Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journa~ VoL 8, No. 2, 1995

Book Review Democracy in an Age of Corporate Colonization: Developments in Communication and the Politics of Everyday Life. By Stanley A. Deetz. State University of New York Press, Albany, New York; 1992, 399 pp., $17.95. Traditional explorations of democracy employ the classical philosophical perspective that reflects the centrality of civic government. Information becomes important and decisions are made through communication guided by the needs of the polis. As the size of the governmental unit expands, a system of representation is developed to act in support of the values held by the community. Deetz argues that industrial corporations have, in Habermas's word, "colonized" our twentieth century society--their influence has come to dominate the ways in which we think and communicate, not only in business, but also in the family and governmental sectors. "Politics," Deetz explains, following the lead of Michel Foucault, encompasses two concepts: "politics" refers to the exercise of power derived from elections and discussions of policy decisions to be made by governmental units. On the other hand, "Politics" relates to Foucault's idea of the "disciplinary power" that is largely hidden and dispersed through social formations and institutions, by means of language and technologies. It is the "Politics" of consensus and consent that causes us not to think of the unthinkable, and that establishes the "principles of normalcy and self-evidence." As corporations have come to dominate society, the free speech of the soapbox speaker has been replaced by the voice of the corporate "person," speaking to relatively isolated individuals through electronic or print channels received in homes. The workplace has replaced the marketplace as the site where decisions are made that govern the lives of individuals. Everyday life is now determined by "Political" decision makers whose choices and actions are grounded in capitalism instead of the "politics" of democratic government. Given this view, and the long-established interdependence between participation in the decisionmaking process and the importance of and patterns of communication, there is need for a new assessment of the potential and the reality of communication in corporate society. The influence of the corporate organization has spread into the nonwork dimensions of our society, eclipsing the state as the primary source of social policy. Job and career training have come to dominate the traditional educational goal of producing the enlightened citizen. Aspects of family life, such as child rearing, leisure time, and even sickness, are now assessed in terms of costs to 147 0892-7545DS,~500-0147507.50~D © 1995 Plenum PublishingCorporation

148

Book R e n e w

professional or career advancement. Information, or knowledge, is now sought and provided in ways that reflect the "Politics" of the corporate world. Even in situations where participation is widespread, and ideas are effectively expressed, when the disciplinary power is such that "unthinkable" thoughts are not considered, passive acceptance or consent results. In his fifth chapter, Deetz presents a thoroughgoing exploration of philosophical perspectives on "Language and the Politics of Experience." Phenomenology, he argues, provides a more useful view than do the assumptions of the empirical sciences because experiences and the language used to describe those experiences depend on human judgment, and are intrinsically political subject both to the sovereign and the disciplinary powers explained above. Despite the posture of social scientists that the claims and assumptions of naturalism are not to be taken literally ("objectivity" and "predictability" are not attainable in the "behavioral sciences"), many or most seem to proceed as if they do obtain, forgetting the significance of the conditional, "as if," which inheres in the process of predicting human behavior. And, more important, "the privilege of certain knowledge claims in corporate organizations, and the lack of their critical examination, are based on precisely this rejected logic of science." "Facts," "expertise," and reliance on certain language uses, tend to reinforce the "Political" advantage (i.e., engineering of consent) of those who hold the hierarchical, not elected ("political") positions of power. Despite the seemingly common sense view that language "represents" things or concepts that exist in the world or in the mind, it is more accurate and useful to see language arising from shared experience. Language serves to establish distinctions, rather than to "represent" objects. Language is highly subjective----really intersubjective---which means, of course, that language is directly related to personal and to institutional motives or politics (in both senses). The opportunity to name or label things and concepts--to determine the language by which they become k n o w n ~ r o v i d e s one with significant power over the ways people perceive and react to those things and concepts. For instance, describing Social Security as "insurance" distinguishes it from "welfare"; "overtime" connotes something different from "staying late at work." Similarly, as technological equipment extends the senses of some, others who lack that equipment are deprived of information, or may simply not receive it in time to make effective use of it in decision making. These considerations raise both political and moral issues. When efficiency becomes the prime or sole criterion, those with the most rapid and direct connections gain advantage over others. Decisions about who gets what information how fast, and in what form, convey "disciplinary power." Ways in which those decisions are made, and by whom they are made, determine where that power resides. The criteria of efficiency and effectiveness must be counterbalanced by the criterion of participation if democracy is to be achieved and/or maintained. Not only have recent elections been characterized by small voter turnout, but recent political theories have held that there are inherent dangers in encouraging large numbers to appear at the polls. One must really hark back to the Athenians for ground to support the ideal of participation in communication and decision mak-

