Social organization, classificatory analogies and institutional logics: Institutional theory revisits Mary Douglas

Abstract

As a social theory of organization, it is unsurprising that institutional theory draws upon the profound and ambitious work of the late anthropologist Mary Douglas. One of the foundational concepts of organizational institutionalism, institutional logics, directly draws upon her work. Yet, in recent times, this foundational role has faded from view as institutional theory itself becomes increasingly institutionalized as a vibrant branch of organization studies. This is unfortunate for there is much continuity in current work with that of Douglas, it now being 50 years and 30 years, respectively, since the publication of two of her formative works. The deep analogies that underpin classificatory systems and the processes by which they are sustained remain significant areas under continued investigation by institutional theorists. Thus, in this paper we revisit Douglas' core arguments and their connections to institutional theorizing. We specifically explore her contribution of 'naturalizing analogies' as a way of accounting for the unfolding of change across levels of analysis, extending, modifying and enriching explanations of how institutional change is reified, naturalized and made meaningful. We do this by providing empirical descriptions of meta-organizing analogies and field-level applications. We explain how Douglas' major theoretical works are of considerable relevance for current institutional theorizing. This aids particularly in informing accounts of institutional logics and the movement between individual cognition and collective signification.

Fields, Institutional Infrastructure and Governance

“…The idea of the all-knowing efficient market, and the well-institutionalized scripts that come with it, is translated and transferred from other sectors (Wall Street but also education, health); the consequent materials required for this impact investing market are drawn from taken-for-granted assumptions and ideas about what a market needs to function -supply, demand, rankings, ratings and those to do the ratings (Logue, 2014). The market thus becomes the central, naturalizing analogy for organizing and building institutional infrastructure for this field, providing a powerful cognitive force (Logue, Clegg, & Gray, 2016).…”

Encrucijadas y desafíos de los Estudios Organizacionales Una reflexión desde las perspectivas institucionales

“…El estudio de las li ha tenido un crecimiento importante por la gran cantidad de aplicaciones empíricas que se han realizado y que permite comprender a las organizaciones como sistemas sociales en tensión constante. Además de ello, su estudio se ha abierto, en el sentido de vincular estructuras sociales y comportamientos individuales a espacios analíticos que incorporan sentimientos, emociones, ritos y el inconsciente en su análisis, logrando con ello un mayor acercamiento con las humanidades (Friedland, 2018;Friedland, Mohr, Roose, & Gardinali, 2014;Logue, Clegg, & Gray, 2016;Vince, 2019).…”

Leadership practices by senior position holders in Higher Educational Research Institutes: Stealth power in action?

“…The concept of leadership underpinning this article is rooted in its enactment by those who are in formal positions of power. In the context of a critical leadership studies tradition, this article uses the concept of stealth power (Webb, 2008) to make sense of the leadership practices that, to varying degrees, obscure male-dominated 'circuits of power' (Logue et al, 2016).…”