Ocularcentrism and its others: A framework for metatheoretical analysis

There is a contemporary scepticism towards vision-based metaphors in management and organization studies that reflects a more general pattern across the social sciences. In short, there has been a shift away from ocularcentrism. This shift provides a useful basis for metatheoretical analysis of the philosophical discourse that informs organizational analysis. The article begins by briefly discussing the vision-generated, vision-centred interpretation of knowledge, truth, and reality that has characterized the western philosophical tradition. Taking late 18th-century rationalism as the high-point of ocularcentrism, the article then presents a metatheoretical framework based on three trajectories that critiques of ocularcentrism have subsequently taken. The first exposes the limits of the metaphor by, paradoxically, taking it to its limits. The second trajectory seeks to displace the primordial position of the ocular metaphor and replace it with an alternative lexicon based on other human senses. Last, the third trajectory describes how the Enlightenment ocular characterization of the visual and mental worlds has effectively been inverted in the postmodern moment.

Reviewing March's vision

This paper reviews a remarkable experiment in organisation. At the centre of the story is James G. (Jim) March, one of the most influential scholars in management and organisation studies over the last half century. From 1954 to 1964, March was a leading member of the Graduate School of Administration (GSIA) at the Carnegie Institute of Technology, which was an extraordinary hotbed of ideas and research at that time. The group was led by Herbert Simon, a true polymath who is now recognised as a founding father of many scientific domains.