business world
and then they contributed to it. Falwell one of the most successful
fundamentalist leaders, built his empire modelled on shopping malls, offering a
combination of services. “Business Falwell judges was at the cutting edge of
innovation, he clearly understood the dynamic of modern capitalist society”
(Armstrong 2000:276). The alignment of values between the Christian
fundamentalists and free-market fundamentalists gave them easy access to many
more converts who could easily respond to a new recipe they offered. Religious
zeal, community and belonging, a return to stable family life and traditional
values, which they believed to be under attack from liberals. A strong feature
of this movement was a return to the traditional patriarchal family. Hicks (1994) sums up this “With salvation
guaranteed, as long as a Christian strictly observes the Bible, and with a
stable patriarchal family as a solid footing for life, business will also be
food , provided the government doesn’t interfere with the economy, leaves alone
the undeserving poor, and brings taxes within reasonable limits (at about 10%
of income). Indeed Christian fundamentalist do not seem bothered by the
contradiction of being moral theocratists and economic libertarians”.
The New Ethic
Under
the new ethic leaders with high morals and charismatic qualities are
‘spiritually’ enhanced by their success and status, as displayed through
identities based on their wealth and consumption. The ambition to emulate their leaders success was made possible
when transformational leaders became a currency that was both charismatic and
special and yet attainable to many through training. This attainability was of
course related to ‘the elect’ those in decent jobs at certain levels who were
on management training courses, low grades and the poor needn’t apply until
they had ‘bettered themselves’. Leaders who ran successful companies, like preachers
who ran successful churches became role models for the new elect, success being
a key sign of God’s grace. Evangelists displayed wealth and shamelessly talked
of their million dollar churches and their aims for growth.
Work as
a theatre for salvation
In
the old protestant work ethic, working did not bring salvation, but enabled one
to fulfil God’s personal calling and to do God’s work on earth, a by-product
was that if one worked hard the self-confidence of believing one was elect
grew. This was ethic became refined to ‘thrift and guilt’ which became
unfashionable in the late 20th century (Bell ,Taylor 2003:339). The
old ethic also failed to resonate because the ideology of work itself changed
with the arrival of large bureaucratic organisations. It became less easy to
identify self and a calling within a bureaucracy, or clearly link ones work
with output. Whyte (1956) postulates that a new social ethic replaced the old
ethic at this time in the mid to late 20th century, linking of work
to individual responsibility and work thus becoming the theatre for personal
salvation. Rose describes the production of the self at work. From a secular
perspective, personal ‘salvation’ (self-actualisation) was achieved through
working on oneself. One was saved through the means of liberating ones true
self and reaching for happiness and wholeness based on new conceptions of
‘human nature’ derived from the writings of Abraham Maslow’s, Carl Rogers,
Victor Frankl, and others whose work focused on self-actualisation and personal
growth. This personal work was
translated from the cultural and therapeutic sphere and applied to industrial
demands. (Rose N. 1990) Agryris 1964) Rose claims, that the shift to
consumerism went beyond the material and entered the workplace where
people ‘went to work to work on
themselves’. Workers changed from merely producers to consumers at work, “Work
itself could become the privileged space for the satisfaction of the social
needs of individuals” (Rose N. 1990:117). The image of the work and the
worker had changed; work became the privileged space for workers consumption,
enabling workers to align the production for the company with the consumption
of their own developmental needs. The role of the “management was to work on
the ego of the worker itself” ((Rose N. 1990:112). When the fundamentalist
movement came to the foreground this new image of the worker was well
established and management training utilised the 1960’s therapy techniques to
transform rather than train the new managers. Whtye back in 1956 saw how the
social ethic, which put the group as the centre of creativity, individuals
ultimate needs of belonging and science at its fore, had the potential to put
the manager in an increasingly authoritarian position but without it being so
explicit “ the practice of a tyranny more subtle and pervasive than that
which he means to supplant. No one wants to see the old authoritarian return,
but at least it could be said of him that he wanted primarily of you was your
sweat. The new man wants your soul” (Whyte 1956: 365). As people became
increasingly disenchanted with science and logos and realised it had
limitations that it could not produce all of the answers. There was no mythos
and no sense of an accepted morality, supporting past belief that social and religious self-improvement could
be attained through hard work and suffering (Berger 1964). Bell and Taylor say
that this loss and the secularisation of the work place could not be repaired
solely by the self-actualisation and personal growth process. This supports my
thesis that the therapist manager character whilst attempting a secular
and humanist answer to fulfilling the lack of mythos could only
partially fill this gap and the desire for a deeper spiritual meaning was
unrequited. Tourish and Pinnington
(2002) say that “work itself is also being rediscovered as a source of
spiritual growth and connection to others” but how this fulfils the dual
and competing needs of organisation and individual remains is contested and a
variety of answers are put forward.
Three ways to recover Mythos
There
are three main attempts at bringing the sacred ‘mythos’ back into the
workplace. Each is linked to the only organisational end game in town, that of
increasing output, growth and efficiency. Whether recovering mythos is coldly
manipulative or an acknowledgement of human needs at a material and
psychological level is contested. One argument is that a strong economy
supports material needs whilst fulfilling work supports psychological and
spiritual needs (Biberman and Whitty 1997). The other being that any attempt to
gain commitment from workers, is always a manipulation to get more out of them
and using mythos as a tool is a sinister way to get a compliant and committed
workforce.