Book Renew

149

ing. Plato and Aristotle held that an individual could not achieve knowledge by himself, but only in relation to others (p. 154). Recently, elites have kept others from information, thus from participation, for fear of the decisions that they might make. "The emphasis has been on the freedom from the decisions of others rather than the freedom to participate in collective decisions" (p. 155). One outcome of this view has been the lack of development of public or collective moral values. Capitalistic economic values have "colonized" our nation. Questions of the public good of products are subverted to the potential for private profit. Even individual motivation ("the Protestant work ethic") has lost its social or cultural force, as lack of participation in decision making has become the norm. Deetz concludes that "Democracy is a moral issue. Democracy involves the collective decision of what we willfully or unwittingly become. It opposes arbitrary privilege or one-sided considerations in that determination. Filling out such a base requires both a concept of democracy and an analysis of communication processes to sustain it" (p. 159). Democracy demands a shift in emphasis from the effectiveness of the production of understanding through communication, to the goal of strategic reproduction of meaning through participation in communication. Participation in decision-making communication permits the development of "intersubjective meaning" of symbols (language), which makes for shared understanding and more willing and effective implementation of policies or decisions. Such a shift would produce "a change from seeing the individual as more or less effective to seeing the interaction as more or less productive---Ahat is, in the service of further understanding and agreement on the subject matter being determined by the nature of the subject matter itself' (p. 165). Almost every communication situation falls short of the ideal. Participation is seldom balanced, and meaning often is not fully shared. Many times, especially in organizational settings, there is systematic distortion, resulting from hierarchy, prejudice, stereotyping, or the like. This systematic distortion creates a kind of self-deception, wherein the impression is created that participation is valued, while the motive of at least one party (and perhaps both or all) is effectiveness---influence or control over the actions of the other. This is manifest, perhaps, most frequently, in organizations that profess consultative or participative management, but render the process inoperable through failure to make available adequate information, unwillingness to consider alternatives, and reliance on authority structure rather than rational inference from data. "Policy-making" meetings are actually "policy-confirming" sessions, wherein there is suppression of potential conflict through disqualification of certain individuals or points of view, denial of access to certain speaking situations or audiences, pressures for unity, reliance on ambiguity, etc. The "voice" of some of the stakeholders in the process of production for social good has not been sustained as the career manager has become the center of corporate structure. As the number and importance of non-owner managers has increased, the phenomenon of "managerialism" has appeared. "Managerialism'" assumes an identity of purpose and interest between the corporation (i.e., the owners) and management. It focuses on control, largely through distribution of money, and

