Review: Spirited DialogueAuthor(s): Margaret H. Vickers, Hubert G. Locke, Melvin J. Dubnick, Guy B. Adams, Danny L.BalfourReviewed work(s):Unmasking Administrative Evil by Guy B. Adams ; Danny L. BalfourSource:

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 60, No. 5 (Sep. - Oct., 2000), pp. 464-482Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the American Society for PublicAdministrationStable URL:

Accessed: 05/09/2009 23:02

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black .Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with thescholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform thatpromotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Blackwell Publishing

and

American Society for Public Administration

are collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to

Public Administration Review.

http://www.jstor.org

BookReviews ILarryLuton,Editor

SpiritedDialoguesaspecialforumorivelyxchangeson booksof interestoPAReaders.nthisssue,wefocusattention n theawardwinningook,Unmaskingdministrativevil,byGuyAdamsandDannyBalfourThexchangebeginswithahard-hittingndcontroversialritique yMelDubnick.heessays by MargaretVickers ndHubertLockeraisethe contributionadebyAdams andBalfourndrespondo Dubnick'sritique.TheexchangeconcludeswitharesponsebyAdamsandBalfour.LSL

Spirited

Dialogue:

The

Case

for

Administrative

vil:

Critique'

MelvinJ.Dubnick,RutgersUniversity-Newark

GuyB.Adams andDannyL.Balfour'sUnmaskingAdministrativeEvil(UAE)s anmportantooknsev-eralrespects,nottheleastbeingtheat-tention t hasgeneratedamongreadersbothwithinand outside thefieldofPublicAdministration.2sa commu-nityofscholars,PublicAdministrationis notknownforitscontributions o"popular"iterature.We do nottendtopublishbookslikelyto befoundontheshelves atBordersorBarnesandNoble-not evenin the"management"section wherejustaboutanythingas-sociatedwithorganizationalifeseemsto sell.Beyondtherareexceptionortwo,oursis notafield thatdraws at-tention o itselfthroughublishingon-troversialvolumes.Therefore,anyworkpublishedbyourcolleaguesreceivingsomecriticalattentionsindeed animportantpub-licationfor ourcommunity.Andthefact thatithasreceived two ofthefield'smajor"book of theyear"awards3nlyreinforces hatudgment.UAEisno doubt abook to bereck-onedwith foranyseriousstudent ofPublicAdministration.UAEachieved tsnotablestatusbybeingacontentiouswork,puttingorthastrong argumentonbehalf of apar-ticularviewpoint.It isa work ofrheto-ric,designedprimarilyointroduceustoaninsightfulperspectiveandtoper-suade usof itsvalueforunderstand-ingtheproblematicnatureofmodempublicadministration.Tothedegreethatt stirsdebateandreflectionaboutimportantssues,UAEnodoubtde-serves theattentionandhonorsithasreceived. Butdoes it deservethesamedegreeof attentionas a work ofschol-arship?Whatfollowsis acriticalassess-ment ofUAEasaworkofscholarship,andmyfocusis on twogeneralcon-cerns. Inthe firstsection,Ipresentafoundationorassessingthecredibil-ityofargumentativecholarshipandoffer anassessment ofUAE onthosegrounds.nthe secondsection,Ihigh-lightsome ofthespecial responsibili-ties-someof themethical-assumedbyscholarswhouserhetoricalandar-gumentativepproaches.Hereaswell,IassessUAE o seehow well it"mea-suresup."Inthe finalsection,I dis-cusswhatthewidespreadenthusiasmfor thisworksaysaboutourfield andits viewofscholarship.

TheCredibilityfArgumentativecholarship

ScholarshipasArgument

Hood andJackson1991,especiallych.2)characterize theliterature ofPublicAdministrationasargumenta-tive andrhetorical,4viewtheytraceto HerbertSimon'sclassiccritiqueoforthodoxyn"TheProverbsfAdmin-istration."5hecharacterizationf thefield'sliteratureas rhetoricalandar-gumentativemayseemharshly udg-mental atfirst,and Ihavepreviouslyofferedaseriouscritiqueof thefield'sscholarshipDubnick1999).There sgrowing acceptance,however,oftheidea thatmostacademicscholarshipis infact focusedonefforts toper-suade,andthatrhetoricandargumen-tationplay keyroles n theconductandpresentationofresearch in alldisci-plines(Gross1996;Edmondson1984;Nelson,Megill,andMcCloskey1987;Patterson1996;Mailloux1989;Fish1989,ch.20;Gusfield1976;Overington1977).Amongstudentsofsocialscientificinquiry,attentionhasshifted fromthe searchforuniversalorreconstructedlogics"ofinquiryoanunderstandingf thedynamic"dis-cursivecultures"ofinquiry(Nagel1961;Hall1999;Kaplan1964).Forsome,this view reinforcesthepostmoderncritiqueof"scientism,"especiallyin thesocialsciences(Rosenau1992).Forothers,tsupportsamorerealistic view oftheimperfectworld ofscholarshipound in alldis-ciplines(SokalandBricmont1998).In thiscontext,thecharacterizationofUAEas arhetoricalwork doeslittlemore thanmakeexplicittheargumen-tativeform ofinquiryusedbytheau-thors.Theyare ingoodcompany.AmongthecontemporarylassicsofPublicAdministrationare worksnolessargumentative,romHummel'sTheBureaucraticExperience(1994)andGoodsell'sTheCaseforBureau-cracy(1994)toOsborneandGaebler's

