{"title":"坦率地说——双关语和公共服务","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":"14 1","pages":"294 - 310"},"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":"{\"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\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"294 - 310\"},\"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}","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}
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.
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.