TSElosophers

Turun kauppakorkeakoulun tieteenfilosofinen kerho

Alike ants and termites – what if it’s our sociality, not our selfishness, that is to blame?

27.10.2025 / / 0 Comments

Article:

Agriculture as a major evolutionary transition to human ultrasociality, John Gowdy, Lisi Krall, Journal of Bioeconomics (2014) 16:179–202

TSElosopher discussants:

Albrecht Becker, Annika Hasselblad, Kari Lukka, Michiru Nagatsu, Ari Nieminen, Mia Salo, Marja Turunen, Milla Unkila

Article summary

What made us humans collectively, in a relatively short timespan, opt for an agricultural lifestyle instead of the hunting and gathering lifestyle? How did this end up making human collectives the ultrasocial superorganisms we currently inhabit? Was this transformation due to the unique intelligence of humans, or can a more compelling explanation be found when looking at evolutionary biology? This quandary, also known as the Neolithic Revolution, is the starting point for the present reading. The authors draw answers from the multilevel selection theory proposing that humanity shares an intriguing feature with ants and termites – at some point in our evolution, the evolution leaped from the individual level to the collective level. Drawing parallels of the specialized, hierarchical, militant and farming focused social organization between ants, termites, and humans, the authors suggest that the surplus producing tendencies in humans are less due to agentic choices than they are a result of evolutionary imperatives aimed at favoring the group instead of the individual.

Our discussion

Considering that in the age-old debate of nature vs nurture, most TSElosophers can be found either solidly spanning the divide in a Giddensian fashion or prone to digging trenches on the side of nurture, this paper seeking explanations from the side of nature could have been received more critically. Instead, we found it thought-provoking – especially as many of us are used to calling for more prosocial behavior. While TSElosophers were not happy with the limited explicit focus of the paper on the drastic ecological consequences of the human lifestyle in the described ultrasocial superorganisms, the striking inference from the paper’s analysis that our current environmental calamities may actually stem from our ultrasociality, not from our selfishness, provided a refreshing twist to our typical way of thinking. If our ability to collaborate is not the cure but the cause of the ailment, where do we go from here?

Naturally, the discussion did not flow without its discords. The paper is based on the widely shared premise that evolution cannot predict, nor contemplate. Given this, the authors could not quite convincingly explain how agriculture could become dominant, given that in the short term, the lifespan of people got shorter and the productivity per working hour decreased. It was also pointed out that the authors did not discuss the mechanisms of the social organization at any depth, making no qualitative distinctions of how organizing is achieved – instead of looking at why any group would become a community, they were content to note external (and maybe even superficial) similarities between the three species. It was also pointed out that a deeper definition of a species’ “success” was largely missing, replaced instead by the amount of biomass of the respective species. Also, the notion of domination is quite different between our insect friends and us humans: Where the insects, despite having been able to multiply admirably, have spread around the globe without wreaking total havoc on the ecosystems in which they live, our human domination looks, unfortunately, quite different.

One proposed explanation is the link missing in this article. In the case of ants and termites, the group-level evolution is purely driven by biology and thus proceeds at the pace of the biological evolution of the other species cohabiting a given ecosystem. Thus, the other species co-evolve, maintaining a balance between the ants/termites and the rest of the ecosystem. Also, a negative feedback mechanism seems to exist: As the population of a species gets bigger, more individuals behave in a ‘selfish’ manner, thereby reducing its population growth and giving room for other species to co-exist (Yamamichi et al. 2020).

In the case of humans, our evolution happened to equip us with a brain that not only enables us to collaborate on tangible things (“there’s a deer”, “let’s shelter here”, “how about making a baby”), but also to orient our collaboration towards abstract, and even imaginary things (“let’s build a temple to this god”, “let’s set up a start-up and become rich”). Due to our storytelling – and storybelieving – abilities, our evolution has, for the past 12 000 years, harnessed mass-scale coordination and cooperation through culture and technology, thus outpacing the purely biological evolution evidenced in other species. No potentially balancing species managed to keep up with us.

An interesting detail was mentioned: The elephants have better memory than humans, at least in the sense that the former ground their actions firmly in their physical reality. Our memory, in turn, is quite fallible. Could it be that exactly because we cannot remember reality, we are so reliant on our imagination, and as we rely on it more and more, we actually live not only in the environment (umwelt), but also within our experienced world (welt) and thus can ignore the effects our actions have on the physical reality as we pursue the imaginary ones?

Embedded in the article was the idea that the growth imperative somehow follows automatically from the shift in the evolutionary level from individual to group. Instead of orienting actions towards what suffices, the group efforts are aimed at producing surplus. While the article is not explicit regarding the link from seeking surplus to the growth imperative, we wondered whether this might be the intended ratio: As farming mandates sedentary life, which in turn makes it more difficult to wander far searching for additional sustenance, in the case of a bad harvest or other contrary conditions, access to a stocked larder becomes essential. We, however, were left wondering whether this simple explanation really suffices in explaining the immensity of the growth imperative – especially considering that humanity made a similar leap from better to worse individual lifestyles again at the start of the industrial revolution. Then the growth imperative was not oriented to better stocked larders but to a general drive for more of more of nearly everything.

To summarize, the best aspects of the article were the questions it made us think about, not necessarily their answers. This was also featured in the ending of the paper: Instead of the habitual uplifting final recommendations of how to go about solving stuff based on the stuff uncovered in the paper, the authors took, again, a counterintuitive turn. In discussing the future avenues, they simply state: “We might consider that evolution is not without its unsuccessful experiments.”  Whether we’re determined to live out this unsuccessful experiment or whether we have not only the free will but also the inclination to revert the current trajectory, remains to be seen – and discussed probably also in future TSElosophers meetings…

Reference:

Yamamichi, M., Kyogoku, D., Iritani, R., Kobayashi, K., Takahashi, Y., Tsurui-Sato, K., Yamawo, A., Dobata, S., Tsuji, K., & Kondoh, M. (2020). Intraspecific Adaptation Load: A Mechanism for Species Coexistence. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 35(10), 897–907. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2020.05.011

The dangers of AI in research – “I want to own my craft”

26.05.2025 / / 0 Comments

TSElosophers meeting on 19 May 2025

Participants: Albrecht Becker, Annika Hasselblad, Samu Kantola, Kari Lukka, Nicolas Balcom Raleigh, Marja Turunen

Reading

Bechky, B. A., & Davis, G. F. (2024). Resisting the Algorithmic Management of Science: Craft and Community After Generative AI. Administrative Science Quarterly, 00018392241304403. https://doi.org/10.1177/00018392241304403

Summary

In this essay, Bechky and Davis (2025) discuss their worries in the face of the emerging generative AI tools that are introduced into a context characterised by increasing algorithmic management of research and universities. Digitalisation has already enabled, on the one hand, a ‘Cambrian explosion’ in the number of journals and journal articles and, on the other hand, an infrastructure and culture of stressing the quantitative understanding of research output and quality, deepening the publish-or-perish culture and the ensuing dominance of instrumentalism. Generative AI amplifies, Bechky and Davis argue, and accelerates these developments: “generative AI threatens not just to manage our work by algorithms but to have algorithms do the work itself” (p. 3). This further undermines the two pillars of scholarship: craft in doing research and community as the constitutive context of research activities. Bechky and Davis discuss possible strategies to preserve, or bring back, scholarship, including revitalising scholarship as a craft in our everyday doings and specifically in educating early career researchers. They also emphasize upholding the ideal of scholarship in our communities, e.g., in hiring, evaluation, reviewing, and editorial activities.