These examples are from a western-economy and
there are bound to be variations in other parts of the globe.
- Secular ‘spirituality’
- New Age spirituality
- Fundamentalism and the New Protestant Work
Ethic
1) Secular
spiritually
Secular
attempts to accommodate this problem of bringing mythos back to the workplace
comes from a variety of sources. The human relations movement, the therapeutic
ideologies of self–actualising formula’s based on personal growth, the group
and community variations; i.e. the Scandinavian examples, the imported Japanese
traditions, (Ouchi’s Theory Z.1981) of group support and community translated
into compatible westernised practice.
This seems to act with partial success as a bridge to bringing mythos
back to the fore but does not achieve it fully. It lacks the building of
community and personal growth itself can be a very difficult and disillusioning
journey especially as there is no end point. Earth and nature centred
spirituality are new arrivals and compliment humanist spirituality, and are
gaining some ground in the workplace (Gibbon’s 1999). A kind of secular ‘religion’ can also becomes part of company
culture but is treated as a dimension of social experience (Bell, Taylor 2003)
Kunda describes the situation as individuals being educated into the ‘right
mindset’ so that “they have religion without knowing it” (Kunda 1992:5)
internalising the organisations goals and values, ‘doing what’s right’ without
having to think and having company loyalty. Family and religion characterise
this organisation as a social entity.
This attempt is dangerously ‘machiavellian’, and is likely to fail on
the simple premise that you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.
Totalising cultures without explicit connections to meaning are far more easily
exposed. The ideological emptiness is reminiscent of the Eastern bloc and why
the Soviet system collapsed. ‘Totalising cultures’ linking organisational and
social objectives with a meaningful construction of identities is likely to be
a more sustainable proposition.
2) New
age Spirituality
The
rise of New Age Spirituality is closely linked to the personal growth ethic, it
is based on individual salvation through working on oneself in the same way as
do personal growth theories with the language and practice often overlapping
and borrowing from each other. Bell and Taylor (2003) discuss the key differences of the new age ethic
drawing on immanence (God within) rather than transcendence (an external God)
spirituality. They say that the immanence dominates the workplace discourse as
opposed to the transcendence of the old Protestant work ethic. They claim the
loss of faith in mainstream religion and in science has brought the New Age
ethic to the fore. The most fundamental ideology here is the proposition that
it is only possible to change the world by changing oneself. (Bell, Taylor, 2003:345). Heelas links this
‘inner quest to become an avenue to commercial profitability’ (Heelas,1992:156)
New Age spirituality it is argued, is the spirituality of the times because it
offers pick and mix options, more fitting to the complex society. This is
problematic though as it mirrors the failings of the society it attempts to
repair. I.e. whilst New Age spirituality argues for transcending material and
consumptions trends, it is the ultimate consumer religion. One shops for ones
spirituality (it is a growing commercial business) choose what bit from what
religion you like, compassion from the Buddhists, ecology from the Pagans,
crystals for aliments etc This leads to continually wanting more and
continually being dissatisfies (as with the personal growth movement it has
no-end point). The ability to change the world by changing oneself which can be
construed and feed an omnipotent and narcissistic position, fitting into
Lasch’s (1980) portrayal of society.
New Ageism fails to answer the workplace need for mythos in a
number of ways: Firstly, by creating a consumerist spiritual culture whilst
critiquing consumerism, which leads to unfulfilment and dissatisfaction, and
always wanting more. New Age spirituality also critiques information overload
and complexity, whilst offering a myriad of choices to find simplicity and
peace. This paradox of so much choice to find simplicity is another way in
which it undermines itself. It also fails to create communities, because its
strength is built on diversity and promoting and personal growth, it by
definition promotes individualism, which undermines the much sought after
‘community’ and feeling of belonging or an aligned culture (and within the workplace
this aligned culture is seen as being vital). Finally in the turbulent changing
pressurised world, one of the unconscious desires is for tradition, continuity
and security. New age spirituality being immanent, does not offer the same as
the transcendent God. Eastern religions in their own context may offer
continuity but in the west they become part of the new age movement, another
exotic choice. When society presents us
with a maelstrom, it is the desire for
certainty and a community of meaning which is desired, hence the messiah
leader to lead the flock out of the uncertainty, back into safety. Within
this transcendent discourse there needs to be sufficient room for
individuality, and personal growth, for immanence, and it is here that the Christian Fundamentalists have adapted
their religion so innovatively to include both.
4)
Fundamentalism and the New Protestant Work Ethic
The
Christian fundamentalists were able to harness the search for mythos, as
it took place in parallel and as one of the reasons for their own revival. The
image of self-actualisation was substituted with their own brand of
spirituality with its focus on salvation.
The Christian fundamentalists were good at transformational leadership and
in many ways were exemplars of learning organisations being led creatively by
transformational leaders, “Organizations must now contend with vastly different
conditions in which former approaches no longer apply, and which require that
they develop the capacity to change, learn, and adapt quickly and decisively” (Krantz, 1990).
