|InterJournal Complex Systems, 992
|Manuscript Number: |
Submission Date: 2004
|Strategy emergence.A journey through modernism, postmodernism, complexity and nonmodernism|
The idea of Modernism as a drive for scientific innovation is currently is currently being challenged. Alternative ways of thinking are explored to deal with scientific innovation. The process often starts with deconstructing Modernism as a premise for the search of perspectives on change and transformation. Rationales for such turnaround are addressed from many sciences, such postmodernism (Derrida), complexity (Stacey) and anthropology (Latour). By deconstructing the metaphysics of presence, Derrida overturns the idea that science is rooted in the observations of facts, as simple, homogeneous and self-conscious origins of truths. Besides, by asserting the very impossibility of language to represent reality, he advances that are continuously re-created by way of differance. In management theory it is possible to show that deconstruction is a sound way to move from a perspective of continuity to a perspective of transformation, which considers continuity as epiphenomenon of transformation. Such turnaround also shows that research on change very often is biased from the paradox of exploring change from an epistemology of stability and order. By asserting that “Nothing exists beyond texts, however, Derrida ignores individuals and society, as well as nature. This is why we introduce also the basic dynamics of communication. Such an approach can be found in the works of Stacey et al.(2000) e Stacey (2001) inspired by the sciences of complexity. These works find in the complexity sciences a compelling analogy for explaining the emergence of organizations as joint relation between individuals, rooted in both self-organization and the assumption that future is unknown. Deep understanding of the complexity approach to the emergence of novelty shows a way to superimpose the natural perspective upon the social. As a result innovation loose sight of the role that individual, society and meaning may play as independent sources of innovation. The possibility of this ample mediation is instead suggested by Latour nonmodernism. His distinction between specialization (purification) and mediation Nature-Society-Discourse may become the starting point to conceive innovation as a perpetual construction of hybrids and networks. In this perspective purified sciences become ex-transcendences, objects of mediation. The statement of a strategy also becomes one of these objects, which looses his ontology in the process of emergence of hybrids object-subject. Strategy, in fact, becomes a process itself, one that involves the co-evolution of discourse-nature-individual and society.
|Submit referee report/comment|