on May 17 John wrote
1)
>"I also engaged in some useful and interesting discussions regarding whether
>these corporate constructs were partof the sociability corollary or not
>(inconclusive in that we all maintained our original viewpoint afterwards) of
>which I think Devi was part.
This is an issue we are currently wrestling with. We would love to hear more
about this discussion.
and he also wrote
2)
>"I think that whether we use the term "corporation" or "tribe" is slightly
>irrelevant within the overarching construct of a "group construct system".
I agree in part. However, Finn's discussion of a tribe has lead to some useful
insights (for us) on rituals and the perceived identity of a corporation.
Lindsay Oades
Wollongong
_______________________________________________________________________________
To: pcp
From: pcp@mailbase.ac.uk on Fri, 17 May 1996 4:31 PM
Subject: Re: re The Kelly corporation
RFC Header:Received: by uow.edu.au with SMTP;17 May 1996 16:31:08 +1000
Received: from norn.mailbase.ac.uk (daemon@norn.mailbase.ac.uk
[128.240.226.1]) by wyrm.its.uow.edu.au (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA17432;
Fri, 17 May 1996 16:25:41 +1000 (EST)
Received: by norn.mailbase.ac.uk id <GAA05599@norn.mailbase.ac.uk>
(8.6.12/ for mailbase.ac.uk); Fri, 17 May 1996 06:50:15 +0100
Received: from dub-img-5.compuserve.com by norn.mailbase.ac.uk id
<GAA05576@norn.mailbase.ac.uk>
(8.6.12/ for mailbase.ac.uk) with ESMTP; Fri, 17 May 1996 06:50:03 +0100
Received: by dub-img-5.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515)
id BAA00368; Fri, 17 May 1996 01:49:57 -0400
Date: 17 May 96 01:47:03 EDT
From: John M Fisher <101515.501@compuserve.com>
To: pcp <pcp@mailbase.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: re The Kelly corporation
Message-ID: <960517054702_101515.501_IHK48-2@CompuServe.COM>
X-List: pcp@mailbase.ac.uk
X-Unsub: To leave, send text 'leave pcp'
to mailbase@mailbase.ac.uk
Reply-To: pcp@mailbase.ac.uk
Sender: pcp-request@mailbase.ac.uk
Precedence: list
When I first read the Balnaves and Caputi paper on "Corporate Constructs" I
was
immediately excited and found it very useful. I also engaged in some useful
and
interesting discussions regarding whether these corporate constructs were part
of the sociability corollary or not (inconclusive in that we all maintained
our
original viewpoint afterwards) of which I think Devi was part. I have also
passed the article reference to others who have also found the construct
useful
in their work.
I think that whether we use the term "corporation" or "tribe" is slightly
irrelevant within the overarching construct of a "group construct system".
The
idea provides a useful framework for understanding how groups(organisations,
tribe, culturesetc.) are composed as well as the rules (explicit and implicit)
by which the group operates. This also helps(in my mind) to understand the
synergy concept, whereby the group acting together form a stronger entity than
the individuals when operating fom within a shared construction. Also peer
pressure can be explained in terms of group norms and requirement to conorm to
the expectations of the common construct system.
I would like to suggest that we have recently witness a form of corporate
construct regarding behaviour and acceptability of "deviant" behaviour where
it
was deemed that the shared aims and goals were being abused.
John F
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%