Their
adaptations of the Protestant work ethic are stated below. Fundamentalists have
always been selective about interpreting the true word. The contemporary
Christian fundamentalists ignore much of the social Gospel and their theology
is not based on Calvinistic predestination. The good news is one can be
born-again, ask forgiveness for sins and save oneself through right belief and
right actions. Being born-again enables one to construct a new sense of
identity, which immediately places one in community of others who have also
gone through this rebirth. This means that being born-again goes beyond
individual transformation and places one amongst others who as collective
actors construct a ‘new social order and political purpose’ (Lienesch 1993:23).
This
new work ethic defines the morality of right actions.
|
The New Protestant Work Ethic Simon Western April 3 2003
Self-actualisation becomes a spiritualised act. Personal salvation and personal
growth merge. Working hard externally and internally, in one’s
soul/heart is an
act of purification and a way of becoming whole again
The workplace becomes God’s privileged space to achieve personal
‘salvation’/self-actualisation, it also becomes the site for
developing
community and the experience of belonging
Displaying success through consumption and wealth is morally accepted.
|
"We live in a country with double vision.
One vision calls us to the American Dream with its seductive myths and siren
song of selfish success. The other calls us to a faith in God and His truth.
One is a call to status and wealth; the other a call to holiness and
community. It's the worldview, unique
to our nation that confuses and mistakenly blends the American Dream with the
Christian faith. It misleads us into a cultural Christianity that avoids
sacrifice. That denies the need for accountability. That spurns discipline. A
false faith built on materialism, selfishness, and the search for 'the good
life.' It's impossible to escape. It's subtle, at times. And it's dangerous”
(Apel
1991: 258).
Psychoanalytic theory
Bion was clear that his work and
theories on groups (1961) needed further research and he actively encouraged
it. Gould and Trist both describe a poor response since his innovative work:
“Now needed, therefore, are theoretical and
clinical studies that derive from a sophisticated dependency on Bion's views,
rather than those which simply perpetuate the thralldom in which they have been
held.” (Gould 1997)
“Unfortunately, the brilliance of Bion's ideas
has led (utilizing one of his own concepts) to an aberrant form of bible-making,
by which they have been cast in stone. Hence, the relative paucity of further
significant developments in Bion's group theories” (Trist, 1985).
This chapter will discuss a new
theoretical understanding of the Basic assumptions (Ba) group and how it
influences and can be harnessed to support the aims of the Work (W) group in
innovative ways. This has practical applications and the theories are derived
from Group relations work and from observing leadership practice. Case examples
will be used to offer evidence of the theories discussed.
Workgroup requires, Basic assumption
mentality to assist its aims
My observations are that Bion’s
Basic assumptions have become the adored ‘bad object’ of Group Relation’s work
and psychoanalytic focused consultants. The Ba group most commonly focused upon
is the non-work group which is opposed to structure and any form of
development. However, Ba groups have an important role to play in W group
functioning. The other aspects of Ba groups are either largely forgotten or
ignored Ba’s are classically
anti-task, if group is in full Ba mode
it will do anything to avoid the task or allow any W group functioning “If
the group is identified with the (Ba) dependant group - the fear is of the work
group (Bion 1961:99). However this unconscious behaviour is most
often interpreted by group analysts and consultants as being a ‘bad
object’. Ba is understood to be a state
of psychosis, which when one falls prey to it. Say BaD in a group relations
setting, one is made to feel like a
very immature and naughty ‘child’ by an all knowing sphinx (the consultant) who
offers the evidence to the group that they, the consultant, have been
identified as the deity, and the group is acting ‘as if’ it were a dependent
and psychotic infant. This portrays
Ba’s as simply a defence against work and mature functioning, which undoubtedly
they are at one level, but they are also much more. Basic assumptions operates
in both Ba group functioning and in W group
functioning and when in W group functioning they act either in conflict
with the W group or sometimes ‘assist’ or ‘further the aims’ of the W
group.
“Work group is obstructed, diverted and on occasion
assisted by certain other mental activities that have in common the attribute
of powerful emotional drives (Ba’s)” (Bion
1961:146)
“These aims (work group) are sometimes hindered,
occasionally furthered by (Ba’s) emotional drives of obscure origin”
(Bion 1961:188)
Specialized Work Group
Bion is not very forthcoming as
to how Basic assumptions assist Work group aims, except that the emotional
drives can be in some way harnessed to the idea of work itself. He also points out that when one Ba is in
ascendancy during W group functioning it keeps the other two Ba’s at bay. His
main examples are the specialized work groups of which he cites the Church
whose task stimulates the basic assumption of Dependency, the Army stimulating
the basic assumption, Fight flight and the Aristocracy stimulating the basic
assumption of Pairing.
In this way a certain emotional culture is sustained, which
assists the particular organisations internal dynamics. The basic assumption
functions to keep an organisation operating in specific ways with specific
cultures and which are required for them to operate successfully. Bion draws on
Freud to describe another purpose of the specialized group, who also saw the
Church and the Army as social subgroups. Acting as an emotional container for
the whole of society, they contain that particular Basic assumption “so that the work group
functions of the total group are not obstructed by the emotional drives from
that source.” Bion (1961:167).