Discussion

In the discussion, TSElosophers fundamentally agreed with the analysis of Bechky and Davis (2025). Their worries connected to many earlier discussions in different TSElosophers meetings. They also see the threat to scholarship increasing due to the danger of AI tools in the context of the publish-or-perish culture, driving out deep thinking and deep reading. Some notable statements argued that using AI tools “violates community” and leads to the feeling of “not owning my craft” as a researcher. However, some also argued that the essay undervalues positive aspects of AI, such as its potential to democratise publishing or relieve us of “dirty work”. We concluded, however, that the authors probably saw the well-known functional potential of AI as a matter of course and, therefore, left it without mention.

Probably not surprising, a part of the discussion centred around pressures of the publish-or-perish culture, lack of time, and the seductiveness of turning towards generative AI tools in this situation. Its statements’ seeming authoritativeness, constant availability, and eternal friendliness may be especially seductive. Another strand of the discussion on publish-or-perish was about Goodhart’s law. While some stated that it is important to reflect the conditions under which a performance measure turning target becomes dysfunctional, others saw it as an inherent dilemma to need measures that unavoidably become targets and thus dysfunctional.

When discussing the strategies of preserving craft, community, and scholarship in the face of generative AI, TSElosophers concluded that most of the suggestions were not surprising and wondered if they have the potential to fend off the threats. We more deeply discussed, first, the role of individual responsibilities. While it is clear that even a systemic issue in social systems can be changed through actions of individuals, in the case of academia, senior researchers must carry the larger load. Secondly, we discussed evaluation processes. In this context, one of us mentioned that they do not favour overly long publication lists; rather, they are a bit suspicious about scholarly quality if there are too many publications produced in a short time. For early career researchers, it would be helpful to hear such views from senior researchers personally. The same holds for the third strategy we discussed and which Bechky and Davis term “shadow CV”: senior academics sharing not only success stories but also the often tedious and dispiriting journeys towards such successes as well as failures. Again, early career researchers feel that this is helpful. One of us reported on a group of PhD students sharing issues and problems among themselves, but they think that “sharing across hierarchical levels” would be specifically helpful.

The unbearable difficulty of scholarly debates

31.03.2025 / / 0 Comments

TSElosophers meeting on 21 March 2025

Participants: Albrecht Becker, Samu Kantola, Kari Lukka, Ari Nieminen, Mia Salo, Milla Unkila

Reading

Suddaby, R. (2024) What theory is, what theory was: Whence and whither theory. Organization Theory, 5:4.

Suggested supplementary reading: Abend, G. (2008) The meaning of ‘theory’. Organization Theory, 26:2.

Summary

Suddaby (2024) is a response to and critique of both Abend (2008) and Abend (2023) simultaneously. He claims that Abend is against conceptual clarity, arguing for its importance in many ways. Suddaby also claims that Abend misuses pragmatism in the (alleged) dismissal by the latter of theory and theorizing. Further, Suddaby claims that Abend is ahistorical and has an outdated understanding of what ‘theory’ means in organization studies today. It is easy to buy Suddaby’s key arguments: We need conceptual clarity in research; pragmatism is not an atheoretical stream of thought; and epistemology has certainly become more accommodative since the days of ancient Greeks. However, it is surprisingly unclear how Suddaby so aggressively claims Abend’s thinking would be different in these regards. Finally, and very importantly, Suddaby (2024) completely bypasses even mentioning the key worry of Abend (2008): There are several meanings of ‘theory’ in organization studies, hampering scholarly communication. Hence, Abend argues, something should be done about it, i.e., we need conceptual clarity.

Discussion

This discussion of TSElosophers was generally deeply confused: Some members had read or at least glanced at one of the targets of Suddaby’s critique, the paper by Abend from 2008. Unfortunately, nobody had accessed the other target, Abend’s book from 2023. The group anticipated that as Suddaby was explicitly targeting both these texts of Abend as a bundle, it should be sufficient to be familiar with what Abend argued in 2008. This assumption was likely, at least partially, erroneous, as is explained below.

Considering just Suddaby (2024) and Abend (2008), there is good reason to be confused: Suddaby’s critique seems to be largely missing the target, not least as a reader could well conclude that he and Abend, for the most part, agree. Suddaby’s critique claiming that Abend is dismissing conceptual clarity seems completely unwarranted as the main worry of Abend (2008) is precisely the lack of conceptual clarity in organization studies! Also, Suddaby’s claims that Abend (2008) has misunderstood the view of pragmatism regarding theory or being generally ahistorical seem strange. TSElosophers generally wondered why Suddaby was so critical of Abend in the first place.

When this blog post was drafted, none of the TSElosophers had still got access to Abend’s book (2023). However, one TSElosopher, during our meeting, found the response text by Abend, published in 2024. Reading Abend (2024) made it clear that there must be quite a difference between Abend (2008) and Abend (2023). Abend (2024) likely stresses much more than Abend (2008) the extremely inclusive democratic process as a solution to the current conceptual ambiguity. TSElosophers generally shared Abend’s worry, but given the general confused sentiment at the meeting, we never got far in discussing the solution that Abend put forth. A notable cause of the confusion was that Suddaby (2024) bundled the two texts of Abend (2008) and (2023) as the target of his critique, while this choice likely does not hold water.

One learning point from this session is that TSElosophers should pay more attention to the scope of the debates chosen to be discussed at their meetings. This time, the scope was too narrow, which made the discussion situation complex and unhelpful. That said, in the words of one TSElosopher, the meeting was anyhow nice to have, given how seldom we have chances to lead such open discussions as are typical of the TSElosophers’ meetings.

Abend, G. (2023) Words and distinctions for the common good. Princeton University Press

Abend, G. (2024) Democratizing social scientists’ words and distinctions: Where and why moral reasons are decisive. Organization Theory, 5:4.

Known problems tackled with ecological realism?

10.02.2025 / / 0 Comments

TSElosophers meeting on 3 February 2025

Participants: Albrecht Becker, Annika Hasselblad, Samu Kantola, Erkki Lassila, Kari Lukka, Ari Nieminen, Mia Salo, Milla Unkila

Reading: Domination, Power, Supremacy: Confronting Anthropolitics with Ecological Realism

Toni Ruuska, Pasi Heikkurinen and Kristoffer Wilén, Sustainability 2020, 12, 2617; doi:10.3390/su12072617

Summary

Anthropocene is caused by anthropolitics – systems of power built on the notion of human supremacy that enable the domination of non-humans and a mass of humans by a smaller group of humans. The article traces the foundations and premises of anthropolitics grounded on a specific version of humanism, discusses the merits and deficits of post-humanist approaches as solutions to future social organizing, and introduces ecological realism as an alternative theoretical frame that could underpin the formulation of genuinely sustainable societies.

Our discussion

This was one of the articles that divided the Tselosophers into two camps. Many of us applauded the clear and understandable articulation of the complex past trajectories that have brought us to the brink (and over?) of the current environmental calamities and admired the courage of the scholars to not only weave together the many strands of the problems but also to take a step further and suggest future possibilities. Others, in turn, stated that the depiction of the problems was nothing new – after all, we have at least 50 years known that human actions are destroying the globe – and that at least some of the seven suggested solutions for future societies were questionable to the extent of some reading even as naïve, especially as the authors made no mention of how to reach the desired end states.

