制度与共同利益。重新认识作为美德的制度价值

M@n@gement Pub Date : 2024-01-19 DOI:10.37725/mgmt.2024.8781
Elke Weik
{"title":"制度与共同利益。重新认识作为美德的制度价值","authors":"Elke Weik","doi":"10.37725/mgmt.2024.8781","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper addresses the critique regarding the apolitical nature of institutionalist theorizing by developing the concept of virtuous institutions. I start from the observation that current public discourses are often characterized by a destructive pitting of ‘my values’ against ‘your values’. Values, in this usage, represent personal emotion-laden beliefs that are ultimately incompatible. In addition to fueling destructive public discourses, incompatible values (a feature that is central to institutional value theorizing) make system integration (a feature that is also central to institutional theorizing) very difficult. I therefore propose to reconceptualize values as virtues. Drawing on the communitarian ethics of Alasdair MacIntyre and the concept of institutional valuation of Roger Friedland, I suggest a reconceptualization of institutional values that introduces the notion of a common good, understands institutional practices as co-constitutive with such a good, and abolishes the assumption that values are fundamentally irrational and beyond reasoning.","PeriodicalId":155066,"journal":{"name":"M@n@gement","volume":"78 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Institutions and the Common Good. Reconceptualizing Institutional Values as Virtues\",\"authors\":\"Elke Weik\",\"doi\":\"10.37725/mgmt.2024.8781\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper addresses the critique regarding the apolitical nature of institutionalist theorizing by developing the concept of virtuous institutions. I start from the observation that current public discourses are often characterized by a destructive pitting of ‘my values’ against ‘your values’. Values, in this usage, represent personal emotion-laden beliefs that are ultimately incompatible. In addition to fueling destructive public discourses, incompatible values (a feature that is central to institutional value theorizing) make system integration (a feature that is also central to institutional theorizing) very difficult. I therefore propose to reconceptualize values as virtues. Drawing on the communitarian ethics of Alasdair MacIntyre and the concept of institutional valuation of Roger Friedland, I suggest a reconceptualization of institutional values that introduces the notion of a common good, understands institutional practices as co-constitutive with such a good, and abolishes the assumption that values are fundamentally irrational and beyond reasoning.\",\"PeriodicalId\":155066,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"M@n@gement\",\"volume\":\"78 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"M@n@gement\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.37725/mgmt.2024.8781\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"M@n@gement","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.37725/mgmt.2024.8781","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文通过提出 "良性机构 "的概念,回应了对制度主义理论非政治性的批评。我的出发点是,当前的公共讨论往往以 "我的价值观 "与 "你的价值观 "的破坏性对立为特征。在这种用法中,"价值观 "代表的是最终互不相容的、充满个人情感的信念。除了助长破坏性的公共话语之外,不相容的价值观(这是制度价值理论化的一个核心特征)还使系统整合(这也是制度理论化的一个核心特征)变得非常困难。因此,我建议将价值观重新概念化为美德。借鉴阿拉斯戴尔-麦金太尔(Alasdair MacIntyre)的社群主义伦理学和罗杰-弗里德兰(Roger Friedland)的制度价值概念,我建议对制度价值进行重新概念化,引入 "共同利益"(common good)的概念,将制度实践理解为与这种利益共同构成的,并废除 "价值从根本上说是非理性的、无法推理的 "这一假设。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Institutions and the Common Good. Reconceptualizing Institutional Values as Virtues
This paper addresses the critique regarding the apolitical nature of institutionalist theorizing by developing the concept of virtuous institutions. I start from the observation that current public discourses are often characterized by a destructive pitting of ‘my values’ against ‘your values’. Values, in this usage, represent personal emotion-laden beliefs that are ultimately incompatible. In addition to fueling destructive public discourses, incompatible values (a feature that is central to institutional value theorizing) make system integration (a feature that is also central to institutional theorizing) very difficult. I therefore propose to reconceptualize values as virtues. Drawing on the communitarian ethics of Alasdair MacIntyre and the concept of institutional valuation of Roger Friedland, I suggest a reconceptualization of institutional values that introduces the notion of a common good, understands institutional practices as co-constitutive with such a good, and abolishes the assumption that values are fundamentally irrational and beyond reasoning.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Tension between Digital Distance and Physical Presence in Hybrid Teaching: Evidence from Two Natural Experiments During the COVID-19 Pandemic in a French Business School How Much Stupidity Do Organisations Need? A Psychodynamic Perspective on Functional Stupidity When to Talk and When to Keep It to yourself? Strategies for Legitimating Managerial Intuitions in An Organisational Context The Construction of A Strategic Issue: Issue Selling as A Narrative Process Socio-Professional Trajectories of Refugees in France: An Identity Work Perspective
×
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