Refounding political governance : the metaphysics of public administration

230 Pages·2011·2.208 MB·English

by  Cutting, Bruce, Kouzmin, Alexander

Public Policy, Administration
and Management
REFOUNDING POLITICAL GOVERNANCE
The Metaphysics of Public Administration
By
Bruce Cutting
&
Alexander Kouzmin
Cover Artwork: Ludmila Kouzmin ([email protected])
Cover Design: Hilary Cutting
eBooks End User License Agreement
Please read this license agreement carefully before using this eBook. Your use of this eBook/chapter constitutes your agreement
to the terms and conditions set forth in this License Agreement. Bentham Science Publishers agrees to grant the user of this
eBook/chapter, a non-exclusive, nontransferable license to download and use this eBook/chapter under the following terms and
conditions:
1. This eBook/chapter may be downloaded and used by one user on one computer. The user may make one back-up copy of this
publication to avoid losing it. The user may not give copies of this publication to others, or make it available for others to copy or
download. For a multi-user license contact [email protected]
2. All rights reserved: All content in this publication is copyrighted and Bentham Science Publishers own the copyright. You may
not copy, reproduce, modify, remove, delete, augment, add to, publish, transmit, sell, resell, create derivative works from, or in
any way exploit any of this publication’s content, in any form by any means, in whole or in part, without the prior written
permission from Bentham Science Publishers.
3. The user may print one or more copies/pages of this eBook/chapter for their personal use. The user may not print pages from
this eBook/chapter or the entire printed eBook/chapter for general distribution, for promotion, for creating new works, or for
resale. Specific permission must be obtained from the publisher for such requirements. Requests must be sent to the permissions
department at E-mail: [email protected]
4. The unauthorized use or distribution of copyrighted or other proprietary content is illegal and could subject the purchaser to
substantial money damages. The purchaser will be liable for any damage resulting from misuse of this publication or any
violation of this License Agreement, including any infringement of copyrights or proprietary rights.
Warranty Disclaimer: The publisher does not guarantee that the information in this publication is error-free, or warrants that it
will meet the users’ requirements or that the operation of the publication will be uninterrupted or error-free. This publication is
provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either express or implied or statutory, including, without limitation, implied
warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. The entire risk as to the results and performance of this
publication is assumed by the user. In no event will the publisher be liable for any damages, including, without limitation,
incidental and consequential damages and damages for lost data or profits arising out of the use or inability to use the publication.
The entire liability of the publisher shall be limited to the amount actually paid by the user for the eBook or eBook license
agreement.
Limitation of Liability: Under no circumstances shall Bentham Science Publishers, its staff, editors and authors, be liable for
any special or consequential damages that result from the use of, or the inability to use, the materials in this site.
eBook Product Disclaimer: No responsibility is assumed by Bentham Science Publishers, its staff or members of the editorial
board for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any
use or operation of any methods, products instruction, advertisements or ideas contained in the publication purchased or read by
the user(s). Any dispute will be governed exclusively by the laws of the U.A.E. and will be settled exclusively by the competent
Court at the city of Dubai, U.A.E.
You (the user) acknowledge that you have read this Agreement, and agree to be bound by its terms and conditions.
Permission for Use of Material and Reproduction
Photocopying Information for Users Outside the USA: Bentham Science Publishers Ltd. grants authorization for individuals
to photocopy copyright material for private research use, on the sole basis that requests for such use are referred directly to the
requestor's local Reproduction Rights Organization (RRO). The copyright fee is US $25.00 per copy per article exclusive of any
charge or fee levied. In order to contact your local RRO, please contact the International Federation of Reproduction Rights
Organisations (IFRRO), Rue du Prince Royal 87, B-I050 Brussels, Belgium; Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; E-mail:
[email protected]; url: www.ifrro.org This authorization does not extend to any other kind of copying by any means, in any
form, and for any purpose other than private research use.