This point triggered discussion: indeed, there has been ample discussion of the root causes of the current problems. However, it is not the novel knowledge on any of the single themes outlined in the article that creates value but the drawing of the bigger picture, here labelled as anthropolitics, that is fresh. After all, the current scholarly mechanisms do not support integrative approaches, making it very difficult to understand the amalgamated mess of human choices responsible for the problems. The fans of the article also noted that while the issues have been pointed out, too few attempts have been made to paint possible images of the principles that could underpin future societies and the lack of any visions of the potential directions makes it impossible to move towards them – we would sorely need goals to try to figure out how to get there.

Of the seven suggested solutions, especially decentralization and detechnologization were contested. Considering the global scope of the problems, it was pondered whether a local turn would be a beneficial direction to address them. In terms of technology, some of us accepted that to stop the overshoot, we would need, first of all, to move away from our energy dependence, which would naturally lead to less available technology, whereas some others were more hopeful as regards technology being at least a part of some solutions.

A theme that spawned most discussion was the perception of human agency, especially as it relates to the question of whether we need to see humans as qualitatively different from other species to hold them responsible for their negative impacts or whether it is possible to detach responsibility from the concept of agency. The concern with the latter position is this: As we all accept that humans have no more value than other living beings, should we think that humans are similar to other animals to the extent where our agency – as understood to include responsibility – is not a unique feature, but our effects on the planet are merely a question of scope and scale? If so, that could leave a way out of the responsibility of us humans: We can always shrug and say that as we don’t blame other animals for exhibiting species-typical behavior, neither should we humans be blamed for our respective features. However, some of us do not want to leave that loophole and instead argue that while non-humans do have an equal value to humans, there is a qualitative difference in humans – that is, our ability to conscious intentionality – which has resulted, among other things, in our destructive actions. These TSElosophers believe that agency is a combination of responsibility and intentionality, not something that can be reduced to merely causing effects, which is something each human and non-human, living and non-living entity, in any case, is involved with.

There were several other themes mentioned but not dug deeply into, too. For example, we noted that while the authors discuss the conceptualization of human agency underpinning anthropolitics (e.g., will to power), they did not elaborate on a conceptualization of human agency that could underpin ecological realism and responsibility for the planet. Additionally, we pondered the distinction between the notion of hybridism when discussing post-humanism and parts vs. the whole when discussing ecological realism, wondering what precisely was the point of the authors for differentiating them. This contemplation led to a vivid discussion on the notion of agency in ANT (arguably one version of hybridism) and to what extent the principle of symmetry inherent in ANT helps deal with the question of responsibility for the effects actors produce.

Overall, this article proved a fruitful starting point for a rich discussion, and had the time not limited the discussion, it could have taken us to many additional directions now left unexplored.

Cultivating the attitude of wonder: Philosophy and organization studies

04.12.2024 / / 0 Comments

TSElosophers meeting on 26th November 2024.

Participants: Erkki Lassila, Kari Lukka, Ari Nieminen, Minna-Liina Ojala, Otto Rosendahl, Mia Salo, Milla Unkila

Reading: Introduction to the Special Issue on Philosophy and Organization Studies: How Does Philosophy Illuminate the Study of Organizations? Tsoukas, H., Sandberg, J., Fayard, A-L. & Zundel, M. (2024) Organization Studies, 45(9), 1229–1251.

Summary

The aim of this introductory article is to promote and offer means for a more philosophically oriented approach to organization studies. The authors argue that philosophical inquiry concerning the meta-theoretical level of research along with philosophical intuition are needed to question extant closures of meaning, and to propose new ways of seeing and theorizing organizational phenomena, as well as the world more broadly. In addition to identifying common conceptual traps Tsoukas, Sandberg, Fayard, and Zundel also propose four ways in which philosophy can inform organizational studies: (1) Cultivating the attitude of wonder where the emphasis is on “letting the phenomena of interest reveal their own be-ing”; (2) Questioning received images of thought, that is, putting effort on evaluating our own thinking and theories we use; (3) Enabling new images of thought for theory development, where philosophical inquiry permits generating novel conceptual distinctions and thus theorizing; (4) Philosophy helps us think critically about organization and management as a ‘problem’. For example, through philosophical inquiry, we can “problematize the pervasiveness of a market logic in the context of social issues”. To conclude, the authors introduce the featured articles of the Special Issue.

Our discussion

TSElosophers found this article important, well-structured, and necessary, even though it somewhat echoes the themes that the authors have described in their previous papers, such as Tsoukas & Chia (2011). Most of all, we considered this piece a kind of wake-up call for organizational scholars to stop and think as to what kind of research each of us is conducting and how well that matches with what scholarly research should arguably be all about – for instance, most certainly not only about ‘getting published’!

Surely, we had a lively discussion. To start with, we particularly appreciated the emphasis on the importance of philosophical inquiry, that is, the meta-theoretical level of study and its legitimacy as a research approach in our field. Likewise, articulating how the development of basic scientific concepts relies on philosophical intuition is most likely a useful reminder for many. One important aspect of the possibilities of the philosophical inquiry is that it does not need to limit itself to the factual but instead can also enter the realm of the ethical. From the perspective of “an evaluative organization science” or “humanist science” (Selznick), theorizing through philosophical inquiry is necessary. Indeed, we warmly recommend this article for those organization scholars who are interested in using philosophical inquiry to generate new conceptualizations and theories.

Many of us, while reading the article, had paid attention to the frequently used term ‘closure of meaning’, which was also metaphorically depicted through Wittgenstein’s ‘fly-bottle’. The closure of meaning denotes that “specific ways of investigating the world become unquestioned and accepted as true”. We were amused by our idea of numerous (fly-)bottles in a ‘sea of reality’, where researchers jump from one bottle to another as they adopt new ways of doing research. We also decided to be hopeful that with these jumps, the ‘sight’ of science and organizational studies, for that matter, will improve. Importantly and paradoxically, as researchers, we both need these domain-specific closures of meaning or nomological networks in our research and, similarly, we ought to see beyond them at times. As Hines (1988) put it, a way of seeing is also a way of not seeing. In the paper, this dilemma was also exemplified by a movement between presence and absence – a pair of concepts whose usefulness and meaning, in general, we ended up debating.

One thing that also caught our attention was that the authors do not explicitly mention the term ‘performativity’ at all. Instead, the notion of ‘becoming’ appears numerous times. For one of us, their meanings appear similar, while a few others suggested there are notable differences. The latter turned out not that simple to articulate, however, partly due to the time limitation. Nevertheless, already during the discussion, it became evident that ‘becoming’ is the broader and more general notion of the two – but it also came to the fore how the conceptual meaning of ‘performativity’ obviously needs further thought. Hence, we concluded that philosophical inquiry is certainly needed!

Overall, we really enjoyed this paper – even though some of us were a little surprised that the authors relied heavily on the ideas of one key philosopher, namely Alfred Whitehead. That said, this can perhaps be quite easily excused when Haridimos Tsoukas features in the author team: Several of his prior works lean heavily on the process philosophy approach to organization studies.

References:
Tsoukas, H. & Chia, R. (2011) Introduction: Why philosophy matters to organization theory. In (Eds.) Tsoukas, H. & Chia, R. Philosophy and Organization Theory. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Volume 32, 1–21. Emerald Group Publishing Limited 2011.
Hines, R. D. (1988). Financial accounting. In communicating reality, we construct reality. Accounting, Organizations and Society. Vol. 13, No. 3, 251–261.