Specialized
Work Group
The Specialized work group (Swg) then operates
under this equation:
|
The specialised W group operates like this within
organisations as well as social institutions. It is the leaders task to
comprehend the role of the specialised group and to ensure that it stays in a
healthy state within its container. That is to provide the paternal containment
(Western 1999), systems boundary management and correct resource including
personnel with the appropriate skills and ‘valency’ for survival and
success. If this does not occur and for
example the specialised W group suffuses the total group disaster strikes. For
example in a nation state if the flight/flight suffuses the total group, one is
likely to be led into unnecessary wars or be ruled by a military dictatorship.
If the basic assumption of dependency takes, a theocratic state may emerge, or
a state with an omnipotent leadership and a disenfranchised public.
This is also true within organisations and a case
example is offered from some recent work I carried out in an international
retail corporation.
Case study 1 The contagious ‘Specialized work
group’
A recent example comes
from working with an international clothing retail company. The CEO was appointed because of his flair
and his background in design, his aim to win new markets and expand this
global business. The Ba operating in
the design function was of Pairing. Pairing offered the emotion of hope,
sexuality, vitality and the potential of pairing, to conceive and give birth
to new ideas. Sexuality was a huge part of the design business, as the market
place they operated in was clothing for the young generation, which was based
itself on ‘looking good and cool in order to be sexually attractive’ and to
pair i.e. to find a sexual partner. The designing function was split off from
the rest of the company, both geographically and politically. This specialised W
(design) group was very successful for a while, as it held the hope, the
passion, the ideas, which produced great clothes and stimulated the company
growth, whilst in other functions and areas other work, functions operated
with different Ba’s. Head office was
a work group more in tune with Ba Dependency, particularly the finance
department, whilst the sales and marketing were classically operating with a
Fight/flight assumption. Things started to go
wrong during great success for the company.
The CEO who had Peter Pan qualities, had been bolstered by his success
and used his leadership to bring the Ba
of Pairing out from the specialised W. group contained by design
operations and to suffuse the whole organisation with it. Everybody acted as if they were cool
designers. A culture developed whereby a spilt took place, Bion (1961:156)
wrote that when Pairing is in ascendancy and threatened by another Ba, a
schism would occur. Pairing was in conflict with the other two Ba in
different functions within the company and in the board, where some tried to
push for a work group drawing on the qualities of the sophisticated BaD. In this company the split was around being
intuitive and creative. The CEO, believing success was almost solely dependent
on the quality of design, was renowned for saying, ‘you either got it or
you didn’t’. Those who didn’t get it or questioned it, didn’t last long.
To work there you had to look like the posters of their models and products.
The age of the staff group was incredibly young, they rarely hired experienced
external people, promoted from within, the senior positions were held by
young, dynamic, and a very highly paid team.
On visiting the restaurant for my sushi-lunch I had the association of
being at a very trendy youth club. After a period of huge
growth the company found that it lacked the maturity and experience to
balance the creative aspects with running a global corporation. They had lost
their way, losing huge share price, job losses, and eventually the CEO. An
exciting, creative and growing company had become a totalising monoculture,
led by a transformational leader who demanded conformity. The rebuilding job
in essence was about recruiting a new CEO figure who symbolised paternal
containment, who would put the pairing assumption back into the specialised
design group, allowing other the assumptions to flourish in their specialised
areas. In this way the total group
could operate without being overwhelmed by a single Specialized W group. |
It is the leadership role to understand the unconscious
dynamics in this situation, to help create the conditions in which specialized
work groups operate, but ensure that they are contained within their
appropriate spheres. Based on Bion’s idea of the specialised work group and the
ability for Basic assumptions to assist work group aims, I will now describe
the task of leadership in utilising the potential of the Basic assumptions
based on new observations of how they operate and can be leveraged by leaders
to create more effective organisations.
Three years of developing and coaching leaders in
global corporations and international not-for profit organisations has
re-opened my curiosity as to how leadership can utilise the Bion’s early
studies of group behaviour. My first role in the University business school led
me to research a programme on shadowing exchanges on the International Masters
in Practicing Management. The research led us to develop theories of learning
from experience and from each other, through drawing on a sophisticated use of
Basic assumption pairing. (Pairing for Leadership Western Gosling 2002).
However my attempts to use Bion’s theories were frustrated, it felt as if I was
trying to force the evidence before me into a container that was too small, or
the wrong shape, something didn’t fit.
