ビトナー（1965）「組織という概念」

em_ca HesFra

ようやく入手。

via 『An Invitation to Ethnomethodology』chap.9
http://d.hatena.ne.jp/contractio/20060518#1147959574
http://d.hatena.ne.jp/contractio/20090731#p1
  • Bittner, E. (1973) "The concept of orgnanization", in
Ethnomethodology

Ethnomethodology

  • 初出：American Sociologist Review, 1965, vol.32, no.5
  • ［前フリ］
  • 1. The Theoretical Sense of Formal Structures of Organization
  • 2. Critique of Weber's Theory of Bureaucracy
  • 3. The Study of the Concept of Organization as a Common-Sense Construct
  • 4. Examples of Variation in the Methodical Use of the Concept of Organization
    • a. The Gambit of Compliance
    • b. The Concept of Formal Organization as a Model of Stylistic Unity
    • c. The Concept of Organization as Corroborative Reference
  • Conclusion
「The Gambit of Compliance」の節タイトルには注がついている：
11 We should like to point out that this example corresponds to what Selznick suggests when he urges the study of the "manipulation of the formal processes and structures in terms of informal goals." Op. cit., p.32.

a. The Gambit of Compliance

As we have noted earlier, the concept of rational organization is often regarded by sociologists and management technicians as a normative idealization. Even though one finds only "is" and "is not" in the substantive determination, there attaches the sense of "ought" to the entire scheme.

Conceived as a rule of conduct, the concept of organization is defined as having some determining power over action that takes place under the scope of its jurisdiction. This power to produce an intended result is uncertain and depends for its effectiveness on complex structural conditions. Hence, research informed by the conception of organization as a rule of conduct will seek to procure estimates of its effectiveness, and will relate the findings to factors that favor or mitigate against compliance. All such research is necessarily based on the assumption that the relationship of correspondence between the rule and the behaviors that are related to it is clear. [p.262]

というわけなので、ここでいう「コンプライアンス」は、「組織のルールを遵守すること、組織のルールに従うこと」ですね。

ビトナーが問題にしているのは、先行研究において「ルールと行動の対応」が前提されてしまっており、
そして、それにもとづいて「合理的組織／組織の合理性〜公式組織」というものが観念されており、したがって
「ルールに従う」ということがどういうことなのか──そして、そこで「組織」という概念が組織成員たちによって どのように用いられるのか──ということが検討されていない、ということなんでしょう。

「gambit」が出てくるのは次の文章：

Extending to the rule the respect of compliance,

while finding in the rule the means for doing whatever need be done,

is the gambit that characterizes organizational acumen.

b. The Concept of Formal Organization as a Model of Stylistic Unity

ここは何いってるかわからん。

We are suggesting the possibility of a principle of discipline that derives from the formal style of the rational scheme and which works against centrifugal
tendencies and heterogeneity. The resulting coherence will be in evidence as outwardly proper conduct and appearance. One would then ask how the sensibility of esthetic appreciation is summoned for direction, information and control in various concrete situations. The dominant consideration underlying this construction would not be found in the field of means-ends relations but in an all-pervading sense of piety (i.e., in accordance with Burke's definition of the term, a sure-footed conviction of "what properly goes with what").12 [p.263]

12 Kenneth Burke, Permanence and Change: An Anatomy of Purpose, Third edition (2nd revised edit., Los Altos, Calif.: Hermes Publications, 1954), pp. 74 ff.

ともかくも、「スタイル」という言葉が使われているのは、美的な含意もあるからのようであります。

c. The Concept of Organization as Corroborative Reference

こちらも「stylistic unity」にかかわる話らしい。 → 一文目：

There is another problem which is related to the problem of stylistic unity. [p.264]

どういうことにかかわるかというと...

When from the perspective of a fragmentary involvement the actual contingent outcome of one's work cannot be appraised, or appears senseless, then it can be understood and judged in terms of its over-all functional significance by invoking the formal scheme. [p.264]

どういう研究が必要かというと...

The problem that requires investigation is

  • how various evaluations can be used as credits,
  • and what sorts of credits have the consequence of assimilating some partial performance closer to the larger enterprise. [p.264]

この「credit」が、「Corroborative Reference」の言い換えなんですかね。


ビトナーは、こうした「素描」を──自分でやった調査に基づいてではなくて──公式組織に関する著名な研究*から拾った例でもって考察しているつもりらしい。参照されている文献を見ると、その「例」のほうは、だいたい私の教養の範囲内に入ってるはずなんですが...。ちょっと話が抽象的過ぎてなんとも....

* 注の13で「Some prominent examples of works containing excellent ethnographic descriptions of conduct in formal organizations are,」と言って挙げられているのは....：



ところでこんな論文を発見。あとで読む。