作为忏悔的审计:管理控制的道德工具化

IF 1.5 3区 社会学 Q2 ANTHROPOLOGY Critique of Anthropology Pub Date : 2022-02-07 DOI:10.1177/0308275X221074834
Caitlin Scott
{"title":"作为忏悔的审计:管理控制的道德工具化","authors":"Caitlin Scott","doi":"10.1177/0308275X221074834","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Techniques of audit are a prominent feature of contemporary publicly funded institutions. While such accountability systems are often understood as broadly ethical, critical perspectives note their coercive nature, seeing audit regimes as instruments of governmentality for disciplining and creating self-regulating subjects, diminishing autonomy and premised on an absence of trust. In this article, I seek to extend this critical perspective to the ethics of audit. In so doing I reveal how the roots of apparently modern, scientific systems for eliciting truth are to be found in the Christian rite of confession, audit being one of a number of quasi-scientific disciplines to draw on confession’s mechanisms. The article then explores the parallels and implications for aid workers as moral agents and subjects in audit systems. Research with those involved in planning, monitoring and evaluation processes suggests how reporting and audit mechanisms both constrain the everyday work of development as well as reach into the future, delimiting what can be done. Respondents narratives’ emphasise their experiences of constraint and frustration as they try to negotiate audit’s more distorting effects. These narratives suggest how, in its focus on accountability upwards, audit has more to do with power and control that it does with ethics; and to achieve its purposes, it relies on processes of subjection rooted in confession.","PeriodicalId":46784,"journal":{"name":"Critique of Anthropology","volume":"42 1","pages":"20 - 37"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Audit as confession: The instrumentalisation of ethics for management control\",\"authors\":\"Caitlin Scott\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/0308275X221074834\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Techniques of audit are a prominent feature of contemporary publicly funded institutions. While such accountability systems are often understood as broadly ethical, critical perspectives note their coercive nature, seeing audit regimes as instruments of governmentality for disciplining and creating self-regulating subjects, diminishing autonomy and premised on an absence of trust. In this article, I seek to extend this critical perspective to the ethics of audit. In so doing I reveal how the roots of apparently modern, scientific systems for eliciting truth are to be found in the Christian rite of confession, audit being one of a number of quasi-scientific disciplines to draw on confession’s mechanisms. The article then explores the parallels and implications for aid workers as moral agents and subjects in audit systems. Research with those involved in planning, monitoring and evaluation processes suggests how reporting and audit mechanisms both constrain the everyday work of development as well as reach into the future, delimiting what can be done. Respondents narratives’ emphasise their experiences of constraint and frustration as they try to negotiate audit’s more distorting effects. These narratives suggest how, in its focus on accountability upwards, audit has more to do with power and control that it does with ethics; and to achieve its purposes, it relies on processes of subjection rooted in confession.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46784,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Critique of Anthropology\",\"volume\":\"42 1\",\"pages\":\"20 - 37\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-02-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Critique of Anthropology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/0308275X221074834\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ANTHROPOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critique of Anthropology","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0308275X221074834","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

审计技术是当代公共资助机构的一个突出特点。虽然这种问责制度通常被理解为具有广泛的道德性,但批判性观点注意到了其强制性,将审计制度视为约束和创建自我监管主体的治理工具,削弱了自主权,并以缺乏信任为前提。在这篇文章中,我试图将这一批判性观点扩展到审计伦理。在这样做的过程中,我揭示了在基督教的忏悔仪式中,如何找到明显现代的、科学的、启发真理的系统的根源,审计是利用忏悔机制的许多准科学学科之一。然后,文章探讨了援助工作者作为审计系统中的道德代理人和主体的相似之处和含义。对参与规划、监测和评价进程的人员进行的研究表明,报告和审计机制如何既限制了发展的日常工作,又影响了未来,界定了可以做什么。受访者的叙述强调了他们在试图协商审计更扭曲的影响时的约束和沮丧经历。这些叙述表明,在向上关注问责制的过程中,审计更多地与权力和控制有关,而不是与道德有关;为了实现其目的,它依赖于植根于忏悔的服从过程。
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
Audit as confession: The instrumentalisation of ethics for management control
Techniques of audit are a prominent feature of contemporary publicly funded institutions. While such accountability systems are often understood as broadly ethical, critical perspectives note their coercive nature, seeing audit regimes as instruments of governmentality for disciplining and creating self-regulating subjects, diminishing autonomy and premised on an absence of trust. In this article, I seek to extend this critical perspective to the ethics of audit. In so doing I reveal how the roots of apparently modern, scientific systems for eliciting truth are to be found in the Christian rite of confession, audit being one of a number of quasi-scientific disciplines to draw on confession’s mechanisms. The article then explores the parallels and implications for aid workers as moral agents and subjects in audit systems. Research with those involved in planning, monitoring and evaluation processes suggests how reporting and audit mechanisms both constrain the everyday work of development as well as reach into the future, delimiting what can be done. Respondents narratives’ emphasise their experiences of constraint and frustration as they try to negotiate audit’s more distorting effects. These narratives suggest how, in its focus on accountability upwards, audit has more to do with power and control that it does with ethics; and to achieve its purposes, it relies on processes of subjection rooted in confession.
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
Critique of Anthropology
Critique of Anthropology ANTHROPOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
8.30%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: Critique of Anthropology is dedicated to the development of anthropology as a discipline that subjects social reality to critical analysis. It publishes academic articles and other materials which contribute to an understanding of the determinants of the human condition, structures of social power, and the construction of ideologies in both contemporary and past human societies from a cross-cultural and socially critical standpoint. Non-sectarian, and embracing a diversity of theoretical and political viewpoints, COA is also committed to the principle that anthropologists cannot and should not seek to avoid taking positions on political and social questions.
期刊最新文献
Introduction: Contesting the moral worlds, scales, and epistemics of energy transitions. Lithium scale-making and extractivist counter-futurities in Bolivia. ‘Occupying’ the womb: Disrupted kinship futures and sovereign logics in sexual violence during wars ‘The Girls are Alright’: Beauty work and neoliberal regimes of responsibility among young women in Urban India Kinship and the politics of responsibility: An introduction
×
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