Photocopying Information for Users in the USA: Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the internal
or personal use of specific clients, is granted by Bentham Science Publishers Ltd. for libraries and other users registered with the
Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) Transactional Reporting Services, provided that the appropriate fee of US $25.00 per copy
per chapter is paid directly to Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers MA 01923, USA. Refer also to
www.copyright.com
CONTENTS
Preface i
CHAPTERS
1. Introduction 1
2. The JEWAL Synthesis Philosophy of Mind 16
3. The JEWAL Theory of Governance 54
4. Validation in the Literature 68
5. Governance in Society 76
6. Public Administration and Constitutional Power 94
7. Public Administration and Government Decision Making 130
8. Public Administration as a Vocation 177
9. Governance in the Westminster System 191
10. Conclusion 213
References 216
i
PREFACE
Since Montesquieu’s (1952; 1689–1755) incisive differentiation of the principal forms of governance and their
components, the rate at which different theories of governance have been proposed has exponentially grown until
now when we have a plethora of different theories on the best way to govern, lead and/or manage. Anyone interested
in this topic is confronted with the many conflicting schools of thought, from Weber’s (1948; 1864–1920) theory of
the “iron cage” to Wheatley’s (1992) New-Age concept of leadership. This seeming maze of different theories can
be seen merely as different perspectives on the overall embracing concept of governance which is, essentially, the
holistic conception and explanation of differentiated purposive human systems—about paradigms and systems that
have their inception in and are limited by, the human mind. The core challenge, then, is to put some order and
rationale into the understanding of this “many-headed” concept of governance. We meet this challenge by mapping
out a cognitive framework that is capable of embracing and ordering all the multitudinous differentiated conceptions
of human governance experienced at the different levels of society.
In essence, this book reformulates the concept of organizational governance in terms of the metaphor of the human
mind. The cognitive model of governance formulated can be used to explain how and why different modes of
governance are embraced by the different organizations in different circumstances and why this is appropriate and
necessary, how and why governance changes over time, and how it is important to institute processes of inquiry,
dialogue and reflection in order to know and choose more consciously.
Essentially, we reformulate the principles and understanding of organizational governance as an outcome of a
process of validating the veracity, realism and prognosticating value of the particular form of institutional
archetyping that is based on the metaphor of the human mind. It does this in a three-step process:
 First, formulating an expression of the immediate knowing (or seeing, as in aesthetic appreciation) that
the essence of an institution’s decision-making processes can be explained in terms of the mind
metaphor.
 Secondly, the structure and dynamics of the mind metaphor are conceptualised and formulated by a
process of reasoning of why and how the philosophical concept of man can be taken as determining
the structure and dynamics of the two principal personality typologies.
 Thirdly, the true fit, merit and power of the mind metaphor in explaining organizations’ governance is
validated by using the cognitive conceptual framework to analyse and prognosticate on the nature and
dynamics of governance in the public administration of the political sphere in particular.
As a consequence of this scientifically-oriented process, the authors have arrived at a “yes,” or a personal cognitive
commitment, to the following key “truths” or “facts” about organizational governance.
 The nature and dynamics of governance in organizations reflect the way humans think—OR, the
nature, dynamics and development of organizations can be reasonably known, intelligently understood
and wisely developed by using the conceptual framework suggested by the metaphor of the mind.
 The essence of human thinking results from a process of cognitive differentiation that is faithfully
based on hierarchically structured trinities of abstraction (as originally identified by the Greeks and
carried forward by the Western scholastic philosophers), which express the different cognitive
perspectives that one constructs to perceive, understand and know reality. The key heuristic insight
contained within the metaphor of the mind, therefore, is to reinterpret Aquinas’ (1952; c.1225–1274)
trinity of abstraction (Lonergan, 1967) as a trinity of cognitive perspectives relevant to a particular
aspect of governance. Essentially, the effect of this intellective insight is to transform Weber’s (1949;
1962) ideal types into a newly created concept of a trinity of menetypes (numbered ideal types in an
ordered set). The principles underpinning the concept of menetypes facilitate understanding and
meaning because the conceptual framework of the mind metaphor can be seen to be based simply on
this trinity of menetypes, repeated again and again. Therefore, even though the conceptual framework
of governance might seem expansive, fluid and complex, it can be viewed simply as a hierarchically
structured, interdependent pattern of cognitive perspectives arranged at each point of focus in the form
of the basic trinity of menetypes applicable to that level of thinking.
ii
 The conceptual framework of the mind metaphor has great explanatory, heuristic and prognostic
power and can be used to guide the individual or group process of reaching judgments of fact,
assessments of value and decisions of intent. This inherent power of the mind metaphor is validated by
the comprehensive, structured and probing analysis conducted into the public administration within
the US society. Although the discussion is principally focused at the level of theory and principles, it
is clearly evident that the conceptual framework of the mind metaphor does provide a powerful means
of analysing the authority, culture and participants within particular real-life organizations. This
ability to integrate the analysis of governance over the range of levels of understanding is a key
contributor to its explanatory and prognosticating powers.