Resisting naked instrumentalism through a series of seminars

03.05.2024 / / 0 Comments

TSElosophers meeting on 3 May 2024. Participants: Joonas Uotinen, Kari Lukka, Otto Rosendahl

Reading: “The value of research activities “other than” publishing articles: Reflections on an experimental workshop series” by Chahed, J., Charnock, R., Du Rietz Sahlström, S., Lennon, N.J., Palermo, T., Parisi, C., Pflueger, D., Sundström, A., Toh, D., and Yu, L.

Summary

Content-wise, the paper revolves around inherent tensions embedded in the ‘other than’ publishing-oriented activities, given the current Publish or Perish era in the academe. In this case, the ‘other than’ refers to a series of seminars a group of Early Career Researchers (ECRs) ran over eight years. One tension is keeping the attendance active, which they managed to do reasonably well.

Another tension was on what grounds to motivate the invitation of a series of senior, very influential scholars to participate in the seminars, as they might bring with them academic hierarchy and pecking order, inclining to somewhat restrict the freedom of speech of the ECRs. There were obvious pros in doing this, however, many of them very practical, like getting a local influential patron or catalysing active attendance. On the other hand, the paper admits how some element of hierarchy was infused into the meant-to-be democratic and open discussions.

A further tension is the very write-up of this paper – and trying and getting it published. The authors admit there is some irony here, but they also defend this choice arguing that this only tells how any ‘other than’ activity is eventually connected to publishing. TSElosophers found the of writing this paper a sound idea, since how else could the word of such activity be effectively spread – and the wider academia should know!

Discussion

TSElosophers were very sympathetic towards the activities underlying this paper, a time-wise long series of seminars, featured by an intention to avoid being driven by mere interest in publishing. This means respecting the age-old academic virtue of open dialogue on all kinds of things, with as little external conditions as possible. The underlying idea is hence to resist the overwhelming tendencies to acting instrumentally in the academe. This reminded the TSElosophers of the series of activities of their own, having a history going back to 2017. A distinctive feature of the paper is that the list of authors is very long for an accounting paper, which nicely echoes the aspect of distributed knowledge, prominent in the paper. The paper is written from the perspective of ECRs, not least given that the invitees were ECRs when the seminar series started in 2013.

We found the paper as very nicely crafted as well as easy to read. It also indicated a good ability to be reflective regarding the process that the group of ECRs had gone through over a longer period with the help of the seminars. The Jasanoff notion of “technologies of humility” was used as a sensitizing method theory, which we found fitting and helpful. The paper was, however, perhaps not so exciting regarding its take-aways, which was likely since it actually lacked a strong substantive motivation. TSElosophers felt this added to the element of irony of the paper somewhat, given the idealistic starting point of the project. Somebody with a skeptic stance might see the paper written without due scholarly need for it, for the sake of just getting something published from the seminar series.

That said, the paper was anyway a very good facilitator for our discussion on numerous themes, including how separate the processes of free discussion and publishing are (or should be); the various motivations for the senior scholars to participate in the seminars for ECRs, including strengthening of their own research community (‘tribe’) and identifying and screening off new candidates for open positions at their departments. We also discussed aspects relating to the theme of what kind of power processes could be ongoing at and around the seminars – and which kinds of them their arrangement attempted or managed to avoid.

Overall, we found the paper offering TSElosophers a very nice basis for the discussion at our May 2024 meeting.

Is critique of capitalism regarding sustainability a viable strategy?

28.02.2024 / / 0 Comments

TSElosophers meeting on 28.2.2024. Participants: Albrecht Becker, Behnam Pourahmadi, Erkki Lassila, Kari Lukka, Mia Salo, Milla Unkila, Otto Rosendahl

Readings

Bigoni, M., & Mohammed, S. (2023). Critique is unsustainable: A polemic. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 102555.

Husillos, J. (2023). Is critique sustainable? A commentary on Bigoni and Mohammed. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 102603.

Tweedie, J. (2023). If critique is unsustainable, what is Left? A commentary on Bigoni and Mohammed. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 102597.

Summary

The target for our discussion was a recent debate in Critical Perspectives on Accounting, commenced by the polemic piece by Michele Bigoni & Sideeq Mohammed. They present a clear, strongly formulated argument as for how capitalism has the capacity to accommodate all critique as part of its own agenda of seeking profits and constant economic growth, thereby running an indefinite exploitation of all production factors. Hence critique concerning, for instance, ecological sustainability will eventually be always ineffective. Bigoni & Mohammed argue their reasoning is based on the works of Marx and Deleuze & Guattari. In the same issue of Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Javier Husillos and Jonny Tweedie comment on the piece by Bigoni & Mohammed, making the set of readings an exciting set as a whole.

Discussion

TSElosophers developed a most lively and many-sided discussion based on this debate forum. Even though we had certain issues regarding each of the three pieces, we generally very much welcomed this kind of strongly formulated texts, focusing on the extremely serious issues that the Anthropocene has caused on the life on planet Earth. While the three pieces were formally framed in the context of critical accounting research, we took all of them as bearing relevance regarding critical social studies research overall.

As for Bigoni & Mohammed, one of the most significant worries relates to their peculiar reading of Marx. For Bigoni & Mohammed, capitalism presents the ‘galvanized’ end state of affairs, while for Marx this was only an intermediate condition, to be eventually followed by communism. Another issue related to the question whether the economic arrangement, be that capitalism or communism or whatever, really is the root cause for our serious troubles relating to sustainability. The 20th century counter model of capitalism, ‘communism’ or rather ‘actually existing socialism’, has also led to serious, ruthless exploitation of all production factors, not least nature. TSElosophers controversially discussed if the root cause rather is an inherent way of human life, especially our strong tendency for opportunism, making it difficult to find effective routes for the needed major turnaround that would be urgently needed.

Regarding the piece by Javier Husillos, it was a pity it was nearly completely decoupled from the key messages of Bigoni & Mohammed. Husillos only contests (on the second page) whether capitalism really is such a perfectly functioning (in its own terms) ‘machine’ after all. Otherwise, Husillos turns his piece to commenting how the disadvantaged and indigenous people play too little role in critical accounting research and suggest some ways out through a set of questions. This is a most fair concern as such, but confuses the discussion kicked off by Bigoni & Mohammed: The theme was supposed to be primarily ecological sustainability, not social sustainability. In addition, we may wonder whether it is more like a romantic dream that the disadvantaged parties would have better knowledge or attitudes regarding sustainability than the privileged ones. This may be the case, but where is the evidence?

Turning to the commentary by Jonny Tweedie, TSElosophers found it going to the very point of the debate as kicked off by Bigoni & Mohammed. Like Husillos, Tweedie asks whether we should take the working of capitalism like this ’perfect machine’, as argued by Bigoni & Mohammed. But Tweedie goes further, suggesting that capitalism should not be viewed as the only option, but rather a contingent thing, a condition with history. Things could be otherwise and so they have also been for long time periods in the past. In this way, Tweedie seems to be able to suggest a way out from the gloomiest dead-end which Bigoni & Mohammed depicted for the project of critical research. However, we may wonder whether it is realistic to assume the capitalist condition may, or will be, transformed to something else that were much more sustainable. At least, there is very little grounding for believing communism would be of help. What would be the economic arrangement that could form the major turnaround that would now be urgently needed? And eventually, is the root cause, after all, any economic arrangement at all?

