The Ideational Dynamics of Cultural Interaction and Actor Bonds

This paper provides a critique of IMP modeling and other schools of network analysis as captive of logocentric thought and colonized by modernist discourse, which relies upon the unchallenged assumptions of reason, rationalism and anthropocentric progress through scientism. IMP modeling is a welcome relief from narrower forms of economic rationalism in its attempted integration of social influences involving trust, social interaction and relationships. IMP modeling has, however, failed to escape from the colonization of Western ethnocentric rationalism because it remains unconsciously wedded to the central tenets of reason, which manifest themselves in the unquestioned primacy of ‘modeling’ as an outcome of ‘superior’ positivist epistemology and nomothetic methodology. The principal outcome of this failure is a latent incapability of taking culture seriously and of treating culture, at best, as merely another variable or dimension to be added on as a marginalized supplement to economy within an econocentric variance modeling approach. IMP modeling avoids the worst excesses of economic determinism and mechanistic reductionism of neo-classical Structural-Functionalist worldviews and, as such, assists in the monumental task of overcoming the hegemony of this orthodoxy in Marketing and Management. IMP modeling, however, because of its immanent rationalism cannot adequately challenge the manifestations and consequences of this hegemony. These include the metanarrative of scientism and its accompanying scientific assumptions of metaphysical truth, bivalence and atomised explanation. The argument is that this is embedded within an ethnocentric, rationalist, ‘culture-bound’ Western view dominating management academia. IMP modeling ends up being a naïve attempt at alternatively challenging ethnocentric orthodoxy that results in furthering the dominance of the latter because of its unconscious theoretical capitulation to rationalism. Other alternatives are identified as eclectic resources suitable for the development of an approach more relevant to local rather than universal conditions. These are discussed in the context of Overseas Chinese networks, which, it is argued, are not understandable outside of a discourse, which both accept culture as a network concept and networks as a cultural phenomena. This it is argued requires a fundamental critical evaluation within the IMP group of its unconscious modernist, Western assumptions and a willingness to accept ideas from outside this modernist ‘psychic prison’, principally from what has become to be termed ‘postmodernism’. The Ideational Dynamics of Cultural Interaction and Actor Bonds Most marketing research methodologies, including business-to-business research, are modernist in nature (Gómez Arias and Acebrón 2001). Modernist discourse emphasises the potential for human advancement through adoption of rational thought, reason and progress. The dominant form of modernism is ‘systems’ modernism (Cooper and Burell 1988,p. 95), which institutionalises reason through the development of the functional demands of universal systems. Modernism rests on a conception of information and knowledge as referential or representational, as a means of expressing something real and foundational outside of itself. It is founded upon assumptions of realist ontology and lends itself to logical positivism and universalising nomothetic ‘model building’ methodology. It is ‘structural’ in that it involves reducing complexity to atomised measurable, foundational certainties and largely adopts mechanistic metaphors and linear explanation to describe the world, which it assumes, is controllable by human kind as the central agent of reason. The IMP approach (and, to a large extent, the entire network episteme including Social Network Analysis) is a modernist, objectivist alternative to the dominant orthodoxy of neo-classical marketing theory. All types of network theory have their antecedence in social anthropology (Araujo and Easton 1996,p.64). Social anthropology has an underlying predisposition to structural-functional, structuralist and foundationalist principles through the influence of its principal proponents from Edward Tylor, through Bronislaw Malinowsy and A.R. RadcliffeBrowm, to Franz Boas, Margaret Mead and Claude Levi-Strauss. Despite the disparity in their foci, these principal social anthropologists share a predilection for structural explanations of social phenomena. Within network theory this is translated into a schema where social network theory is privileged. Social network theory is the most highly cross-referenced field within Industrial Network studies and the majority of other forms of network analysis (Araujo and Easton 1996,p.68). Social network theory rejects explanations of behaviour from cultural and processual perspectives (Araujo and Easton 1996,p.72). Thus social network theory, the privileged source of network analysis, is also the field which is most highly oriented to analysis of structure and is the most dedicated adherent of the positivist epistemology of sociometric and ‘block