Group behaviour in the complex and very turbulent companies/situations
in which we were working, did not fit to those classic group cultures set out
by Bion in 1961. The teams and company cultures did not comply with my previous
experience of therapy, group relations and team (large and small group)
consultations where I found Bion’s insights so apparent and so useful. The work
group and Basic assumption groups BaD, BaP, BaFF were definitely present and yet there was more happening. The
group boundaries in which I was working were much more diffuse and fluid, the
focus on action and general organisational speed was much greater than the
therapy and consultation groups I had been used to in the ‘dependency culture’
of mental health provision within the public sector, (which was also the site
of Bion’s innovative study). My first
hypothesis was that the Ba groups were oscillating more quickly than even Bion
had noticed (perhaps the world had speeded up since Bion’s days) but after much
observation this explanation could not account for what I was
experiencing. My second hypotheses was
that perhaps I, and Bion before me, had been operating in a situation within a
specialist work group (the Health service) underpinned by the Basic assumption
of Dependency and now I was observing organisations operating under the Basic
assumption of Fight flight. The manic
behaviour suggested this was so, but on reflection this was over simplistic and
did not account for the variety of complex evidence, which demanded further
research.
An earlier paper Western (1999) ‘Where’s Daddy’
written during a consultation experience whist studying at the Tavistock
Clinic, proposed that the Tavistock and Klienian focus on maternal containment
was inadequate and that to repair this situation Paternal containment drawing
on Freudian and Lacanian insights was also necessary. Building on this work, it
has become clear that in Bion’s terms Paternal containment relates to some
aspects of the work group “Organization and Structure are weapons of the
W group” (Bion 1961:136). Reading
David Armstrong’s paper ‘The Work group revisited’ it supported my
thesis on paternal containment, that indeed the work group required revisiting,
as too much energy had been focusing on the Basic Assumptions or the non-work
group. The work group like some aspects
of paternal containment operates as a mental activity focusing on the external,
reality, action, co-operation and development.
This focus on reclaiming the validity of the work group challenges us to
ask the question, what are the implications of looking at work rather than the
psychoanalysts instinctive object of enquiry, neurotic and psychotic obstacles
to work.
“One of the problems of using psycho-analysis a
tool of cultural enquiry and criticism is that the original insights come from
working with patients. So the idea of 'madness', at least in the popular
imagination, comes to lie at the heart of the diagnosis”
G. Lawrence (1979)
How can one harness the energies from groups to
improve work group functioning I has led to propose this working hypothesis
based on my research and observations.
Working Hypotheses
1) FW
Group
It is
observable to see under the co-operation of W.group functioning; two
Basic
assumptions fuse, giving the W group the emotional energy from both
of
these sources. I will call this the F W (Fusion work) group.
2) This
is not possible when single Basic assumptions are in ascendancy as there is no
co-operation or development and the Ba is in conflict with the W group.
3) A
key leadership task is to create the conditions and harness the correct two
basic assumptions for a fusion to take place. This is requisite to suffuse work
group activity with the appropriate emotional energy to fulfil particular
working requirements.
4) If
the wrong two Ba’s are fused by leaders or allowed to flourish unchecked within
W group activity, this can lead to, dysfunctional working conditions and at
worse, totalitarian forms of culture control within organisations.
5) Ba’s
are important in their own right, as spaces for ‘unthoughts’ to form. In this
way emotions, cultures and creativity are being conceived which can then be
harnessed by W group activity
By
working through these hypotheses, I aim to demonstrate a clear link between
leadership learning to allow Ba’s to flourish, and then to harnessing their
energies either in the specialised work group or what I call the Fusion work
group.
Linking
this research with previous work on the paternal container, I will offer a
route for transformation leadership to inspire with passion but avoid the
seductive route leading to fundamentalist mindsets which create totalitarian
monocultures.
Appendix 1
|
Transformational leaders The term was introduced by Burns (1978) and the
ideas expanded by Bass and others in the last two decades, (Bass 1985, Conger
& Kanungo,1987, House 1977; Shamir,
B., House, R.J., & Arthur, M.B. 1993). Tourish
and Pennington (2002) describe the growth in the of interest transformational
leadership as explosive in the past twenty years. The terms charismatic and visionary leaders are often used to
cover similar territory and are seen as integral aspects of transformational
leaders. The term transformational
leaders will be used inclusively to cover what commentators describe as
leaders with vision and charisma, who are people centred and who seek a higher purpose than managing/leading
performance. Transformational leadership is contrasted with transactional
leadership (Burns 1978, Bass 1985). Transactional leadership, which is based
on an exchange relationship between the leader and follower, ie the leader
offers incentives (pay rewards perhaps) and the leader gets the job done
efficiently. The transactional leader is presented closely to D. McGregor’s
ideas of Theory X , that is you have to offer the reluctant worker rewards
for their services and in return you get compliance. It is also reminiscent of ‘managing the
micro’ which is portrayed and perceived as a second rate role to the more
glamorous transformational leader.
The transformational leader now stands as the celebrated character who
is contrasted with other ‘lesser’ leaders and managers. The underlying
assumptions which are portrayed of other leaders and managers are held within
a ‘character’ who manages through exchange or control, the boring manager,
old paradigm in thinking (still thinking inside the box whilst the
transformational manager and associates are all thinking outside of it) and
lacks the gifts of vision and charisma, and the ability to personally
transform his or her followers. Hail the Messiah!
“The immature,
self-aggrandizing charismatic leader is pseudotransformational. He or she may
seem uplifting and responsible but on closer examination is found to be a
false Messiah. Much more needs to be learned about the ethical and moral
factors that distinguish the truly transformational leader from the
pseudotransformational leader.” Bass (1999) This is written by Bernard Bass a seminal voice in the field of
transformational leadership research.
