Abstract: In this paper, I argue that historical analysis has much potential though might be in need of re-assembling. In light of the contrasting calls for the “end of history” by postmodern historians (Jenkins, 1999, 2009) and the “call for more history” by M&OS scholars (Zald, 1993, Booth & Rowlinson, 2006), this paper explores an alternative conceptual space for thinking historically. This conceptual space is outlined by first reviewing both modern, and postmodern approaches to the past and history. It is my hope that the latter will serve as a sufficient context in which to thoroughly consider the need for what I will call an amodern approach to doing histories. Characteristics of amodern histories include a focus on multiple enactments of the past (as opposed to modernist singular or postmodern plural accounts) as well as an emphasis on relationalism in history (as opposed to modernist realist or postmodern relativist accounts).
Abstract: In this paper, drawing on ANTi-History (Durepos and Mills 2012), we set out to recover the New Deal and some of its leading figures for the field of management and organizational studies. In so doing we do not simply seek to add New Deal studies to existing histories of MOS but rather our aim is to show how MOS histories have served to narrowly define the field and constrain what is considered a valid area of study.
Through exploration of the neglected phenomenon of the New Deal, we conclude that MOS needs be more imaginative in its choice of
stories and exemplars when dealing with the broad range of economic, behavioral, social and political factors that confront humankind’s
ability to organize and manage its affairs.