'Doing' Organizational Culture in the Saturn Corporation

Organization Studies, Jan, 2001 by Terry L. Mills, Craig A. Boylstein, Sandra Lorean

With such ambiguous and hotly contested terms as modernism, late modernism, and post modernism having an intimate role in the current analysis, a brief typology of these terms is in order. Premodern discourse is added into the mix due to the notion that such premodern discourse 'interpenetrates postmodern discourse' (Boje 1995: 1003). It is also important to note that organizations, as well as individual bodies, can and frequently do exit one discourse and enter another, re-enter the previous discourse only to exit again, and so on. In other words, individuals are not concretely modem any more than they are concretely postmodern. The same can also be said of the Saturn organization and its cultural milieu. Reality is an ambiguous flux of premodern, modern, late modern, and postmodern discourse. In turn, so is the making of Saturn's organizational culture.

Premodernity

Premodern discourse is one of preindustrial custom and tradition (for a more thorough discussion of premodern, modern, and postmodern discourse, see Boje 1995). Spirit and mythical passion, family and community ties are favoured, rather than the economic, rational modem mind. A spiritual view of 'mother earth' and a strong desire for community is defended over industrial progress. Premodern discourse is linked with feudal lords and divine rulers. Modernity is seen as an attack against such irrational discourse, where humans are imprisoned by mythical customs and traditions.

Modernity

Modern discourse attempts to tame the irrational 'beast' that fuels the premodern experience. The spiritual, mythical passion of premodernity is replaced with a rational passion for generating increased levels of commerce and scientific thought. Modern life is to be planned. It is to be bureaucratically administered. The rational modern mind is trained for 'progress', both scientifically and productively. Premodern bodies are controlled and restrained within the modern 'machine' of rational bureaucracy. Modernity becomes an 'iron cage' in which the subjective self cannot escape rational objectivity. Individual performance is observed, measured, and analyzed in terms of economic production.

Late Modernity

The late modem perspective as discussed here is derived from the Frankfurt School of critical theory, headed by Jurgen Habermas (e.g. 1975). Structuration theory as proposed by Anthony Giddens (1985) differs from critical theory in many important ways, and for a more complete understanding of late modern discourse, these two perspectives should be compared and contrasted. While seen as a critique of postmodern thought, critical theory agrees with postmodern discourse, with its attack on the rational boundaries modem discourse sets/forces upon social reality (Best and Kellner 1991). However, postmodern discourse goes much farther than the critical theory of Habermas in terms of deconstructing, or disintegrating traditionally modem forms of philosophical and social discourse. Critical theorists tend to synthesize capitalism and technology in their discourse, while postmodernists speak of technological or language-based determinism that defines and coerces a fragmented, postmodern society.