As a consequence of using the mind metaphor to analyse governance in Western society, the key conclusion is that
there has been a substantial shift or evolution in thinking from a managerialist mindset to the more abstract politicist
mindset (which has alternately been described as postmodernism). This fundamental shift in mindset is pervasive
and influences the perspectives taken at many levels in the human governance systems.
In particular, this analysis of governance in the US society focuses on the political sphere and concludes that: public
administration is only a second-order political power and should eschew any delusions to political equality with the
Government’s political arm. Rather, the public administration should be encouraged to maintain and develop further
its ethics of clarity, order and loyalty in assisting the Government of the day. Furthermore, public administrators
should be developed to work in more abstract, political and interdependent systems of governance. This new,
operational environment requires them to develop the capacity to think more politically and at more abstract levels,
and to be able to coach others to develop their cognitive powers likewise.
This book is a companion book to Refounding Corporate Governance: The Metaphysics of Corporate Leadership,
which has also been published in this ‘Public Policy, Administration and Management’ series.
Bruce Cutting
Alexander Kouzmin
Refounding Governance: The Metaphysics of Public Administration, 2011, 1-15 1
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
For how shall we know the source of (good governance) between men, if we do not begin by knowing
mankind?
(Adaptation of Rousseau, 1952: 329)1
Abstract: An introduction is provided to the triadic metaphor of the mind, its depth and its breadth of
applicability. A new concept of menetypes is introduced as being based on the triadic conception of human
thinking, defined by three psychic levels of abstraction that are enveloped by a conception of the transcendent
other. The methodology explains how the triadic conceptual framework gives birth to the JEWAL Synthesis
theory of governance - JEWAL being an acronym to signify a synthesis of particular aspects of Eastern
philosophical psychology, Western philosophy and depth psychology.
INTRODUCTION
Governance is taken as the conscious exercise of direction, regulation and control over a human system. At the
simplest level there is the governance of the self, and from the earliest Greek times the oracles of society have urged
people to “Know Thyself.” But humans do not know themselves in isolation from others as, by themselves, they are
very limited and unfulfilled.2 So they join together in purposive groups or organizations that are about pursuing
some good, however well articulated or ill-defined it might be. Such groups or organizations need good governance
to thrive and to be satisfying enough to the individual members for them to remain within the group—and such
governance is orchestrated through and by some members of the group providing leadership of some kind.3 Neither
the members of these groups nor the organizations govern themselves in isolation but rather they do so as members
of a larger collection or society of people,4 which itself must be subject to some form of governance. ‘No society can
subsist without a form of government. “The united strength of individuals,” as Gravina well observes, “constitutes
what we call the “body politic”’ (Montesquieu, 1952: 3). Again there are some members of this body politic who
take on positions of leadership or governing. The practice and understanding of governance at this highest level of
society is much more obtuse, complex and intellectually challenging, as has been evidenced by the attention it has
received in philosophical writings since the earliest of times.
Governance, therefore, needs to be understood and explained in the context of it being operative in some form at all
three levels of the individual, the organization and society.5 Moreover, there is interaction and influence between the
different levels of governance, principally because it is people themselves who are involved in all three and are
required to balance the often-conflicting demands of each.
This book is primarily focused on the middle level, concerning governance within organizations, which are
composed of individuals who also need to exercise a degree of self-governance, but which operate within a
particular society that lays down principles of overall societal governance. These societal principles determine and
shape the form and dynamics of the governance that is exercised within the different organizations. And there are,
indeed, a plethora of different types of organization and faces of organizational governance, so much so, that it has
been said that ‘there is no such thing as the theory of organizations. Rather there are many theories that attempt to
explain and predict how organizations and the people in them will behave in varying occupational structures,
cultures, and circumstances’ (Shafritz and Ott, 1996: 4). That is, society’s appreciation and understanding of
organizations has become more differentiated and complex, and the dynamics of organizations have become more
intricate and subtle.
