December 7, 1998
Dear Carroll:
I finished my reply to Richard Weiss. To be honest, I reviewed this article
when it was rejected from XXXX journal. Weiss did not reply to most of
the challenges I made to the manuscript, except by dismissing even more of my
work as subjectivist-relativist-rebel. Here is a summary of my responsorial
(this is for you and for reviewers of my submission):
- Weiss has repeated a polemic critique of Postmodernism, that assembles a
dossier on each postmodernists’ personal life, and then seeks to show that
the theories conspire to hide the unmasked unethical behaviors, and are
therefore unscientific, failing the tests of objectivity for science, but
also unethical as theories since they are used to dismiss those who might
unmask the objectivity-flaw in their theory.
- Of the 10 stories (S1 … S10) that I review, S10, the Science War debate
between Jeffrey Pfeffer (1993) and alleged postmodernists, that fulfill fail
the objectivity-test (extreme relativism) and the ethical text (advocacy for
political position as a ruse to derail their critique), which in Weiss’
defense of Pfeffer, is to restrict science to non-postmodern positions.
- Five stories (S1 to S5) are presented that report "controversy,"
in five dossier studies of five founding postmodernists implicated as Nazi
founder (Nietzsche), member (Heidegger), collaborator (de Man), sympathizer
(Derrida), probable Nazi (Foucault). By Weiss’ account each fails the test
of scientific objectivity and personal ethics.
- Stories (S5 to S10) implicate contemporary postmodernists ( e.g. Martin,
Kilduff, & me) in the objectivity and personal ethic dossiers of the
five founding postmodernists by alleging each has moved to a position of
"extreme relativism," where we attack scientists, such as Pfeffer,
in order to protect our relativism or our founding father dossiers from
scientific criticism.
- These are heavy allegations of "extreme relativism" or
"unethical" conduct, and often both, leveled against five founding
fathers and contemporary postmodernists.
- Weiss claims he does not have to prove any of this, he only seeks to show
there is "controversy," and that as a an "objective" and
"ethical" scientists his essay brings balance to a field that has
only heard the positive side of the postmodern legacy.
- My response is to claim that postmodernism is a science, has a
narrative-ethics, and to show that Weiss has to do more than implicate, he
must prove the "heavy" charges.
- And I must be given an opportunity to analyze how the 10 stories get
constructed by Weiss and introduced in evidence as a means of deflecting the
critique of Pfeffer and more important, as a way to dismiss all contemporary
postmodernists from the Academy of Organization Science.
- My analysis constructs four internal reliability and four external
validity tests of "ethical" and "objective" narrative
argumentation.
- I demonstrate that the ten stories are constructed by violating one or all
eight reliability/validity tests. For example, by context stripping,
reporting a quote out of context, to make it read differently and sometimes
the very opposite of its original statement. Or by labeling an entire life’s
work or entire set of people, with the label of when the full set has not
been examined.
- In doing this demonstration, I do not dismiss the claim that some
poststructuralist founders are Nazi, or dismiss my own contemporaries
polemic behaviors. Rather, I seek to show all are not guilty of
extreme relativism or unethical Academy behavior.
- In tracing the citations of Weiss as presented in the text, I am able to
show that Foucault’s association with Nazism is based on innuendo,
Nietzsche had a theory of race-mixing and change by heredity, that was
exactly opposite to Nazi extermination and anti-Semitic atrocities. I show
that de Man and Heidegger, while Nazi also did work that is objective and
ethical. Finally, I show that though Derrida did a questionable defense of
De Man, it is a questionable tactic to dismiss his life work.
- Contemporary postmodernist studies and literature reviews are in every
single instance dismissed on questionable grounds. By context-stripping,
selecting quotes to fit the theory of extreme relativism, and ignoring
instances that do make postmodern organization study a legitimate science.
- Finally, I demonstrate that Weiss by failing four reliability and four
validity tests, imitates steps that he claims are postmodern, but are not.
- There are so many inaccuracies and distortions of the work of my
contemporaries.
- However, I try to rescue this mess from just another polemic defense of
hollowed ground. Rather, I present with an adapted JoHari window areas where
our sciences (modern and postmodern) overlap, are able to improve the blind
side of the other, or work together in complementarity to improve areas
where both are blinded by their polemic Science War attacks on the other.
I did my best to write comments that if taken seriously, could be used to
balance the insufficient claims in the Weiss essay.
Now to my request to you as editor. I request more pages. I need those pages
in order to present a case that is not just a polemic defense, but can present
the reasons and analysis to the readers. If I fail to present my analysis, due
to abbreviation, I will not only be seen as polemic, I will offend many people,
who will think my analysis shallow.
I have attempted to be as absolutely concise as possible by presenting the
extended tasked of putting quotes back into their rightful context as an
appendix, which I make available to reviewers.
Thanks for inviting me to write this response. Please grant my request.
David M. Boje