Brandon Ching
PAF 602 (Fall 2008)

Farmer, David J., (1995), The language of public administration: bureaucracy, modernity, and postmodernity, The University of Alabama Press.

Abstract

In The Language of Public Administration, David Farmer argues that the modern language of public administration, by which its scholars understand and approach the field (bureaucracy in particular), is limited. He suggests that the language of public administration can be expanded through the advent and acceptance of postmodernity and provides justification through the analysis of distinct characteristics in modernity and postmodernity.

Central to Farmer’s theory of expanding the language of public administration is the concept of reflexive interpretation. Through reflexive interpretation, one is able to explore different ways of seeing and understanding the field by viewing it through a different “lens.” This approach is predicated upon the understanding that social reality can be different for different people and groups (interpretivist in nature). Given that reality is different for different groups, having the ability to see and understand reality through different “lenses” allows for an expanded understanding, and hence language, of reality.

In support of Farmer’s reflexive interpretation, he first addresses the limitations of modern public administration through particularism, scientism, technologism, enterprise, and hermeneutics. Particularism has limitations regarding the adoption of practices from one nation or sector of society for use in public administration. Scientism and technologism champion the objective and limits the use of value judgements while also hindering ethics. Enterprise leads to contradictions in that the capitalist drive for profit is at odds with the public welfare drive of government. Finally, hermeneutics, “is met when the pursuit of meaning encounters the undermining of reason and rationality” (p. 143).

Despite these modern limitations, Farmer outlines four assumptions about postmodernity that he believes can expand the language of public administration: imagination, deconstruction, deterritorialization, and alterity. These assumptions are meant to be intertwined with each other as well as with the concepts of modernity outlined above; giving the ability to “switch lenses” as needed.

Farmer has contributed an argument of expansion and acceptance in the field of public administration.  By understanding, accepting, and incorporating the trends of postmodernity, the field of public administration is better prepared to address the challenges of the future.

Critique

I found Farmer’s arguments for expanding the language of public administration very spot on. I agree with his approach of postmodern assumptions as new avenues of public administration study. The emphasis on openness and acceptance in postmodernism aligns well with my own beliefs of information technology and society.

An interesting parallel can be drawn between some of the postmodern assumptions outlined by Farmer and the open-source software (OSS) movement. The OSS philosophy is based on the openness of code and the ability of individuals to creatively contribute and share their ideas; all for a common good. I can see parallels between antiadministration, deconstruction, deterritorialization, and (obviously) imagination in much of the OSS movement. While never thought of in terms of poststructuralism, this could explain why I feel so strongly about using open-source software as a platform for information technology in government. I guess I was a closet postmodernist and didn’t even know it!

The only negative critique I have about Farmer’s argument is reflexive interpretation. I love the idea and it is how I try to view the world but I feel that it makes a rather large assumption that people will be able to simply “switch lenses” in order to see the world differently. To put it in another term, I would simply call it tolerance: the ability to see, accept, and tolerate things that are not your own. However, if there is one thing that humans are notoriously not good at, it’s tolerance. A brief look into any part of human history (in fact, we don’t even need to look into history, we’re surrounded by intolerance today) will show that there has always been conflict between people with differences, be it race, culture, religion, sex, opinion, etc. If being able to see things from another perspective was as easy as changing glasses, then the world would already be a much better place. As such, I don’t feel that Farmer gives enough credit to the difficulty in what he is proposing here.

Tags: bureaucracy, David Farmer, deconstruction, deterritorialization, open-source, postmodernity, public administration, rationality