Moreover, change is a fact of life and everywhere the pace of change seems to be accelerating. The social and
economic worlds have been undergoing such tumultuous change that modern theory and understanding has largely
proved inadequate in the multitude of individual and group mindsets and particular circumstances. This is especially
true in the realm of management, which has been subjected to such a dizzying round of short-lived “latest fads” that
Bruce A. Cutting and Alexander Kouzmin
All rights reserved - © 2011 Bentham Science Publishers Ltd.
2 Refounding Political Governance Cutting and Kouzmin
managers are now eschewing the lot just so they can get on and do the job required of them. As Micklethwait and
Wooldridge (1996: 18-19) observed: ‘The real problem with management theory is that it is pulling institutions and
individuals in conflicting directions… These contradictions within forms reflect a deeper intellectual confusion at
the heart of management theory, which has left it not so much a coherent discipline as a battleground between…
radically opposed philosophies.’
Therefore, there may not be much mileage in canvassing the vast array of theories or recipes for good
management—or good governance. Rather, like Montesquieu (1952),6 we struggle to understand the spirit of
governance in organizations. And the obvious common, core principle of organizations is that they are comprised of
humans who think and act as though there is an organization, and therefore there is one—irrespective of whether or
not there is a physical building, a formal organization chart, or an IT (Information Technology) network connecting
all the members together. In essence, the nature, shape and dynamics of any organization are fabrications of the
human mind and, in that sense, it looks and acts very much like a more complex, more capable and more power-
oriented thinking human.7
As the key to any scientific understanding of phenomena is in the system of conceptual differentiation that is applied
in observing and analysing the empirical data, this book searches for an understanding of governance in the structure
and dynamics of human thinking or the philosophy of mind. As a consequence, it postulates a philosophy of mind
which is used as the basis to view the framework of governance in terms of a metaphor of the mind. The metaphor
of the mind is applicable at all three levels of the individual, the organization, and the society, which means that the
interrelationships between these three different levels of thinking can be handled in a consistent and reinforcing
manner within the one, overall comprehensive framework.
The key heuristic development in this book is the reformulation of the meaning and use of ideal types—which,
though severely critiqued, have proved to be a useful tool in sociological theory since being introduced by Weber
(1962).8 However, their understanding and usage have been unduly limited and their basic conceptual development
has essentially withered on the vine. The growth and realisation of their potential have been stunted because Weber
(1947; 1962) did not spell out any underlying coherency in the conceptual framework of ideal types9, and nobody
since seems to have been able to understand it in such a way as to develop the notion and use of ideal types. An
ideal type10 is still regarded essentially as an isolated, theoretical, working hypothesis that describes a situation
rather than explains it, and which is not intended to help predict or suggest what decisions/actions should follow as a
consequence (Weber, 1962: 14). The concept of ideal types has never developed because the so-defined types
always stand alone and no attempt has been made to incorporate an account of their associated dynamics and
interactions. Put together in the way explained in this book, “types” can be more than just standalone, descriptive
classification schemes; they can represent reality and can be used to inform what action should or should not be
taken—and its likely consequences.
This book, therefore, develops a radically different approach—yet, it is essentially in keeping with the spirit of
Weber’s (1947; 1949; 1962; 1968; 1978a; 1978b) original thinking because the use of the metaphor of the mind
provides an integrative explanatory focus on the underlying motivations of the individual participants.11 As with
Weber (1962), the underlying premise is that it is individuals who, ultimately, think, decide and act—even if they
are heavily influenced by the organizational or societal thinking that they consciously or unconsciously take on
board. Instead of proceeding to develop different ideal types for each observed reality, it is much more instructive to
begin from the basic understanding that it is humans who think and it is they who, therefore, interpret and explain
the reality that they encounter. Is there an identifiable pattern of thinking that can encompass the many and varied
perspectives humans can experience? Can some sense be made of the structure and dynamics of such a pattern and
can it be harnessed to understand the dynamics of human social action and interaction? Can current understandings
of human dynamics be used to inform a metaphor of the mind that can enhance our understanding of governance?