Another theme of discussion pertained to the level of hope dashed or inspired by the articles. Where Bigoni & Mohammed viewed the capitalist machine almost predeterminedly invincible, thus promoting certain hopelessness, Tweedie’s point about the constructed nature of social systems leaves an opening. This, however, leads to the dilemma of instigating the required system level change within the timeframe of our planetary systems still upholding our current societies. It seems that in order to promote the necessary change, we need to both work within the current capitalist system, harnessing its mechanisms where possible, while at the same time acknowledging the fundamental problems of the system and working towards creating something new. If, like Bigoni & Mohammed pointed out, the majority of sustainable business research focuses on transitional changes within the system, maybe we can view that as a necessary way of buying us more time in which the critical research led, or at least inspired, efforts of transforming the overall game have time to mature.

What about phenomenology and phenomenological methods in organization studies?

19.12.2023 / / 0 Comments

TSElosophers meeting on 19.12.2023. Participants: Behnam Pourahmadi, Erkki Lassila, François-René Lherm, Kari Lukka, Mia Salo, Milla Unkila, Otto Rosendahl

Gill, M. J. (2014) The Possibilities of Phenomenology for Organizational Research. Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 17(2) 118-137.

Summary

Michael Gill argues that phenomenological methodologies exploring how people experience particular phenomena (p. 130), like organizational identity, are especially powerful in understanding subjective experiences and meanings. Hence, organizational research could benefit from utilizing more of them. To further this project, Gill develops a typology that classifies and contrasts five phenomenological methodologies originating from the disciplines of psychology, pedagogy, nursing, and organization studies. Each of these five methodologies is based on Husserlian descriptive or Heideggerian interpretive phenomenology, or a combination of them. Gill regards this philosophical distinction as foundational for distinguishing between different phenomenological methodologies. Additionally, by specifying aims, participants and sampling strategy, key concepts of data collection and analysis, of each methodology (p. 122, 127), Gill offers guidelines for researchers to select a suitable one for their research purposes.

Discussion

As a whole, we welcomed Gill’s paper as it reminds organizational scholars of the phenomenological approach’s historical and current significance to our field, and of the fact that there is no standard phenomenological methodology, but instead, a variety of them. We also appreciated Gill’s effort in developing and presenting a classification of the most popular phenomenological methodologies across disciplines. However, above all, the paper lacked a more thorough analysis of the intriguing divide between Husserlian descriptive and Heideggerian interpretive approaches to phenomenological philosophy.

In Gill’s presentation, this foundational divide underlying his classification of phenomenological methodologies is, at first glance, a kind of taken-for-granted fact that he brings forth only shortly, without much justification. According to Gill (p. 119-120), the Husserlian approach aims to describe the essence of experiences through the method of phenomenological reduction (epoché). In contrast to Husserl’s epistemological focus, Gill argues that the Heideggerian approach has an ontological one (p. 120). In other words, Heidegger aims to explore the human experience of being (Dasein) and, for this purpose, employs his hermeneutic, i.e. interpretive method. Ultimately, the difference between Husserl’s reduction and Heidegger’s hermeneutics lies in whether a “fully detached reflection” (ibid.) is possible, that is, whether we can be free of assumptions or not.

We followed this line of thought but considered it as a rough generalization of both Husserl’s and Heidegger’s phenomenologies that both draw on distinctive ontological and epistemological assumptions. Specifically, we would have appreciated the notion of intentionality – the directedness of an experience or ‘consciousness of’ – to have been discussed in the paper and the role of subjective meanings to have been addressed in more detail. Concerning the classification of methodologies, many of us see a fruitful future study subject in how the aims of different methodologies relate to a more specified analysis of phenomenological philosophy (see Table 1 p. 122).

One of the main discussion points was the question, ignored by both Gill and many others tracing the origins of phenomenology to Husserl, of whether or not Husserl should indeed be considered the forefather of phenomenology considering his rather non-subjectivist suppositions. Both the act and the possibility of bracketing, and his insistence of there being something “essential” that can be derived through reduction seemed to some of us more reflective of the exactly opposite viewpoint that can be considered as the apparent strength of phenomenology – its emphasis on the subjectivity, contextuality and experience. In turn, Heidegger embodies these principles, and especially his notion of ‘Dasein’ seemed to some of us to maybe even be one of the earliest inklings of what has since become complex and adaptive systems thinking: the idea that the observer and the observed are part of one entity fully understandable only through accounting for their interconnectedness.

These ponderations lead one TSElosopher to even entertain the idea of renaming phenomenology as “noumenology”. Kant viewed phenomenon as such knowledge object that contained both the noumenal idea of the thing, and the sensory experience the thing yielded, essentially thus referring only to such things that had a form that could be seen, touched, or maybe heard. In contrast, a thing that had no such form was in Kant’s parlance a noumena (he used God as an example) that could be positive or negative depending on whether or not its existence was true or not. On the one hand, considering that phenomenological approaches focus explicitly on things without a form detectable by senses (like meaning, organization or organizational identity as suggested by Gill – in short, noumena), it raises the question of the origins of the label. On the other hand, the etymology of the label refers to “that, which is being made to appear” (passive, present participle of ‘phaino’), which suggests that a phenomenon is distinct from a noumenon in so far as it may be made to appear by the intentionality exercised upon it. Perhaps Wittgenstein was considering the complexity of intention and its acquaintance with both the existence of a phenomenon and our ability to know it when he stated “There is no such thing as phenomenology, but there are indeed phenomenological issues”[1] (1977, §53 and 248)

To conclude, we agree with Gill’s assertion that a “phenomenological researcher’s epistemological and ontological assumptions should inform his or her selection of a particular methodology” (p. 127). However, we suggest the researcher builds their choice on a more profound basis of phenomenological philosophy than presented in this article – as Michael Gill’s paper stresses in its conclusions.

[1] Es gibt zwar nicht Phänomenologie, wohl aber phänomenologische Probleme.”

Two disagreeing theories on the role of ‘society as it is not’

09.11.2023 / / 0 Comments

TSElosophers meeting on 14.11.2023. Participants: Albrecht Becker, Behnam Pourahmadi, Erkki Lassila, François-René Lherm, Kari Lukka, Mia Salo, Milla Unkila, Minna-Liina Ojala, Otto Rosendahl

Luhmann (2002) I see something you don’t see. In: Luhmann & Rasch (2002) Theories of distinction. Redescribing the descriptions of modernity. pp. 187-193.

Description

We read a conference speech given by Niklas Luhmann that criticized the continuing relevance of Frankfurt School, that is late 20th Century critical theory. We were unable to date the conference speech, but the original German text was published in 1990.

Luhmann focuses his critique on the Frankfurt School’s ontological standpoint, which many other European philosophical and sociological traditions follow, too. The ontological metaphysics of the Frankfurt School, Luhmann argues, i.e. its guiding distinction of existence/non-existence, enforces a bivalent logic that differs from the guiding distinction of system/environment and the paradox embracing logic in Luhmann’s systems theory. In his view, the Frankfurt School includes in their definition of rationality an aim for consensus of knowledge through intersubjectivity. This contrasts with Luhmann’s position, which renounces the object/subject distinction in favor of the cybernetic take on observation in which an observation can always be challenged by observing the observation.

Our discussion

The text was described as dense, and some parts required several readings to become at least reasonably understandable. The conference speech was most likely delivered to a German audience already familiar with both theories, which might explain the very limited contextualization of the text. However, as one of us suggested, other Luhmann’s texts may well be equally, if not even more, difficult to read. Some had given up before finishing the text, but many endured, and the discussion was very lively. His writing style was also strategically appreciated since he presented his own position quite briefly, concentrating on the arguments about the insufficiency of the Frankfurt school.

