This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Weiss, R. M. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Derridada

A Response to Weitzner

University of Delaware, Newark

Acknowledging that deconstruction had failed to catch on as a research method among management scholars, Weitzner argues for reconsidering Derrida's potential contributions to management scholarship—this time as an ethicist, whose core idea is that the hallmark of an ethical decision is that it is not amenable to rational decision processes. Illustrating the Derridean style of academic debate, he responds to criticisms of Derrida's ethical position as amoral by noting Derrida's declaration that such critics were not serious and by declaring that "in fact" their critique is incorrect. His demonstration of the value of Derrida's views consists of the contention that they are not inconsistent with some existing perspectives. This article argues that the Derridean view errs in portraying ethical decisions as necessarily noninstrumental and nonrational and contrasts it with Weber's view that noninstrumental action may nevertheless be rational. The very divergent practical implications of these opposing perspectives are examined.

Key Words: deconstruction • ethics • Derrida • Weber

Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 16, No. 1, 55-59 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/1056492606294524


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?