"The bankruptcy of many anthropological approaches.........................."
Mmmmmm......
A way of seeing is a way of not seeing.
I am not here to defend anthropology but would like to point out that all
disciplines have their limitations Every discipline is based on some set
of underlying assumptions or mental models that is in some ways
restrictive.
We can choose to focus on the limitations ('bankruptcy'? - come on now
John) [of a discipline, culture, or organization] or on their
contributions. The latter emphasis is what 'Appreciative Inquiry" is all
about.
By focusing on how cultures have come to be they way they are,
anthropologists tell us about the streams of emergent change that exist in
all self- organizing, self-evolving systems. We ignore that at our peril
when we get swept up by the-grass-is-greener visions of the future. Most
change initiatives fail because their designers forget that the systems
they are engaged with are not 'greenfield sites'. As they try to push
round pegs into pre-existing square holes, they lament the presence of the
latter. With insight into how the square holes were made in the first
place, agents could make entirely new round holes. People are sure apt to
get defensive when we show distain for what they are or what they have.
Obviously, planned, directed change is complicated stuff. For this
reason, anthropologists, as non-natives, are pretty hands-off when it
comes to interventions in cultures since from their mental model directed,
externally generated change is tantamount to being or playing God.
On the other hand, what discipline besides anthropology has as much to say
about time, the organizational dimension just asked about in LO20793? For
a basic understanding of culture and time, see Edward T. Hall's "The
Hidden Dimension".
regards,
Tony DiBella
www.orgtransitions.com
--Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>