While some of us had doubts about certain aspects of Luhmann’s argumentation, we did not reject Luhmann’s criticisms of the Frankfurt school. We noted however that it’s out of our scope to discuss to which extent contemporary critical theory can respond to these criticisms. We discussed especially Luhmann’s criticism towards any social theory that emphasizes ‘society as it isn’t’. The Frankfurt School had a knack for creating future utopias and dystopias and criticizing society from those vantage points. Luhmann claims that this strategy is used to mask the inability of the Frankfurt School to ‘sufficiently’ describe our complex ‘society as it is’. Luhmann’s social theory, in contrast, includes the paradox between ‘society as it is’ and (the paradox of) ‘society as it isn’t’.

Perhaps not least because Luhmann’s speech of course could not comprehensively elaborate his theory, many concerns were raised that his theory could offer something worthwhile. Many of us noted some similarities to Latour’s work, as ANT proposes taking a similarish ‘bird’s eye’ view as Luhmann’s suggestion of second order observation: instead of inserting oneself into the discussions between observers, one should focus on mapping the terrain as represented by the diverse observations and interactions. Concerns included, for example, the rejection of the guiding distinction of whole/parts as expressed in such reductionism that results in a focus on cognition and a seeming neglect to materiality; his non-humanism and the somewhat nihilistic attitude that follows from the sought-after distancing of the researcher from the first level observers; doubts about how the self-reflection of the blind spot could improve his theory; that reflection might lead to infinite regression although the text also mentions the emergence of stability with system eigen-values; and that his position remains marginal both in systems theories and philosophy of science.

As a final note, we might ask if Luhmann’s theory is outright conservative or just differently radical. While Luhmann’s lack of an explicitly critical agenda compared to the Frankfurt School felt “disastrous” to several of us, gaining knowledge about ‘society as it is’ and how to relate it with ‘society as it isn’t’ by increasing the complexity of the theoretical framework could support constructive responses to societal problems.

Breaking incommensurability boundaries?

29.09.2023 / / 0 Comments

TSElosophers meeting 29.9.2023. Participants: Erkki Lassila, Kari Lukka, Mia Salo, Minna-Liina Ojala, Otto Rosendahl.

Gendron, Y., Paugam, L., & Stolowy, H. (2023). Breaking incommensurability boundaries? On the production and publication of interparadigmatic research. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management.

Summary

The overarching theme of this article by Gendron et al. (2023) is to challenge Kuhn’s (1970) incommensurability thesis (see also Burrell and Morgan, 1979), which assumes that meaningful research work across different paradigms is not possible nor feasible from the philosophy of science perspective. The authors start by questioning this view and suggest that inter-paradigmatic research is not only possible because the assumed boundaries between paradigms are actually permeable, but that such research would also be desirable and beneficial for stimulating inter-paradigmatic dialogue between researchers of different philosophical assumptions and methodological approaches.

To justify their views, the authors rely on the analysis of four different inter-paradigmatic publications (Greenwood et al., 2002; Stolowy et al., 2019; Paugam et al., 2021; Stolowy et al., 2022 ). The authors have worked as coauthors on three of these four papers and therefore are able to reflect on the process that led to them getting them published. However, the main pair of comparisons is formed by the papers Greenwood et al. (2002) and Paugam et al. (2021). The authors emphasize the importance of “epistemic mediation”, the ability to reach “conforming” epistemological and other compromises during the research process, without which the required mutual agreement about the justifiability, or sustainability, of the research might not materialize – not only between the coauthors themselves but also with parties involved in the review process.

Our discussion

As a starting point, the idea of promoting inter-paradigmatic, or at least heterogeneity, in research methodologies was appreciated by the group. In addition, all group members seemed to agree that the paper was easy to read and understand, shedding some light on the practical aspects of the co-writing and publishing process of an inter-paradigmatic research paper. It touched on some of the ontological and methodological difficulties related to causality and complexity arising from such inter-paradigmatic endeavor. Overall, TSElosophers regarded the authors as seeking to advance the fashionable ‘phenomenon-based research’.

However, this particular piece of research, which seemed to be based on pragmatic premises, representing ‘naturalism’ in the analysis of knowledge production, could have been expected to offer more examination and interesting insights and discussions about the potential tensions likely present in inter-paradigmatic research. Therefore, TSElosophers felt that, in the end, the paper was not quite able to live up to the reasonable expectations of the readers. Instead of seriously examining epistemological tensions and inconsistencies that might ensue from an inter-paradigmatic mixture, the paper focused on discussing how interpretive and positivist methodologies can be combined in a single study by favoring one over the other, while the other is used more for complementing and reinforcing the primary view. Even this was done perhaps a bit too one-sided, as the authors seemed to focus mainly on their own work where the interpretive approach was dominant. It was a pity the authors largely skipped – perhaps were bound to skip since they did not write that paper – a more profound analysis of the Greenwood et al. (2002) paper, which would have represented the opposite approach.

Some of the group members also wondered how the inter-paradigmatic research presented in this study differed from the mixed-methods approach, simply combining qualitative and quantitative empirical work. In the end, because the article focused so much on the successful publication processes instead of ontological and epistemological tensions in inter-paradigmatic research, it could even be seen to represent a certain form of instrumentalism. In this paper, how researchers just happen to conduct their research overshadows the potential paradigmatic inconsistencies of that research. The process was seemingly just consecrated by the research output eventually getting published. TSElosophers were left wondering whether it is favorable for the scholarship to extend ‘naturalism’ in the analysis of knowledge production so easily that far.

Relevant academia in a post-truth world?

05.05.2023 / / 0 Comments

TSElosophers meeting 5.5.2023. Albrecht Becker, Kari Lukka, Mia Salo, Otto Rosendahl, Veli Virmajoki

Aaltola, E. (2022, 04.08.2022). The limits of science – what can we study?  https://blogit.utu.fi/utu/2022/04/08/tieteen-rajat-mita-saamme-tutkia/ (translated by Kari Lukka)

Meyer, R. E., & Quattrone, P. (2021). Living in a post-truth world? Research, doubt and organization Studies. Organization Studies, 42(9), 1373-1383

Tweedie, J. (2022). Against mystifying complexity: On asking simple, burning questions. Organization Studies, 43(11), 1853-1856.

Summary

These three texts of very different types share a common theme: the challenge and legitimacy crisis social sciences face in the light of the growing force of ‘post-truth’ and the contribution of the science-internal critique of the postulate of value-free science to creating an ‘anything-goes’ public discourse.

  • Aaltola in her blog post argues that this criticism of the idea of value-freedom of science has led to the argument that, given that all knowledge is tainted by value, all knowledge claims are equal to scientific ones, and in the end, it has led to a situation where right-wing actors try to censor research on topics they consider as not in line with their own values. The burning issue, thus, is how we can restore the role and integrity of free science.
  • Meyer and Quattrone, in their first editorial as new editors of Organization Studies, start from the same concern as Aaltola, also emphasising how researchers themselves have unintendedly become “accomplices” in nurturing the concept of ‘post-truth’. The challenge, according to them, is how to restore acknowledgement “of the value of our work” in a situation where truth “is a constant struggle to interrogate [the] ephemeral nature of knowledge”, but where the public discourse is more and more structured around binaries, such as true/false, us/them, etc.
  • Tweedie takes up Meyer and Quattrone’s idea of academics’ complicity and notes the irony of them striving for impact when their major impact is undermining their own legitimacy. He locates the major source of this complicity in the “complexity arms race” where academics value complexity per se over simplicity, thus reinforcing the ivory tower of incomprehensibility. Instead, he pleads for “elegant simplicity” in research and suggests that research questions should be stated “in the simplest terms we can” and that they should concern the “’burning questions’ of our times”, such as climate change etc.

