Haynes, John

English

AIS Electronic Library (AISeL)

Association for Information SystemsAIS Electronic Library (AISeL)AMCIS 2001 Proceedings Americas Conference on Information Systems(AMCIS)December 2001Philosophical Foundations of a Dialectical Analysisas a Research Methodology: Transformation of theSelf in Hegel's DialecticJohn HaynesUniversal College of LearningFollow this and additional works at: http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2001This material is brought to you by the Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS) at AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). It has been acceptedfor inclusion in AMCIS 2001 Proceedings by an authorized administrator of AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). For more information, please contactelibrary@aisnet.org.Recommended CitationHaynes, John, "Philosophical Foundations of a Dialectical Analysis as a Research Methodology: Transformation of the Self in Hegel'sDialectic" (2001). AMCIS 2001 Proceedings. 383.http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2001/3832001  Seventh Americas Conference on Information Systems 1987PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATIONS OF A DIALECTICAL ANALYSISAS A RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:  TRANSFORMATIONOF THE SELF IN HEGELS DIALECTICJohn D. HaynesUniversal College of Learningj.haynes@ucol.ac.nzAbstractIf Hegels Dialectic is to be the subject of a research methodology then it is critical to understand what Hegelmeant by his Dialectic. Insofar as Hegel articulates his Dialectic superficially as thesis, antithesis and synthesishe had a much broader and urgent viewing in mind. The thesis, antithesis and synthesis functions as the surfacelevel of the deeper process under which the self is transformed. Once this is understood then Hegels Dialecticcan contribute as a research methodology in a profoundly more penetrating way.IntroductionFor Hegel the Self is the Spirit that knows itself and knows its outer appearance, the conscious self, which in turn is characterisedby the personality. But it is this very relation between the Self and the conscious self that is the real conflict of life. This conflictarises because the Self, as distinct from the conscious self, is not conditioned by the ego (or personality). The ego is concernedwith the immediate gratification of (conscious self) perceived needs, whereas the Self is focused upon Self conceived matters ofdestiny (and its design) that it can only bring into being (real-ise) via the conscious self. The same conflict arises but is playedout in a different context (with its own consequent terminology) in Heidegger’s Being (Self) and being (inauthentic self)[Heidegger, 1977, 1987] or the upshot of Heidegger’s distinction between Essential Thinking and Calculative Thinking[Heidegger, 1975], [Haynes, 1999] or the implications of Heidegger’s sense of the “final epoch which he called the ‘Technologicalunderstanding of being’ ” [Dreyfus and Spinosa, 1997, p1] and, Nietzsche’s Artistic Thinking (Form)  and Scientific Thinking(content) [Nietzsche, 1968]. Once this conflict between the Self and conscious self is, by stages, resolved – as a result of the egodiminishing – then the self is on the journey of undergoing the process of transformation. The transformation is gradual and eachcycle of synthesis brings the life closer to the ultimate goal of complete transforming (as, in Hegel’s terms, a “historical process”).The Thesis, Antithesis and Synthesis constitute the surface level operation for this transformation. Consider the following passagefrom Hegels Phenomenology of Spirit [Hegel, 1977, p 29]:The Spirit of this world is a spiritual essence that is permeated by a self-consciousness which knows itself, andknows the essence as an actuality confronting it.  But the existence of this world, as also the actuality of self-consciousness, rests on the process in which the latter divests itself of its personality, thereby creating its world.This concentration on the surface level of Hegel, which can be construed as the ‘deconstruction of Hegel’, arises in the DialecticalAnalysis as a Research Methodology (DARM) literature because opinions on Hegel are taken second-hand (what we could referto as ‘Handed-Hegels Analysis as a Research Methodology’ – HARM). In the DARM literature, the HARM is clearly evident,firstly, because appropriate passages or texts of Hegel are almost always absent, and secondly, because any considered opinionon what Hegel “really meant” is omitted. Certainly there will be disagreement among philosophers (and others) on “what Hegelreally meant”, but even this disagreement is unacknowledged. It is simply assumed that what appears in the DARM literature onwhat constitutes Hegel’s Dialectic is sufficient. Consider now a summary position from a seminal paper representing the literatureon Dialectical Analysis as a Research Methodology in the following passage from Andrew Van De Ven and Marshall Poole [Vande Ven and Poole, 1995, p 2]:Theoretical Foundations and Research Methods1988 2001  Seventh Americas Conference on Information SystemsIn dialectical models of development, conflicts emerge between entities espousing opposing thesis andantithesis that collide to produce a synthesis, which in time becomes the thesis for the next cycle of a dialecticalprogression. Confrontation and conflict between opposing entities generate this dialectical cycle.The Existing Treatment of Hegels DialecticThe DARM literature never gets to the deeper sense of Hegel’s Dialectic and hence its capacity as a research methodology isaccordingly restricted. Consider a further quotation from Van de Ven and Poole [Van de Ven and Poole, 1995, p 8,9]:A third school, dialectical theory, begins with the Hegelian assumption that the organizational entity exists ina pluralistic world of colliding events, forces, or contradictory values that compete with each other fordomination and control. These oppositions may be internal to an organizational entity because it may haveseveral conflicting goals or interest groups competing for priority. Also, oppositions may be external to theorganizational entity as it pursues directions that collide with the direction of other organizations. In any case,a dialectical theory requires two or more distinct entities that embody these oppositions to confront and engageone another in conflict. In a dialectical process theory, stability and change are explained by reference to thebalance of power between opposing entities. Struggles and accommodations that maintain the status quobetween oppositions produce stability. Change occurs when these opposing values, forces, or events gainsufficient power to confront and engage the status quo. The relative power of an antithesis may mobilize anorganizational entity to a sufficient degree to challenge the current thesis or state of affairs and set the stage forproducing a synthesis. So, for