What is striking about this comment is that it identifies one of the
underlying and unspoken assumptions behind transformational leaders (and
probably an unconscious desire) that they are indeed messianic. If the
pseudotransformational leader is the false Messiah, then the true transformational
leader must therefore be, the true Messiah. A brief search on current
journals shows that the language used about transformational leadership is
quite astounding in its claims; here are two of many such examples, found in
mainstream journals, the Harvard Business Review and the Academy Management
Journal: “Transformational
leaders exhibit charismatic behaviours arouse inspirational motivation,
provide intellectual stimulation and treat followers with individual
consideration. These behaviours transform their followers helping them to
reach their full potential and generate the highest levels in performance” Dvir, Avolio, Sahmir (2002 : 736) Taking a closer look at
transformational leaders, we are offered a breakdown of the component parts,
the ‘behaviours and actions’ that represent transformational
leadership which are known as the four
I’s. (Bass and Avolio 1994 )
Followers encouraged to
break from the past and question the old way of doing things. They are
supported in questioning their own values, beliefs and expectations as well
as the leaders and the organizations.
Followers treated
differently but equitably on a one-one basis. Needs are recognized and
perspectives raised, and their means of more effectively addressing goals and
challenges are dealt with. These fours I’s representing the
behaviours of the transformational
leader seem to attempt to both cover a variety of eventualities a leader may
face and address foreseen criticisms at the same time. However they omit important aspects such
as the ‘Promotion of a common culture’ and alignment of moral values, a compelling
vision, these and other wider goals are difficult to
encapsulate when reductionism to behaviours and actions takes hold of a
research/development agenda.
Transformational leadership once seen as the answer to the contemporary
questions and despite ongoing popular acclaim is now contested as it presents
many contradictory and problematic themes, which this thesis will discuss.
A ‘hero’ leader for all occasions
An overview of the transformational leader
literature suggests a larger than life one-fit-all hero leader who
seems to excel in all four behaviours identified. This image of a leader is
likely to paradoxically produce the opposite effect desired, i.e. rather than
transform and win over the followers, the leader could easily alienate them.
To be able to offer individual consideration to all types of followers
addressing their diverse needs, this one-fit-all style hero and charismatic
leader would be very difficult for a large portion of individuals to respond
to, the charismatic, visionary would overwhelm many individuals who may
respond to a more sensitive personality who works quietly behind the scenes
to make things happen. Essentially a leader cannot be ‘all things to all
people’ or all things to all organisational contexts and situations.
Morality: The difference between leaders and managers? “To be transformational one
must be morally uplifting” (Burns 1978) “For transformational leaders to be authentic it must
incorporate moral values as a central core” (Bass
and Steidlmeier 1999:210) When Burns (1978) cited morality as a quality
transformational leaders must possess
and later Bass and others used this as one of the distinguishing features between
transactional and transformational leadership they identified a vital yet
very problematic area. This important
distinction in my view goes beyond transformational and transactional
leadership and should be read as the ‘morality is one of the core differences
between management and leadership’. The philosophy surrounding morality is a
huge subject, too big to cover with depth in this thesis, but it is important
to go beyond the meaning conveyed by Burns, Bass and other leading writers on
transformational leaders who discuss morality as an uncomplicated ‘mother and
apple pie’ generic goodness as demonstrated by Bass, “Leaders are
authentically transformational when they increase awareness of what is right,
good important and beautiful, when they help to elevate followers needs for
achievement and self-actualisation, when they foster in followers higher
moral maturity, and when they move followers to go beyond their self
interests for the good of their group, organisation or society” (Bass
1978:171) If one replaces the words leader with parents or Scout leaders and
replaced followers with children, this over simplistic and frankly naive view
is exposed as patronising to the employees and dangerously locates a great
deal of power with an omnipotent and omniscient leader. The good important and beautiful aspects
set within a higher morality are problematic and further complicated by
introducing charismatic personalities into the frame as the means to
transform the follower. Charismatic
people represent a full range of personality types, from all backgrounds and
charismatic personalities can be a force generally regarded as good, Mandela
and Ghandi for example or as in Stalin and Hitler a force generally accepted
as bad or evil. Cuilla discussed ‘The
Hitler problem’ (Cuilla 1995) which asked can Hitler be viewed as a
transformational leader and if not, who sets the standards as to what
constitutes morality, using what criteria and validated by whom? The
process of charismatic ideologues motivating followers to go beyond
themselves for selfless ideals are fraught with problems and handled with a
naiveté and lacks critical analysis.
The complications of individual personas with competing conscious and
unconscious drives, social conditioning, social and psychological pressures
to perform and achieve is only the beginning. There is no mention of culture,
diversity of views or how morality is social constructed. Any leader in a
large organization is very likely to be faced with a workforce, which
represents huge diversity, particularly in a multinational organization.