Our discussion

We first noted that the texts are very different of type, one is a blog post, thus formulated in a bit more everyday language style (Aalto), the second a programmatic editorial (Meyer & Quattrone), and the third an essay (Tweedie). While this may account for the fact that the texts present their arguments in a too straightforward way, it at the same time made them specifically thought-provoking. Probably unsurprising, TSElosophers shared the general concerns raised in these texts regarding the current tendencies inclined to delegitimise the value of research and science.

One strand of our discussion concerned the stated ‘complicity’ of researchers stated in different ways in the three texts. Many of us agreed and saw not least recent discussions on sensitive – or, more pointedly: ‘politically correct’ – use of language as an important driver of the chance for allegations of value-bias and partisanship of social sciences. At least one of us argued, however, that ‘science scepticism’ is much older than these recent discussions and even the critique of value-free science and that during the COVID-19 pandemic, it was rather the traditional idea of self-correction through falsification which fed post-truth and the discourse on the equality of scientific and non-scientific knowledge claims. It seemed clear to us, however, that there is a paradox: On the one hand, authors claim that their critique of the assumption of value-free research has had a public impact and, on the other hand, their complaint that social science research is not adequately heard in public.

We further discussed what distinguishes scientific knowledge from other types of knowledge to make a convincing claim for legitimacy or even superiority in certain situations. One suggestion from TSElosophers, taking up Aalto’s argument, was that scientific knowledge is in a specific way methods-based and systematic. Others, however, countered this by arguing that these aspects are necessary conditions, but not sufficient since it is not obvious which methods should be designated as legitimate. For example, even astrology can also be perceived as rigorous and methods-based.

Other suggestions for solutions from the texts could also not completely convince us. Meyer and Quattrone, for example, go a long way to analyse the issues coming with a social science that accepts that there is no ultimate truth in the era of post-truth. However, their proposed programme for Organisation Studies seems a very standard programme of a social sciences journal and it remains unclear how their analysis is addressed. Tweedie’s suggestion to distinguish ‘crude’ from ‘elegant simplicity’ and ‘mystifying’ from ‘enlightening complexity’, and more profoundly distinguishing simplicity from complexity, seems plausible at first glance but may turn out to be less clear-cut than suggested.

In conclusion, the three texts triggered intensive discussion among the TSElosophers on themes that are of vital importance for all researchers, especially in humanities and social studies. Indicative of the great interest in the themes at stake was that our discussion showed no real saturation, but we only needed to end it due to time limitations.

Woodward on ”causation with a human face”: Inspirations and research voids

28.03.2023 / / 0 Comments

TSElosophers meeting 28.3.2023. Albrecht Becker, Erkki Lassila, Kari Lukka, Mia Salo, Milla Unkila, Otto Rosendahl, Veli Virmajoki

Woodward, J. (2002) What is a mechanism? A counterfactual account. Philosophy of science, 69(3), p.366-377 & Woodward, J. (2021) Causation with a human face: Normative theory and descriptive psychology, Oxford University Press, p.1-14 (Introduction).

Summary

In Woodward’s approach, the philosophy of causation should clarify notions that are confused, unclear, and ambiguous and suggest how these limitations might be addressed. In particular, Woodward defends the interventionist account of causal explanation, where causality holds between two variables if an intervention (ideal experimental manipulation) on one of the variables would change the other variable. Woodward uses the interventionist account to discuss issues such as mechanistic explanation and modularity, especially in the context of systems.

Our discussion

TSElosophers generally found these texts interesting, yet rather demanding reads. We found it useful to get an idea of the “interventionist take on causality”, emblematic of Woodward, and how he wished to avoid drowning in the metaphysical debates on what the notions of causality should stand for and instead focus on how to decipher causality in practice.

Regarding the book Chapter, just based on the Introduction of the book, we did not get a quite clear idea of how precisely the “descriptive accounts” of causality – the beliefs that people have on causal relationships – bear relevance regarding what is, for Woodward, the more essential thing, the “normative account”. The latter refers to those causal claims which can be sustained by the interventionist approach, leaning on counterfactual analysis. However, the biggest concern among a few TSElosophers is whether, and if so, the potential performativity related to any utterings of humans, be they researchers or lay persons, might play a role in the system of thinking of Woodward. It seemed as if he had not taken that into consideration at all. Given that for Woodward, in line with his “minimal realism”, the central test of causal claims is how the world works, omitting performativity actually seems like a very notable issue – since it could bring an endogenous challenge to the analysis and thereby significantly complicate carrying it out. At least, the problem of performativity might complicate the use of Woodward’s theoretical frame in social sciences.

TSElosophers found the article on mechanisms in causality somewhat easier to grasp, yet perhaps a bit less inspiring. It did not add to the credibility of the text that there seems to be a typo in equation (2) on p.367. At least one of us had a pre-understanding that explaining through mechanisms means primarily ‘fleshing out’ the contents to the ‘explanation’ as compared to making causal claims on mere naked correlations: It opens up more precisely how e.g. the correlations can be seen as part of a meaningful explanation. TSElosophers found the take of Woodward notably stricter and narrower than this general idea. This is, in particular, since his definition requires the independence of the elements (“modules”) of mechanisms. This requirement seemed to us not well suitable for humanities and social sciences. We were left wondering whether Woodward’s take is actually too binary or black and white. Maybe it even leads to an overly idealistic picture of mechanistic explanation in social sciences, thus distancing the practice in the field from philosophical analysis – something Woodward accuses many other accounts of causation of doing.

Reading these texts gave a good lesson for TSElosophers on what kind of reasoning and write-up can be found from the representatives of the current frontiers of the philosophy of causality. It strikes us how there might be notable room for integrating the recent advances in the philosophy of causality with a more genuine take on how humanities and social sciences are surrounded and how they work. This could provide a more apt philosophy of causality for social scientists and humanists!

An Inspiring Disorder of the Second-order

08.02.2023 / / 0 Comments

TSElosophers meeting 8.2.2023. Albrecht Becker, Erkki Lassila, Joonas Uotinen, Kari Lukka, Mia Salo, Milla Unkila, Otto Rosendahl, Veli Virmajoki

Von Foerster, H. & Poerksen, B. (2002). Understanding systems: Conversations on epistemology and ethics. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Pages 11-63.

Summary

We read the first Chapter of a book that consists of a dialogue between “a physicist and philosopher Heinz von Foerster and journalist Bernhard Poerksen (back cover)”. Von Foerster, a leading figure of systems theoretical circles in the mid-20th Century, rejects all thought stream labels in this book except being a Viennese although he is widely recognized as a radical constructivist. The book is written after his active career in 2002.

The first Chapter, Images of Reality, describes how human neural systems can only observe their environment with perturbations that are not specific. Thus, it rejects all truth claims based on correspondence between human knowledge and being. It provocatively casts doubt on all causal explanatory principles presented by scientific realism, including gravity and evolution. The Chapter emphasizes the ethicality of second-order observations such as describing descriptions and explaining explanations.