150

Book Renew

emphasis on formal organization. The position of"manager" was created in order to control conflict in the organization. As scientific management developed the emphasis on efficiency and rationality, and a minimum of visible conflict, as means of enhancing production, those means soon became ends in themselves. Managers focused on ways of establishing "expert" status, thus disqualifying workers and shifting the goal from participation to effectiveness, which they defined as efficiency. Unity and "teamwork" become the watchword, where the manager is, without question, the one who calls the plays, and rewards the players. Indeed, the really successful manager often becomes the personification of the formal organization, which, in turn, does not brook conflict, because it claims a "natural" existence. The concept of Managerialism is further reinforced by the way in which people respond to the concept of "the organization." Both formally, when one undertakes to analyze, and informally, when one says, "the organization does...," or "the organization will not permit...," we presume "the actual existence of the entity called the 'organization"' (p. 239). Our use of language reifies and/or personifies the term. Our legal system establishes the organization as a person, apart from the persons who act in its name. All of this ignores whatever efforts, whatever conflicts or differences were parts of its growth and development, just as it overlooks unresolved disputes at any moment. The prevailing argument at a given moment is, "this is the way it is." "It" may be the current manager~-however competent; or the present policy---however much it may be under challenge. "Is" may connote a long and unchanged or unchallenged pattern, or it may refer to situations of recent and untested origin. Whatever is the status quo at a given point is presumed to be accepted, and therefore controls members of "the organization" at that point and connotes continuation into the future. In addition, references to "the organization" carry an inherent endorsement of the "formal organization," as represented by the organization chart. "Official" aspects of the organization dominate. Ideas of rational decisions, accepted methods, paternal structure (often excluding the potential for emotion to affect policies or actions), dress codes, morality, and legitimacy become parts of the formal or "official" language used within organizations. Position in the hierarchy authorizes power, and imputes expertise. In most instances, both the presence of "managerialism" and the acceptance of the status quo of the formal organization meet the criterion of "productivity." The corporation "produces the goods," or else changes are made. On the other hand, accepting the domination of "the organization" with its systematically distorted communication and denying discussions that could raise fundamental issues puts a severe strain on the values that our schools teach us underlie American democracy. The appurtenances of the "good life"---bigger housing, cars, consumer goods---are gained primarily through longer working hours, decreased leisure and family time, and fewer opportunities for self development and engagement in civic affairs. "And," Deetz concludes, "the invisible costs to the human character and social welfare are hardly mentioned at all....Managerialism is not a debate for the newspapers, but an issue of democracy, a struggle to be worked out among everyday people in the workplace. Guid-

Book Review

151

ance for this requires a more expanded analysis of power and control in the work site" (p. 248). This expanded analysis, Deetz explains, derives from a second look at the concept of "power," which has traditionally been viewed from the perspective of the political scientist as a "sovereign power" ("politics") seen in nation states, and, by extension, in corporations. This is almost always a power that restricts individual freedoms in favor of group or social interests as determined through participative decision making, or through elections. Deetz's alternative, suggested by Foucault, is to look at "disciplinary power," which "resides in every perception, every judgment, every act." This kind of power influences and/or controls actions through norms and standard practices, which either enable or exclude acts within organizational contexts. Viewed in this light, power is a process that operates in every nonegalitarian situation, rather than a force that can be acquired. Power is manifest in relationships. Rather than being exercised by those at the top, power lies in the reciprocal relations between the haves and the have-nots. Exercise of authority, rather than exhibiting power, suggests its breakdown, and is a last resort in normal power relations. Power relations are intentional, but seldom is there a simple source of choices that define the power network. Finally, disciplinary power relations are characterized by resistance, which arises from conflicts of interest (p. 252-254). The notion of disciplinary power is illustrated in the development of the production line, which ties each individual to the timing and needs of a mechanical process. This decreases conflict between worker and supervisor, both of whose options are subject to the demands of the machinery. At the same time, the potential for surveillance is increased. Employees assume that they are being watched, but can not be sure when or by whom. This leads to the most subtle form of discipline, self-surveillance---not knowing to whom one may speak freely or when one may relax. Managers have extended the range of corporate surveillance by accepting beepers and car phones. Work has become so important that it cannot be left behind. At the same time, both employees and managers have come to perceive beepers and car phones, like reserved parking spaces and executive washroom keys, as symbols of importance, leading the managers to feel that they are important to the corporation, instead of the reverse. That feeling reduces or eliminates conflict deriving from the intrusion of work beyond its usual time and place. Only when one sees the exclusive as well as the inclusive dime.nsions of an action (or discourse) does one see the impact of the discipline that inheres in the way people interpret events. Knowledge, its sources, uses, and deployment, constitutes another important dimension of disciplinary power. "Common sense," or shared opinion (knowledge), exerts its impact through resistance to effective criticism. "Scientific" knowledge also has taken an important place in corporate circles. The reward structure, paying more for "engineers" than those educated in humane studies, reflects this importance. "Science," through its assumption of neutrality, helps suppress conflicts and tensions attributable to perceived "unfairness" or asymmetry in corporate operations. Most important among knowledge claims is