464 PublicdministrationeviewSeptember/October000,Vol.0,No.5

ReinventingGovernment(1992).Thus,the assessmentof a worksuchasUAEdependsonthe standardsweasafieldacceptforargumentativescholarship.AccordingtophilosopherStephenToulmin,once weacceptthelegiti-macyof rhetoricalandargumentativeinquiry,wefacea choice betweenstan-dardsderived from idealizedlogicor"working" ogic(1958,especiallych.IV).Anidealizedlogicpositsuniver-sal standardsor anargument'slaims,demanding conformityinboth formand substance.Simon used such stan-dardsinhiscritiqueoforthodoxy'sprinciplesofadministration,onclud-ing theysuffered wo fatal flaws:theycameinconflictingpairsand weregroundedin"ordinaryknowledge"ratherhan derivedfrom scientificin-quiry.ncontrast,workingogicusesstandardsppliedn"real ife" condi-tions,andthese areoftenradicallydif-ferent rom dealized standards.Thus,in contrast oSimon,Hood and Jack-soncalled for the assessment of "ad-ministrativearguments"n the basisoftheircredibilityamongpractitionerswho,inturn,relyontheirworkinglogicto determinewhat isacceptableor notacceptable."Winningadminis-trativedeas,"they argue,"arerarelyvery profound.Oftentheyarerepack-agedandrelabeledsic]versionsof anidea which has beenadvancedmanytimes before.Frequentlytheirpre-mises come down to some banal no-tion of 'humannature'coupledwith acontestableview about inks betweencause andeffect.'Proof'ypicallycon-sists of no morethan a few colorfulexamples"(Hoodand Jackson1991,10-11).A similar distinctionis usefulindevelopingstandardsorassessingthecredibilityofargumentativecholar-ship.Wecanapplysomeidealizedlogic(suchas,logical positivism)toclaims madebyourcolleagues,butintheprocesswe arelikelyto find our-selvesreestablishingandreinforcingthesameepistemologicalandmethod-ologicaldivisions that haveplaguedourfield for thepasthalf-century.Amoreproductivepproachnvolves theapplicationof standards erived fromaworking ogicrelevantothe schol-arlyfunctions of the field.Asaclaim-assertingargument,UAE ssubjectto assessmenton bothidealized andpracticalgrounds.HereIfocusontheworking ogicapproach,relyingon thebasicrequirementsorajustifiableor credibleargumentes-tablishedbyToulminnThe UsesofArgument.6Toulminpositsthatsup-portforthe substanceofanyclaimrequiresmore han he dataor evidencethatgeneratedit. ThefactthattheCoastGuardinds debrisfloatingoffthecoastofNantucketmightlead tothe claim thatheyhaddiscovered hewreckageof an airlinerrash,butmoreisrequiredtoestablish the claim asjustifiable.Acredible claim calls forqualifiersand warrants.Qualifiersare factorsthat,iftrue,would lead to amodificationof theclaim's reliance on theevidence. Forexample,ashipwreckn the samegen-eral areaseveraldays priorcould bethe sourceofthedebris. Whilenotnecessarilyprovingthe claimwrong,aqualifierraises issuesabout the de-greeofjustifiability.Warrants re an even morefunda-mental consideration.They providethejustifyinglinkbetween facts andclaims,and can beregardedaspropo-sitions offered tosupporta claim. Intheirsimplestform,theyare clear "if... then"statements:fsearchers inddebrisatapointwheretheaircraftwas last trackedbyradar,hen the claimthat it was fromthemissingairlinerwould bejustified.Ifthe debris con-sistedofitemstypicallyassociatedwith themissingaircraft,then theclaim'sjustificationsevengreater.Toulminalso makesacriticallyimportantdistinction between "war-rant-using"nd"warrant-establishing"arguments.Warrant-using rgumentsjustifyclaimsonthe basisofproposi-tions that are "takenforgranted"orassumedtobe valid.Intheexampleof the aircraftdisaster,the technicalfeasibilityandreliabilityof radar candatasassumed,and(atleastinitially)the claim makerdoes not have topro-videsupportor"backing"orthe war-rant tself(Elgin1996,101-6).Incon-trast,awarrant-establishing rgumentwill offerbackingor thepropositionsused to linkevidence to the claimmaker'sassertions.Thestandardsfscholarshipnal-most alldisciplines requirewarrant-establishingargumentsncases wheretheclaims or theirassumptionsarenovel orcontroversial.Tothedegreethatthere are certainpresuppositionsthat arewidelyaccepted amongthecommunityofscholarswithin afield,awarrant neednotrequire backingeach time itisapplied.However,oneofthe sharedassumptionsamongmembersofanacademicfield isthatthe use ofsuchwarrantsssubjecttochallenge-andthus theexpectationthatascholarmust bepreparedopro-videsupportoranywarrantusedin aparticularlaim(Chandler,Davidson,andHarootunian1994).Thisis afundamentalexpectationinanyacademiceffort that seeks le-gitimacyasscholarship-anexpecta-tionthatissharedbythehumanities,thesciences,and thesocial sciences.Andit isthisexpectationthatisnotmetbyAdams and Balfour.

TheBasic Claims

TheprincipalassertionofUAEisthatwe areconfrontedwith a new andparticularlyperniciousform of evilrooted in the "cultureoftechnicalra-tionality."Thisadministrative evil"wearsmanymasks"(4)thatkeepsithiddenfromthose"ordinarypeople"who do itsbiddingunintentionally.Thus,throughhemanipulationflan-guageandaprocessof "moral nver-sion,"administrative vil makespub-lic administratorstsunknowingandcomplicitous agents.Thesupportingevidence for the existence of admin-istrative vil is all aroundus-fromthe