Jeannine M. Love

The Rugged Individualist Club

This paper explores the impacts of the dominant Hobbesian ontology and the Protestant ethic on individual experience within the United States, connecting the ideas of disaster capitalism and the myth of the Individual to explore the ways in which individual citizens are isolated, alienated, and subjugated. The paper identifies forms of isolation experienced by individuals in public administration, anti-poverty policies, and popular methods of citizen participation. Playing off the notion of hollow government, the paper argues that the Hobbesian ontology of fear and othering, along with Lockean Individualism, creates hollow Individuals by negating opportunities for interpersonal exchange of ideas. The paper suggests that the field of public administration can begin to counteract the paradox of Individualism, in part, by following Stivers (1994) model of the listening bureaucrat.

Relational Process Ontology: A Grounding for Global Governance

This article presents a Governance Typology comprising philosophical and practical theoretical elements which compose four ideal-types found in dominant Western political theory, what we label Institutional, Holographic, Atomistic, and Fragmented governance types. Then a fifth synthesis type is articulated, Integrative Governance, which is based on relational process ontology derived from alternative sources. The article then makes the argument that Integrative Governance is fitting in terms of the contemporary context and leading edge theory and addresses important critiques of the other governance types. In closing, the article affirms Integrative Governance and argues it is a more fruitful grounding for global governance and a more sustainable future.

Integrative Governance: A Method for Fruitful Public Encounters

Public encounters, the micro-level relational process of face-to-face contact between public professionals and community members, are argued to have a meaningful effect on the outcomes of governance activities. In turn, the specific characteristics of these encounters are constrained by institutionalized macro-level structures, yet the variety of contexts and associated relational styles have not been carefully explored. Therefore, in this article, public encounters are considered in light of a particular governance typology to (a) clearly differentiate macro-level contexts, (b) clearly differentiate the associated styles of relating in each type of public encounter, (c) describe the ways in which these interactions hinder or foster productive processes and outcomes, and (d) identify a preferred approach for potentially more fruitful results. In this way, the article provides a theoretical platform for future analysis of empirical cases. This theoretical analysis reveals the pathological dynamics in public encounters produced by typical approaches to governance and offers an alternative approach that may produce more effective public encounters. Specifically, using the method of integration described by Progressive Era scholar Mary Follett, we argue fruitful public encounters entail a relational disposition, a cooperative style of relating, a collaborative mode of association, and a method for achieving integration that enables constructive conflict through disintegration of a priori positions; collaborative discovery of facts and values; revaluation of desires and methods through dialogue; creative and integrative determinations; collective responsibility; and experientially founded commitment.

Facilitating Difficult Dialogues in the Classroom: A Pedagogical Imperative

The recent social unrest in the United States, sparked by increased social media attention to the deaths of Black individuals at the hands of police (e.g., “The Counted,” 2016), has led to a national conversation about the issues of institutional racism and racial injustice. This growing conversation has been fostered by the Black Lives Matter movement, which is illuminating these problems for larger segments of the U.S. (and international) community. The Black Lives Matter movement in the United States emerged in response to the killing of Trayvon Martin in 2012 by a self-appointed vigilante, George Zimmerman, and picked up momentum in the wake of the killing of Michael Brown in 2014 by Ferguson, Missouri, police officer Darren Wilson. As explained by activist, and cofounder of #BlackLivesMatter Alicia Garza (2014), “When we say Black Lives Matter, we are talking about the ways in which Black people are deprived of our basic human rights and dignity,” and in particular that these are the “consequence of state violence” (para. 12). The creation of the hashtag #BlackLivesMatter can be understood as a natural outgrowth of the conversations circulating on #BlackTwitter about systemic state violence against people

Public Administration Theory in the Obama Era

The authors listed above and a few others met during the 2009 Public Administration Theory Network Conference, as part of the Open Space Technology process, to talk about what the new Obama administration might mean for public administration theory. Open Space Technology is a self-organizing process where participants set their own agenda to discuss complex topics of interest (see Stout & Bryer, 2009. This essay summarizes our conversation and presents some ideas for moving forward public administration theory). The group generally had a sense of hope about the future of public administration within this new Obama era. The Obama administration has brought a new appreciation for government and the public service and also recognizes that markets do not solve all of our problems. In his inaugural speech, President Obama called for “the spirit of service; a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves.” He went on to note that: For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job, which sees us through our darkest hours. It is

Fraternity, Solidarity, and Unity

The contested understanding of human beings in relation to one another has been referred to as the problem of the social bond (McSwite, 2006). This forum seeks to address the social bond as conceptualized through ideas such as fraternité and solidarity. Elsewhere, we have explicated a governance typology (Stout & Love, 2013b) and its implications for public ethics (Stout & Love, 2013a) as well as its ramifications for the notion of unity (Stout, 2014)—yet another term for solidarity. This typology is quite useful in explaining varying conceptions of the social bond, as well as how those conceptions can be integrated in a fruitful manner for governance in a diverse global context. Given the length limitations of this article, how these conceptualizations play out in administrative practice will have to be deduced. In sketch, based on four ideal-typical approaches to governance generated by considering the dialectical oppositions in the conceptualizations of ontology, psychosocial theory, epistemology, belief, ethics, political theory, economic theory, and administrative theory, we find that philosophical assumptions prefigure societal institutions and practices. By synthesizing the qualities of the dialectics within each conceptual layer, an approach we call Integrative Governance emerges. Here, we will explore the consequences for the social bond of these divergent approaches. Table 1 summarizes the four primary approaches to governance, which we refer to as Institutional, Atomistic, Holographic, and Fragmented. Table 2 summarizes the characteristics of integrative governance. Figure 1 illustrates Integrative Governance as a synthesis of the dialectics occurring within and between the Institutional/Holographic ideal-types and the Atomistic/Fragmented ideal-types. In Institutional Governance, the social bond is conceived as a relationship that exists within a predetermined framework that the anthropologist Mary Douglas (1970/1996) calls hierarchy. In this high-grid (rules and laws), high-group (social identity) ideal-type, identity is based on one’s predetermined place in the social or cosmological order, and rules from above guide rational action. As Richard Box and Deborah Sagen suggest, “virtually all human endeavor involves the formation of hierarchies of leaders and followers, a tendency that can be shaped or resisted, but rarely eliminated” (1998,