The three outcomes from tackling these questions essentially encapsulate the extent of the contribution of original
thought proffered in this book, as it:
 Encapsulates and articulates a metaphor of the mind that expresses a philosophy of mind that can be
seen to have its roots in late Neoplatonic philosophy, and is evident in the work of many Western
philosophers/social scientists [including, in particular, Montesquieu (1952) and Weber (1962)] over
Introduction Refounding Political Governance 3
the centuries and also in the particular expression of Eastern philosophy that is captured in the
personal typology called the Enneagram (Riso, 1987; Palmer, 1991).12 In particular, this book explains
how Jungian typology (Jung, 1971; von Franz and Hillman, 1971; Myers, 1980) is an underdeveloped
expression of this Eastern philosophy of mind, and how it can be more usefully reformulated in such a
way that it corresponds directly to the Enneagram typology—which is captured in the JEWAL
Synthesis philosophy of mind (Chapter 2).
 Uses the metaphor of mind to develop a theory of governance to explain the dynamic pattern of
interrelated rationalities governing motivation and behaviour at the individual, group and societal
levels of authority. This theory of governance introduces the concept of menetypes,13 which are a
reformulation of ideal types into a “numbered”, coherent, interrelated set of perspectives of a
particular aspect of reality—The JEWAL Synthesis Theory of Governance (Chapter 3).
BASIC INSIGHTS
The basic insights on the philosophy of mind and human governance that are presented in this book are as follows:
 All human affairs and the experience of those affairs at each of the levels of the individual, the group
and the society have their genesis and fulfilment in the human mind. In particular, an organization is
such only because the participating individuals are able to think of it in such a way.
 Any view of reality is only ever a partial view and the power of that partial view in experiencing,
understanding and knowing that particular reality is critically dependent on the cognitive framework
employed by the individual.14 This book is generated out of the mindset moulded by the metaphor of
the mind, which is informed by the reworked philosophy of mind explained in Chapter 2.
In particular, one is able to think of an organization or a society in the same way as one thinks of an
individual, except that the thinking is at higher levels of abstraction.
 Humans have the capability or potential to think in any of all possible ways, as the limits of their
potential to know are infinite (Proclus, 1963/15th Century: 149). However, if one tries to think of all
perspectives at once, one would be pulled in all directions and so get nowhere—and would probably
be overwhelmed.
This principle of needing one phase of a trinity to dominate can be illustrated by imagining three
people of about equal size and strength standing back to back with their arms interlocked. They would
each be facing outwards in one of three different directions at roughly equidistant angles around a
circle. If they all tried to move forward with the same force there would be no movement. One has to
dominate for there to be movement and in that case there will be a secondary individual who is also
moving partly forward (in an extreme case this could be in equality with the dominant individual),
while the third will need to be repressed and essentially move backwards.
 Differentiation and choice is the key. Very early on in life, therefore, one chooses a particular perspective
and, in so doing, other conflicting perspectives need to be consciously repressed. Through constant use over
time (namely, because it works for the individual), this cognitive dynamic makes for the development of
one’s personality. Individuals also exercise this cognitive orienting in the development of their concept of
an organization or society, and the result of this is their perceived culture.
 With each separate personality or culture found in individuals, organizations or society, comes a
patterned set of perspectives, motivation and predictable ways of behaving. This is well captured in
the explanatory dynamics of the Enneagram and Jungian typologies as understood in the terms of the
insights provided by the philosophy of mind (Chapter 2).
The explanatory power of this system of cognitive differentiation has been captured in a conceptual framework of
the metaphor of the mind. The key operative principle that informs the structure and dynamics of this metaphor of
the mind (Chapter 2) is in the way Aquinas (1952/1225–1274) captures the structure of human thinking in terms of
his trinity of abstraction (Lonergan, 1967: 39–43). The key insight is that human thinking can usefully be considered
structured in a hierarchy of these three levels of abstraction in much the same way as the Neoplatonists (from the 3rd
and 5th Centuries, respectively) Plotinus (1952/3rd Century) and Proclus (1963) did to explain the celestial sphere.
The Enneagram typology (Riso, 1987; Palmer, 1991) captures this trinitarian hierarchy within the human psyche and
expresses the differentiation between the three levels of abstraction in terms of individuals’ different motivations