Our discussion

The book divided our sympathies. Some liked it, some were annoyed or almost angry and some remained ambiguous. Many agreed that academia needs more inspiring dialogues and attempts to defend bold positions in conversations. Many were also inspired by some of Von Foerster’s ideas and ideals at large. The minority, who were sympathetic to the text, read it as an anti-thesis rather than a synthesis; as reactive rather than refined. The majority was frustrated, not least as Von Foerster does not develop his ideas, but only keeps ‘dropping’ them; seems to lack sufficient consistency; and the dialogue format is pointless since Von Foerster dodges so many of the most relevant questions.

We presumed that Von Foerster’s background as a magician contributed to his tendency to seek to shock with his anti-thetical statements to realism, which made him appear as a more extremist thinker than warranted by his constructivism. He posited that the system constructs its world and all knowledge about it, but he also argued against solipsism and anti-realism. He seems to agree with the existence of the system’s environment, but with the impossibility of creating knowledge that corresponds with the environment. In sum, his system’s theoretical underpinnings support metaphysical but reject epistemological realism.

We considered Von Foerster’s presentation insufficient for any sociological reading due to its methodological individualism. He wanted e.g. to replace the concept of truth with trust. This might work for local interactions – while many doubted even that – but it remains unclear how this change could be applied to globally spanning communication. Would trust in scientists eventually dilute into something like trust in politicians or journalists? We concluded that the book presents a sample of ideas from Von Foerster’s active career rather than integrating into subsequent theoretical developments in radically constructivist systems theories such as social systems theory.

TSElosophers also discussed ethics. Von Foerster associated all references to the external as excuses for people to free themselves from the responsibility of their decisions. He promoted people not to trivialize themselves, but retain the unpredictability of the non-trivial machines. However, we feel the argument is more balanced when you also recognize that interaction benefits from predictability and the common use of explanatory principles. Certainly, most people should not (and could not) make their world as complex as Von Foerster has done for himself.

Contemporary concerns of scholarly work

15.12.2022 / / 0 Comments

TSElosophers meeting 15.12.2022. Erkki Lassila, Kari Lukka, Otto Rosendahl.

(1) Gendron, Y., Andrew, J., & Cooper, C. (2022). The perils of artificial intelligence in academic publishing. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 87, 102411.

(2) Korica, M. (2022). A Hopeful Manifesto for a More Humane Academia. Organization Studies, 43(9), 1523-1526.

Summary

Both of these articles raise a fundamental concern about the contemporary state and future of academia and scholarly work. Gendron et al. (2022) use the colonization of artificial intelligence (AI) in academic publishing as their example. They highlight the possible implications the inclusion of AI technologies might have on the role of human actors in the publishing process, i.e. concerning editors, reviewers, and authors. Korica (2022), on the other hand, uses her own experience from academia to highlight concerns about the current state of scholarly work and the working environment, along with some suggestions on how things might be improved. Therefore, both articles bring out the necessity to ponder what academia is, and should be, about, and how every member of academia has agency on this matter.

Our discussion

We agreed that the fundamental concern behind both of these articles is important and worth discussion and debate. The article by Gendron et al. (2022) revolves very much around the critiques of the data-driven evolutions of our life, like Zuboff (2019) and Han (2017), highlighting the issue of the “surveillance society”, which is today harder and harder for anybody to escape. The article pointed out well how too much emphasis and trust on the abilities of AI and algorithmic-based software – despite their promise to add to the productivity of processes – is moving us towards surface-oriented, mechanical and performance-focused academic publishing. We agree with the authors that this type of development is a real threat to good scholarship in academic publishing. In relation to the central editorial task of reviewer selection, for instance, we agree with Gendron et al. (2020) that AI would be a problematic route to fix the alleged ‘problem’ of human bias, since it would likely only bring an “elite bias” into these processes.

However, we felt Gendron et al. (2020) did not elaborate sufficiently on individuals’ ability to see and understand how exactly the evolution towards further digitalization happens in our life, and where this type of technology-oriented development might be leading us. It is difficult, or even impossible for most of us, to detect and comprehend the fundamental accumulating effects of each microscopic addition of the digital into our everyday lives. It is difficult for us to see the connection between some new minuscule software application, which is sold to us as a ‘help’ or ‘improvement’ of some insignificant daily task, and the accelerating ‘digi-colonization’ of various aspects of human life in our society.

While we agreed on the basic idea and many parts of the Korica’s (2022) paper, we specifically did not agree on the seventh suggestion made in the article. This suggestion seemed to echo instrumentalism – in the sense that publishing research is staged as the final aim over and above conducting high-quality research – and was therefore quite thoroughly against the idea of good scholarship. The paper also seemed to cover almost every worry of our lives, which made the scope of the article overly broad.

Futures of Values

21.10.2022 / / 0 Comments

TSElosophers meeting on 21.10.2022. Elina Järvinen, Erkki Lassila, Joonas Uotinen, Kari Lukka, Mia Salo, Milla Unkila, Morgan Shaw, Otto Rosendahl, Siddhant Ritwick, Veli Virmajoki

Danaher, John (2021). ”Axiological futurism: The systematic study of the future of values”. Futures 132.

Summary

Danaher argues that value change in the future needs to be systematically studied. Danaher points out that there have been changes in values throughout history and these changes will most likely continue in the future. Understanding the possible changes in values in the future is “both desirable in and of itself, and complementary to other futurological inquiries”. Danaher names the inquiry into the future of values axiological futurism. Danaher sketches a set of possible methods that can be used in axiological futurism and a model for value change where “one of the main determinants of our movement through future axiological possibility space is [–] the form of intelligence that is prioritised and mobilised in society.”

Our discussion

Danaher’s argument for the need for axiological futurism is simple, convincing, and deep. When we discuss what the future should be like, we tend to use our own values to frame our views on the matter or even project our values into the future. However, if values would change, the desirability of a future is determined by the values and needs of future generations. Relating to normative future studies, one challenge is that there may be different moral truths and values in the future from those of today and therefore any normative projection to the future made today may sound unacceptable in the future. Relatedly, TSElosophers found the idea of contemplating and deducing what these potentially different future values (enacted by people in their everyday life) should be in order to achieve, for instance, a more ecologically sustainable future than how it looks based on the current such values.

There were some concerns about Danaher’s strategy. Introducing a novel field of inquiry with a daunting task such as mapping axiological possibility space is difficult in one paper. One needs to balance the abstract frame with some concrete suggestions on how to proceed. We were not quite convinced that the methods Danaher suggests are described in enough detail to give a sense of how the daunting task can be tackled. Moreover, one of us did not buy that forms of intelligence could very much determine movement in axiological space, but rather believed in the central role of material aspects. Others, however, seemed to accept Danaher’s main argument that it can well be a mix of both. TSElosophers anyhow were supportive of Danaher’s main project described in the paper. Rather, the concern was primarily how to execute the project.

There were additional worries that notions such as “the moral paradigm” may be misleading and give the false impression that there is a shared location in an axiological space where we all stand and move together. The western connotations of the project also worried us, for example when the forms of intelligence were defined in terms of a dichotomy between individual and collective. However, for a few of us more normatively oriented scholars interested in evoking value transformation pertaining to a more sustainable future, the main take-away of the paper was the interesting structuring of the possibility space of values. We felt that Danaher’s discussion of its constitution opened welcome avenues of reflection and action aimed at a potentially greener world.

Overall, the paper made a convincing case for the need for axiological futurism but made us realize how the complexity of axiological considerations casts a shadow of vertiginous complexity over the project.

For an interested reader, see also https://blogit.utu.fi/futuresofscience/2021/09/20/future-of-values-some-reflection/

« Older posts

© 2025 TSElosophers

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