To really appreciate (or maybe not) this post you need to have this link, with music going in the background…
This is an old popular song from the band Talking Heads: “Road to Nowhere”
The lyrics for the song start like this:
WELL WE KNOW WHERE WE’RE GOIN’
BUT WE DON’T KNOW WHERE WE’VE BEEN
AND WE KNOW WHAT WE’RE KNOWIN’
BUT WE CAN’T SAY SAY WHAT WE’VE SEEN
AND WE’RE NOT LITTLE CHILDREN
AND WE KNOW WHAT WE CAN’T
AND THE FUTURE IS CERTAIN
GIVE TIME TO WORK IT OUT
We’re on a road to nowhere
Come on inside
Takin’ that ride to nowhere
We’ll take that ride
_ _ _ _ _ _
See… the thought process behind comes from this definition of “management” :
“… to manage oneself as a pre-requisite to attempting to manage others…”?? (hmmm)
(including other things…?)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
“Management,” rather obviously comes from the root: “manage”:
Much of the thought process for this line of illustrations came from school research, and reading an essay by Edward Said, an English literature academic, professor and critic: “Said was an influential cultural critic and author, known best for his book Orientalism (1978).”
This from his collection of essays “Reflections on Exile” and the essay “Opponents, Audiences, Constituencies, and Community“:
The most impressive recent work concerning the history, circumstances, and constitution of modern knowledge has stressed the role of social convention… for example, the shift of attention away from the individual creator to the communal restraints upon personal initiative. Galileos and Einsteins are infrequent figures not just because genius is a rare thing but because scientists are borne along by agreed-upon ways to do research, and this consensus encourages uniformity rather than bold enterprise. Over time this uniformity acquires the status of discipline, while its subject matter becomes a field or territory…
[e.g. BUT WE DON’T KNOW WHERE WE’VE BEEN]
Along with these goes a whole apparatus of techniques… to protect the coherence, the territorial integrity, the identity of the field, its adherents and its institutional presence. You cannot simply choose to be a sociologist or a psychoanalyst; you cannot simply make statements that have the status of knowledge in anthropology; you cannot merely suppose that what you say as a historian (however well it may have been researched) enters historical discourse. You have to pass through certain rules of accreditation, you must learn the rules, you must speak the language, you must master idioms, and you must accept the authorities of the field — determined in many of the same ways — to which you cannot contribute.
[e.g. BUT WE CAN’T SAY SAY WHAT WE’VE SEEN]
In this view of things, expertise is partially determined by how well an individual learns the rules of the game, so to speak…
[e.g. AND WE KNOW WHAT WE CAN’T…. say, or do…]
And most telling in Said’s questions:
Is it the inevitable conclusion to the formation of an interpretive community that its constituency, its specialized language, and its concerns tend to get tighter, more airtight, more self-enclosed as its own self-confirming authority acquires more power, the solid status of orthodoxy, and a stable constituency? What is the acceptable humanistic antidote to what one discovers, say, among sociologists, philosophers and so-called policy scientists who speak only to and for each other in a language oblvious to everything but a well-guarded constantly shrinking fiefdom forbidden to the uninitiated?
This doesn’t sound like a particular fishy government ministry fiefdom (and many closely attached organizations) that is about to, or in the middle of, facing a mass shortage of staff due to retirements and early retirements…?
You want in to that ‘fiefdom’ (e.g. policy scientists… [what a phrase]…), you better be versed in the lingo, the idioms [A form of expression natural to a language, person, or group of people], the games, the politics, and the methods of moving up the bureaucratic ladder (e.g. the Peter Principle).
Otherwise known as “don’t rock the boat.”
You also better be well-versed, and completely adherent (like crazy glue) to the references and ‘science’ that got us here… you know the things like Maximum Sustained Yield, strategic imperatives, benchmarks, ‘ecosystem-based planning’, and so on…
And… you better have PowerPoint nailed down.
And, know the secret handshakes, and day rate and per diem gravy train intellectual copyrights…
As someone wise-cracked recently too me:
DFO is the least biologically diverse bureaucracy – a small gene pool of scientists that has aged but not recruited young stock…
Diversity would also suggest a wide range of approaches, ‘professionals’, non-professionals, ways of valuing and working from local and community knowledge…
Not government department imperatives, strategic plans, and management objectives.
Time for a Change. (?)
Or as one of the ‘doctor’ toys my kids play with asks: “Time for a Check-up?”