Creating a monoculture with followers aligning their own belief systems to
the vision of the leader and company is a huge task and one which lacks any
adequate explanation or evidence of how it may happen, or if it does really
occur beyond a veneer of compliance. |
Appendix 2
|
|
Appendix 3
|
Christian fundamentalism and Corporatism Taking and receiving Logos
Christian Fundamentalism
Marketing
Efficiency
Neo-liberal agenda Mythos
Messiah leader
character Totalising
mono-cultures Innovative ‘post
modern’ message Fearless
preaching- speaking the unsayable Shared assumptions Patriotism Political Conservatism Fear of too much government Wealth creation is
good/Godly Belief in US as the ‘New Jerusalem’ To evangelise the
world Eg. Fukyama- Neo liberal agenda ‘end of history Christian missionaries- end times-
Outputs Transformational Leader New Protestant work Ethic (Morality and Mythos) Totalising Cultures |
Bibliography
Ali Tariq (2002) The Clash of Fundamentalisms,
Crusades Jihads and modernity London, Verso
Anthony, P. D. (1977). The ideology of work.
Great Britain: Tavistock.
Armstrong K (1988) Holy War The Crusades And
Their Impact On Today’s World
Harper Collins
Agryris C. (1964) Integrating the individual and
the organisation New York John Wiley
Armstrong K (2000) The Battle for God, Harper
Collins
Armstrong K. (2002 ) Cries of Rage New Statesman, 28 September.
2002
Armstrong K
2 (2002) Fundamentalism and the Modern World. A dialogue with Karen Armstrong,
Susannah Heschel, Jim Wallis, and Feisal Abdul Rauf. Sojourners Magazine,
March-April 2002 (Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 20-26
Apel Pat (1991) Nine Great American Myths Thomas
Nelson/word
Axtel Ray C. (1986) Corporate
Culture the Last Frontier of Control. Journal of Management Studies 23:3
May 286-295
2 Bass (1990) From transactional to
transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational
Dynamics, 1990 18, 19-31
Barr James (1981) Fundamentalism xpress reprints London
Bell E. Taylor S. (2003) The Elevation of work:
Pastoral Power and the New Age Work Ethic, Organization Vol: 10 (2):
329-349 Sage
Berger P. (1964) ‘Some General Observations on the
Problem of Work in Bell and Taylor (2003:340)
Bernstein,
P. (1988). The work ethic: Economics, not religion. Business Horizons, 31(3),
8-11. cited in Hill Roger PhD (1992) Historical Context of the Work Ethic not
referenced http://www.coe.uga.edu/workethic/hpro.html
Best Joel, (1993) “But seriously
folks: the limitations of the strict contructivist interpretation of social
problems” in Constructivist Controversies: issues in
Social problems theory,
eds Gale miller and James A Hosltein ( New York: Aldine de Gruyter,1993) 109
–27
Biberman Jerry and Whitty
Michael (1997) A Postmodern Spiritual Future for Work Journal of
Organisational Change Management 10(2): 130-38
*Bion W (1961) Experiences in
Groups Tavistock Routledge
Bright Martin and Alam Fareena, (2003) Making
of a martyr, From pacifism to jihad Sunday
May 4, 2003 The Observer
Bunting M. (2001) Illiberal liberalism: Monday October 8, 2001
http://gospel-culture.org.uk/articles.htm
Bruce
S.(1990) The rise and
fall of the New Christian Right: Conservative Protestant Politics in America
1978-1988 cited in Armstrong 2000:360
CalvinXXXX (1609)sermon held in 1609 at Broek, near
Rogge, Wtenbogaert, II, p. 9. Compare Nuyens, op. cit., II, p. 232). cited
in Weber The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism CHAPTER IV.
(1930)
Castells M. (1997) The Power of Identity, Blackwell publishers
Chomsky N. (2003) http://www.zmag.org/chomdarwin.htm
In the ZNet Sustainer's Forum System
Cole, S. G. (1931). The
History of Fundamentalism New York: Richard R.
Smith,
Etzioni, Amitai (1993) The Spirit of human rights
responsibilities and the Communitarian agenda New York Crown
Fazlur Rahman (1984) Islam and modernity:
transformation of an intellectual tradition University of Chicago press
1984 p 142
Frosh S. (1997)
Fundamentalism, gender and family therapy Journal
of Family Therapy 1997 19 417-430
Fukuyama
F (1992) The End of the History and the Last Man London, Hamish,
Hamilton
George S. (1999) A Short
History of Neo-liberalism (-Twenty Years of Elite
Economics and Emerging Opportunities for Structural Change) Conference on
Economic Sovereignty in a Globalising World Bangkok, 24-26 March 1999
Gibbons
P (1999). Spirituality at work: Definitions measures assumptions and validity
claims in Brown, Reva Berman 2003
.
Grint K. (1994) Reengineering History: Social Resonances and Business Process
Reengineering, Organization Vol 1 (1) 179-201
Gole,
Nilufer (1995) “l’emergence du sujet islamique” in Castells
(1997)
*Gould Laurence J., (1997) Correspondences Between Bion's Basic Assumption
Theory And Klein's Developmental Positions: An Outline By Ph.D.