152

Book R e ~ e w

that of "expertise." Managers at all levels are endowed by the formal organization with claims to various kinds and levels of "expertise," which constitute the basis for the power wielded over those lacking the knowledge. The idea of "communication as the transfer of meaning" persists largely because of the notions of expertise and hierarchy. In order to accept this notion, one must see meaning as fixed somewhere, and see language as transparent, rather than perceiving meaning as created through the interactions of people. "Power" inheres in the choice that places "value" in meanings chosen by the upper hierarchical levels, ignoring other possible meanings. Because corporate enterprise is structured for monetary profit, accounting is the accepted symbolic code (language) of managerialism. Accountant reports are "facts" from which decisions are derived. They have the appearance of neutrality (science), which preempts discussion of the value-laden choices that have determined what to include, and how to label. For example, salaries and expense accounts of managers are "necessary to assure high levels of expertise," while production labor costs are to be "kept at a minimum" in order to assure profitability. "Standard accounting practice" is among the mystical decision-making methods seldom explored in corporate discussions. "The report," Deetz observes, "like the scientific finding, stands as a certified fact and invites use but closes off discussion of itself' (p. 279-280). Similarly, even nonfinancial information, such as surveys collected on corporate forms, assumes an "objectivity" that deflects questioning. Construction of those corporate (and other) forms is subject to influence from (a) officers who set policy, (b) system developers and analysts who create the forms and program ways of dealing with the data, (c) those who administer the filling out of the forms, and (d) data processors, whose accuracy and speed controls the reliability and timeliness of the output. Managerialisnv--the perception of what the corporation is, what its goals ought to be, and ways to support those perceptions---is present in each of these sources of influence. Disciplinary power thus pervades and labels the "factual" grounding of corporate decision making. As he begins his conclusion, Deetz affirms that he, in the tradition of other social theorists, will offer no "answers." He does propose that educational experience in critical decision making and development of the individual are central to any hope for workplace democracy. At the same time, those packaged programs that have been hailed as keys to organizational success and excellence (quality-of-life programs, Total Quality Control, etc.) have not met, and will not meet the communication needs that he has identified. It cannot be a "new democracy," or a new structure and practice. Democracy is a culture and a process that must become both the means and the momentary response to events. It is the small innovations addressed to everyday problems, rather than the grand projects, that are needed. Those innovations must be acceptable from any source, critically discussed and evaluated (participation), and implemented when they contribute constructively to the goals of the corporation. Through that process, traditional political democracy, with its ground in individual worth, is sustained, and the corporate goals are supported at the same time. A utopian ideal is not achievable. Only a morally guided hope can resolve the assumed dichotomy be-

Book Review

153

tween traditional authoritarian structure and individual freedom and autonomy. That hope can be realized through a "critique of unethical practices and the ideologies that support them." That critique "must focus on the routines and everyday practices that form the subtle deployment of the suppression ofconfiicts and democratic participation itself' (p. 334). Once identified, constructive conflict and common understandings can be achieved. While this perspective might seem "antimanagement, antiefficiency, or antiprofit," Deetz contends that it is none of these. It is simply "antimanagerialism." It recognizes that there are various stakeholders (including owners, managers, workers, and product consumers) whose interests vary, with most currently held in thrall to the managerialists. "Managerialism is a white, middle-class, male system" which suppresses entry by others, and denies opportunity for conflict even to those of its class who hold positions lower in the hierarchy (p. 335). Entry by women and minorities is one step toward limiting managerialism. Another lies in choosing not to "play the game" of subverting one's life to corporate demands. By limiting the overtime, or rejecting the cellular phone, one can exchange the invasion of the job for the freedom to enjoy the family or to expand horizons. Trading some salary for the discipline of the financial code reduces the power of managerialism. "Balanced responsiveness" is proposed as another means of limiting the domination of disciplinary power. Decisions that take the immediate situation into account will avoid getting bound up in decisional rules. Such decisions will later be open to analysis and critique, because "[d]emocracy is an ongoing accomplishment" (p. 338). Democracy embraces differences and balancing instead of relying on systems and idealized images. Balance demands continuous reference to the environment, rather than to a control model. Being responsive requires being responsible for one's actions within their context. "Responsiveness," Deetz says, "requires productive antagonism" (p. 339). Stakeholders of all kinds can diminish the impact of managerialism. Production workers can focus their efforts away from wages and explicit control. Changing the ways accountants shape their reports----perhaps including environmental and social costs---carries more potential for success than placing direct limits on managerial compensation. Work rule changes last longer than pay raises, and exert more impact. Reduction in the number of rules will increase the necessity for supervisors to be responsive to, and responsible for, specific situations. "Democratic potential exists in treating people, including the self, as human beings" (p. 344). Finally, Deetz addresses the "modern intellectual as researcher, consultant, and teacher." He proposes three goals: "insight, critique, and education" (pp. 345346). He affirms "that we are morally obligated to try to create a discourse that invites participation and that crosses community lines." If the posture of antiintellectualism is seen for what it really is---support for managerialism .the intellectual can help to prepare students for a democratic role in corporations. This may demand that university faculty excite their students through more contact and more educational development, which will reintroduce some democracy through rejection of the icon of publishing in favor of a focus on education.