example, an entity subscribing to a thesis (A) may be challenged by an opposingentity with an antithesis (Not-A), and the resolution of the conflict produces a synthesis (which is Not Not-A).Over time, this synthesis can become the new thesis as the dialectical process continues. By its very nature, thesynthesis is a novel construction that departs from both the thesis and antithesis. However, there is no assurancethat dialectical conflicts produce creative syntheses. Sometimes an opposition group mobilizes sufficient powerto simply overthrow and replace the status quo. Thus, also, many organizations persist by maintaining sufficientpower to suppress and prevent the mobilization of opposition groups. In the bargaining and conflictmanagement literature, the desired creative synthesis is one that represents a win-win solution, whereas eitherthe maintenance of the thesis or its replacement with an antithesis is often treated as a win-lose outcome of aconflict engagement (Neal & Northcraft, 1991). In terms of organizational change, maintenance of the statusquo represents stability, but its replacement with either the antithesis or the synthesis represents a change, forthe better or worse.The Deeper Sense of Hegels DialecticLet us now consider a number of assertions in the above passage that can be reviewed in the light of the deeper sense of Hegel’sDialectic:1. However, there is no assurance that the dialectical conflicts produce creative syntheses;2. Many organizations persist by maintaining sufficient power to suppress and prevent the mobilization of opposition groups;3. In the bargaining and conflict management literature, the desired creative synthesis is one that represents a win-win solution,whereas either the maintenance of the thesis or its replacement with an antithesis is often treated as a win-lose outcome ofa conflict engagement;4. In terms of organizational change, maintenance of the status quo represents stability, but its replacement with either theantithesis or the synthesis represents a change, for better or worse.No Assurances of Creative SynthesesJean-Phillipe Milet in “Experience as Technique of the Self” [Milet, 1995, p 1] points out that “a savoir ... has the character of‘knowing how to proceed’, of familiar surety; but, also, .. in the sense of the surety of knowledge which is exposed to the necessityof adjustments and re-adjustments to which the facticity of existence constrains the [S]elf, that is, to the possibility of accidents”.In other words, from Milet we can see that the Self (which only has experience – i.e., its appearance via the conscious self – astechnique) is in no need of the conscious self in relation to, in our terms, designing a destiny. The conscious self is necessary inorder to will its (Self) destiny into being, but the caution is that the conscious self is accident prone. The Self to which Hegel refersHaynes/Transformation of the Self2001  Seventh Americas Conference on Information Systems 1989as Spirit, is that which our conscious self sees as the “good in us”, as our conscience, as our essence, or in deeper personal sensesas our Being, in short, to what we all regard as our intuition (at whatever level of deepness we care to follow this). The consciousself re-acts to and pre-judges events in the world. It is little wonder that the conscious self gets into situations of conflict and the‘possibility of accidents’. The Self, our conscience, or sense of goodness - our Spirit according to Hegel - is what we already are.Our conscious self is what We (the essential ‘we’) are not. Yet as human beings we persist in trying to change what we are not,rather than in letting ourselves be what we already are.  There are always assurances of creative “syntheses” when the groupundergoing change ‘is of one mind’. According to the deeper sense of Hegel’s Dialectic the conflict does not go on at the levelof the conscious selves of the participants, but at the individual level of conscious self and Self. Once that is resolved among themembers of the group then there is a “creative solution”. If the group is being ‘scientific or objective’ then this is symptomaticof the conscious self’s assertion for power. If the conflict arises out of this so-called ‘objectivity’ then that is also symptomaticof the conscious self. You may ask how else is it possible. A ‘philosophical’ approach is the one that resolves the conflict withinthe individual first. Once this conflict is resolved then the planning (as intuition) can proceed. This is what I believe C WestChurchman (in Thought and Wisdom) meant when he said [Churchman, 1982, p 53]:Because I had a growing uneasiness about the planner’s role in society, I invented a fourth group in additionto clients, decision makers, and planners, which I called ‘system philosophers’. These were people who wereinterested in designing the role of systems planners.… In the first place they reject the idea that system’splanners are “scientific” and “objective” and therefore people whose advice should automatically be followedby decision makers.Power Against Opposition GroupsWith a resolution of the conflict of conscious self and Self at the individual level, for a particular group required decision, in otherwords, with the implementation of a ‘philosophical approach’, the group is no longer seen as an opposition group, but rather asa group ‘researching a question’ and providing a creative solution.Win-Lose Outcome of Conflict Engagement, and Synthesis as Change for Better or WorseWith a ‘philosophical approach’, no longer are engagements seen in scientific terms as “on or off”; ‘win or lose’, ‘better or worse’,but rather as contributions that may or may not be appropriate in terms of the possibilities of resourced implementation.ConclusionIn this brief paper, we have attempted to articulate the essence of a field that Heidegger for one, in almost all of his extensivepublished work over his entire lifetime worked upon, namely an expression and elaboration of the ground of Being. What we haveattempted to cover is the deeper sense of Hegel’s Dialectic and to bring its implications to bear, foundationally, upon currentconceptions of assumptions upon which Hegel’s Dialectical Analysis as a Research Methodology rest. This paper has restricteditself to those philosophical foundations. Further research will centre on how this new understanding of “the conflict” can be usedto analyse the conflict nature of IT enabled organisational change.ReferencesProvided provided upon request.

Philosophical Foundations of a Dialectical Analysis as a Research Methodology: Transformation of the Self in Hegel\u27s Dialectic

https://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1822&amp;context=amcis2001

Philosophical Foundations of a Dialectical Analysis as a Research Methodology: Transformation of the Self in Hegel\u27s Dialectic

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

AIS Electronic Library (AISeL)