Free Associations no. 41, July 1997 issue
Habermas (1987) The theory of communicative Action
Vol 11: System and lifeworld Cambridge, Polity
Hardt M and Negri A (2001) Empire Harvard University Press
Heelas (1992) The Sacralisation of the Self and New Age Capitalism in Bell and
Taylor ( 2003)
Heschel,
Susannah (2002) Fundamentalism and the Modern World. A dialogue with Karen
Armstrong, Susannah Heschel, Jim Wallis, and Feisal Abdul Rauf. Sojourners
Magazine, March-April 2002 (Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 20-26
Hertz N (2001) The Silent Takeover London,
Heinemann
Hicks L Edward (1994) Sometimes In The Wrong But
Never In Doubt: George S Benson And The New Religious Right, Knoxville
University of Tennessee Press
Hutton (2003) The tragedy of this unequal
partnership The Observer March 30th 2003.
Huff Peter
A. (2000) The
Challenge Of Fundamentalism For Interreligious Dialogue Cross Currents, Spring/Summer 2000,
Vol. 50 Issue 1-2
Klein N. (2000) No-logo London Harper Collins
Krantz, J. (1990), “Lessons from
the Field: An Essay on the Crisis of Leadership in Contemporary Organizations,”
The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 26(1): 49-64.
Kunda G. (1992) Engineering
Culture: Control Commitment in a high tech Corporation. Philadelphia, PA
Temple University Press
*Lawrence W. Gordon (1979) The Presence Of Totalitarian States-Of-Mind In
Institutions Free Associations London
Lienesch Michael (1993) Redeeming
America Piety and Politics in the New Christian Right, Chapel Hill,
University of North Carolina Press
MacIntyre A. (1997) After Virtue a study in
moral theory Duckworth
McCann Dennis P. (1995) Apology
For The Hireling: A Work Ethic For the Global Marketplace The Christian
Century, May 17, 1995, pp. 542 - 545.
Mcluhan Marshall (1994) Understanding
Media: The Extensions of Man Cambridge: The MIT Press
Melucci A. (1989)
Nomads of the Present
Hutchinson Radius
Mintzberg H, Gosling J (2002)
‘Educating managers beyond borders’ Academy of management, Learning and
education 1(1) 64-76
Monbiot G. (2000) Captive state: The corporate
take over of Britain. London Macmillan
Oates, Wayne E (1971) Confession
of a Workaholic; the Facts about Work Addiction. New York: World
Ouchi W. (1981) Theory Z: How American Business Can Meet the
Japanese Challenge, Addison-Wesley
Pattison, (1997) The faith of
managers: When management becomes religion London: Cassell
Putnam,
R. (2000) Bowling Alone: the
collapse and revival of American Community, New York: Simon & Schuster
Rauf , Feisal Abdul Fundamentalism
and the Modern World. A dialogue with Karen Armstrong, Susannah Heschel,
Jim Wallis, and Feisal Abdul Rauf. Sojourners Magazine, March-April 2002
(Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 20-26
Brown, Reva Berman (2003) Organisational
Spirituality, the sceptics version. Organization 10 (2) 2003: 393-400
Rose, M. (1985). Reworking
the work ethic: Economic values and socio-cultural politics. London:
Schocken.
Rose Nikolas (1990) Governing the Soul
Routledge
Roy Olivier (1994), The
Failure of Political Islam Harvard University Press
Silverman A. Just War, Jihad and Terrorism: A comparison
of Western and Islamic Norms for the Use of Political Violence. Journal
of the church and State vol. 44 no. 1. 2002.
Smith S and Wilkinson B. (1996) ‘No doors on
offices, no secrets: We are our own policemen: Capitalism without conflict?’
cited in Fulop L, Linstead S. (1999) P.106-107 Management a Critical Text London Macmillan Press
Stewart G. Cole, The History of Fundamentalism (New
York: Richard R. Smith, 1931).
Tibi Bassam (1992) Religious
Fundamentalism and Ethnicity in the Crisis of the Nation state in the Middle
east: Superordinate Islamic and Pan-Arabic identities and Subordinate Ethnic
and sectarian identities in Castell’s (1997:17)
Tilgher, A. (1930). Homo
faber: Work through the ages. Translated by D. C. Fisher. New York:
Harcourt Brace.
Tourish D., Pinnington A.(2002) Human Relations,
Tavistock KA/Plenum Press
Vol. 55:2 147-172
*Trist, E. (1985). Working with
Bion in the 1940s: The group decade. In, M. Pines (ed.) Bion and Group
Psychotherapy. London: Routledge, Kegan Paul. Cited in Gould
Vuola E. (2002) Remaking universals? Transnational
Feminism(s) Challenging Fundamentalist Ecumenism. Theory; Culture & Society
2002 Sage Vol. 19 (1-2) 175-195
Weber M. (1930) The Protestant ethic and the
spirit of Capitalism Allen and Unwin
Western S. (1999) Where’s Daddy ISPSO Conference
Toronto
Western S. (2000) Plain
Living provocative thoughts The Friend Quaker Journal, September
8th 2000: 4-7
Williams H, Sullivan D, Mathews,
G, (1997) Francis Fukuyama and the end of history University of Wales
press
Winstanley G. 1650 A
Vindication (1650:3) cited in Gwynn D.
2000
Whtye W.H. (1956) The Organization Man. New
York. Simon and Schuster