Speaking frankly – parrhesia and public service

IF 0.8 4区 管理学 Q1 HISTORY Management & Organizational History Pub Date : 2019-07-03 DOI:10.1080/17449359.2019.1698439
E. Barratt
{"title":"Speaking frankly – parrhesia and public service","authors":"E. Barratt","doi":"10.1080/17449359.2019.1698439","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This discussion addresses the history of bureaucratic frank counsel in the British Civil Service, exploring the possibilities and limitations of concepts associated with the later Foucault for its analysis. Foucault makes clear in his lectures that the notion of parrhesia has a long and varied history. This discussion considers a particular trajectory of this ancient idea: the practice of frank counsel in the context of the ethics of the Civil Service in Britain, focusing on the years of Conservative government in the 1980s. We begin by clarifying the interconnection between the practice of bureaucratic frank counsel in Britain and the concept of parrhesia. We are, however, primarily concerned to examine the fate of ‘bureaucratic frank counsel’. Foucauldian scholars of governmentality have been concerned to highlight how ethical attributes of enterprise and responsiveness have displaced the customary ethics of public service. The implication is that the frank counsel of public servants has been silenced. Revisiting the era in which the advanced liberal government of the Civil Service first took shape, we question this view. We explore the emergence of the idea of formal codification as a common aspiration for the defense of customary ethical practices. We conclude by arguing that a deep ambivalence now characterizes this domain of ethical practice.","PeriodicalId":45724,"journal":{"name":"Management & Organizational History","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17449359.2019.1698439","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Management & Organizational History","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449359.2019.1698439","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT This discussion addresses the history of bureaucratic frank counsel in the British Civil Service, exploring the possibilities and limitations of concepts associated with the later Foucault for its analysis. Foucault makes clear in his lectures that the notion of parrhesia has a long and varied history. This discussion considers a particular trajectory of this ancient idea: the practice of frank counsel in the context of the ethics of the Civil Service in Britain, focusing on the years of Conservative government in the 1980s. We begin by clarifying the interconnection between the practice of bureaucratic frank counsel in Britain and the concept of parrhesia. We are, however, primarily concerned to examine the fate of ‘bureaucratic frank counsel’. Foucauldian scholars of governmentality have been concerned to highlight how ethical attributes of enterprise and responsiveness have displaced the customary ethics of public service. The implication is that the frank counsel of public servants has been silenced. Revisiting the era in which the advanced liberal government of the Civil Service first took shape, we question this view. We explore the emergence of the idea of formal codification as a common aspiration for the defense of customary ethical practices. We conclude by arguing that a deep ambivalence now characterizes this domain of ethical practice.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
坦率地说——双关语和公共服务
本文论述了英国公务员制度中官僚式坦率律师的历史,探讨了与后来的福柯相关的概念的可能性和局限性,以供分析。福柯在他的演讲中明确指出,假语的概念有着悠久而多样的历史。本次讨论考虑了这一古老理念的一个特殊轨迹:在英国公务员道德的背景下,坦率律师的实践,重点关注20世纪80年代保守党政府的岁月。我们首先要澄清英国官僚坦率律师的做法与鹦鹉学舌概念之间的相互联系。然而,我们主要关注的是审查“官僚坦率律师”的命运。傅的治理学学者一直关注企业和响应性的伦理属性如何取代公共服务的传统伦理。言下之意是,公务员的坦率建议被噤声了。回顾公务员制度中先进的自由主义政府最初形成的时代,我们对这种观点提出了质疑。我们探讨了正式编纂思想的出现,这是捍卫习惯道德实践的共同愿望。最后,我们认为,一种深刻的矛盾心理现在是这个道德实践领域的特征。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
16.70%
发文量
8
期刊介绍: Management & Organizational History (M&OH) is a quarterly, peer-reviewed journal that aims to publish high quality, original, academic research concerning historical approaches to the study of management, organizations and organizing. The journal addresses issues from all areas of management, organization studies, and related fields. The unifying theme of M&OH is its historical orientation. The journal is both empirical and theoretical. It seeks to advance innovative historical methods. It facilitates interdisciplinary dialogue, especially between business and management history and organization theory. The ethos of M&OH is reflective, ethical, imaginative, critical, inter-disciplinary, and international, as well as historical in orientation.
期刊最新文献
Budgetary control and beyond budgeting from a historical perspective - insights from re-visiting the 1922 book by James O. McKinsey Organizing Spanish-British mining companies: the case of “La Española”, 1866-1942 A non-conforming technocratic dream: Howard Scott’s technocracy movement Networks throughout an institutional transition: the case of the former Meliá touristic group (1932-1978) Form and media in management and organizational history how different research programs transform the ‘Past’ into ‘History’
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1