Myths as errors and inventions: the shadow of tradition in pa praxis

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the impossible segregation of founding myths from any actual understanding of life in common, the public good and PA theorizing. The notion of shadow as used by Robert Denhardt to designate the “other side” of rational motives in organizing fits well with the approach to PA myths here intended, in consonance with the theme of unity in apparent opposites and the “intensely meaningful acts of heroes and heroines” (Denhardt, 1981, p. xii). Finally, the questionable opposition between logos and myth will be reviewed along the discussion of the sacred and the secret in PA tradition.

Design/methodology/approach

The author examines PA myths and discusses conjectures and explanations.

Findings

PA founding myths are not false believes or illusionary entities but genuine precursors and effective backstage arrangers of theory and praxis. The processes of languaging, musicking and organizing, basic human traits and fundamental events for human life to occur and get structured as it does, cannot prescind from them. Myths are intertwined with reasons and desires, inseparable, coexisting in the unified and pluriversal forms of doing, knowing and valuing that configure human life. Nothing different corresponds to PA and its myths as key components of the processes of thought, action and judgment that constitute the public domain.

Originality/value

PA myths persist not only through the ages of the administrative state but through the transformations of thoughts also occurred in each theorist’s own life experience. At different times, situations and conditions all of us – the author guess – have addressed this or that PA myth for motives worth deserving the reiterated discussion. It was never the same discussion; it could not have been, it is not, and it will not ever be.

Citation

Schmukler, R. (2018), "Myths as errors and inventions: the shadow of tradition in pa praxis", International Journal of Organization Theory & Behavior, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 158-170. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOTB-04-2018-0044