154

Book Review

"The university has a role again to teach reason in place of narrow rationality and participation in identity and knowledge construction against managerialism." The consultant will do well to note that it is the corporation, not the manager, who hires and pays for analysis and recommendation. The consultant who actively supports managerialism, instead of considering all stakeholders, becomes part of the problem instead of a source of potential solutions. Similarly, the researcher who sticks to categorizing and linear studies is likely to find conclusions that support and further control, rather than identifying avenues for the development of participative norms in decision making. Greater democratic participation in the corporate worklife carries the hope for decreased need for governmental regulation. As more stakeholders contribute to corporate decisions, their interests will need less external control. There is absolutely no need to tolerate autocracy at work in order to enjoy democracy after hours. "Workplace democracy is a moral political issue, not one of greater productivity and satisfaction, though these usually result. If there is a new public sphere, there is the need for a new 'corporate citizen"' (p. 350). We need to extend the idea of 'civic responsibilities' into the workplace. The right to be informed and responsibility to participate in decisions about issues of civic life and of corporate life must be guided by the same principles and practices. Rather than grounding his argument in the claim of "a basic human right or set of external values," Deetz holds that "It]he moral foundation for democracy is in the daily practices of communication, the presumptions that each of us make as we talk with each other....Democracy is denied by neither armies nor powerful figures, but in the moment-to-moment. This denial is misrecognized at the start and actively concealed by discursive practices...[which] enact a web of strategic moves of asymmetrical power relations. The recovery of democracy must start in these practices" (pp. 350-351). Permitting "conflicts that have been suppressed through latent strategic normalization and routinization" will lead to "a new form of participatory democracy fundamentally rooted in corporate citizenship and moral communicative practice" (p. 35I). Deetz has drawn on a broad range of sources, arriving at an unusual, if not absolutely unique, grounding for corporate democracy. His argument is more philosophical than rhetorical, taking pains to explain in full detail the origin and rationale for each step in his thinking. For those thoroughly familiar with Foucault and Habermas, for instance, he belabors the references. For others, his reliance on their terms may remain in the realm of "jargon." There are more than a few mechanical faults in the book. Some are merely distracting spelling or typographic errors. Others, such as the idiosyncratic spelling of "heros," and the greater frequency of errors toward the end of the book, suggest a lack of attention to detail that detracts from the potential impact as it raises questions about other, unnoticed items. In sum, the "communication and politics of everyday life" defines employee responsibilities and rights. The "politics" of a society, be it governmental or economic, should not be overpowered by a "Politics" that values efficiency over participation. Managerialism inhibits participation without enhancing efficiency. Participation in decision making is both a communicative and a democratic re-

Book Review

155

sponsibility and right. All who profess concern for these interests should understand this perspective. H. L. Ewbank

Department of Communication University of Arizona Tucson, Arizona 85721