modeling’ techniques along with other objectivist assumptions. The main problem with all forms of network analysis has been is their employment of Western rationalist repertoires to ‘analyse’ through the logocentric delusion of objectivity. The outcome is consequently culturally embedded in its own Western, rationalist cognitive style and its methodological, epistemological and ontological assumptions. Network analysis has tended to focus upon economic ‘interests’ and not cultural ‘ideas’ in analysis of the human condition, using quantitative, logically empirical analysis to determine the structure of relationships. The domain of ‘ideas’, particularly morality, and analysis sensitive to the subjective interpretations of cultural actors and the hermeneutics of their ideas, is largely absent from network theory. IMP literature is captive of this modernist, logocentric thinking because of its adherence to structural-functionalist assumptions of ontological realism and nomothetic methodology. As a consequence, IMP fails to take culture seriously. This denigration of the construct of culture means that it is either ignored or abused. Ignoring Culture Ignoring culture is not uncommon. For example in the text edited by Hakansson and Snehota (1995) ‘developing relationships in networks’ is explored without any direct reference to culture. This is despite the clearly cultural nature of interaction between actors in forming bonds involving ideas, ‘learning’ and socially constructed ‘meaning’ (Hakansson and Snehota 1995,p.202) as well as the development of trust and the construction of identities (Hakansson and Snehota 1995p.204). Meaning and ideas, however, have been denigrated or downplayed by IMP scholars ( Hellgren, et al. 1993; Welch and Wilkinson 2001). Culture as systems of meaning and ideas has been similarly ignored generally in network analysis, which has adopted an emphasis upon relational structures (DiMaggio 1992). The central problem facing a conceptualisation of culture as one domain co-evolving with a parallel domain of interests is ‘Nadel’s Paradox’. This concerns the problem of accommodating these dual domains of ‘interests’ and ‘ideas’ in analysis of the human condition. ‘Interests’ appears compatible with quantitative, logically empirical analysis of the structure of relationships but ‘ideas’ appears more compatible with qualitative analysis that is sensitive to the subjective interpretations of cultural actors. The paradox is that progress towards better explanation and understanding relies upon the simultaneous application of two apparently incommensurable approaches (DiMaggio 1992). The IMP group may be characterised, in Burrell and Morgan’s (1979) terms as structuralfunctionalist. They proposed that social theory can be seen in terms of four key paradigms based on differing assumptions about the philosophy of (social) science as one dimension and about the nature of society as another. The four paradigms are seen as each identifying a distinct problem and as incommensurable and mutually exclusive perspectives or ‘hermetic’ theoretical systems. Different assumptions about the philosophy of science are constituted by different sets of assumptions related to ontology, epistemology, human nature and methodology, which determine a continuum from ‘subjectivist’ to ‘objectivist’ approaches. Similarly, contrasting notions of ‘regulation’ or order from those concerning ‘radical change’ or conflict constitute different assumptions about the nature of society. The outcome is the four paradigms of ‘Radical humanist’, Radical Structuralist’, ‘Interpretivist’ and ‘Functionalist’ sociology. These paradigms, and the position of the IMP approach within this schema are shown in Fig.1. IMP modeling ends up being a naïve attempt at challenging functionalist orthodoxy. This results in furthering the dominance of the latter because of its unconscious theoretical capitulation to rationalism and scientism. The IMP group has always put relationships as a central focus. To not, at the same time, adopt culture as a central construct makes little sense. Relationships are cultural. Managing people is deeply embedded in cultural assumptions about human nature, relationships with people, and peer relations. “Assumptions about human nature determine the willingness to delegate and the nature of control systems” and these “assumptions relate to the nature of relationships” (Schneider and Barsoux 1997,p.36). The propensity of a relationship-oriented culture is to afford greater importance to relationships than tasks, with emphasis upon trust and particularism (Schneider and Barsoux 1997,p.37). This emphasis is, for example, manifest in ‘neo-Confucian’ cultures like Hong Kong in ubiquitous Guanxi or ‘connections’ as the principle currency of co-ordination. The importance afforded to relationships in such cultures is related to the extent to which hierarchy is revered, the way in which leadership is perceived, and how peers interact and construct their own identity (Schneider and Barsoux 1997,p.38). Figure 1 : Marketing Approaches and Social Science Paradigms Sociology of Regulation Functionalism Interpretivism