In the spirit of getting more discussion on here, I thought I'd ask you guys for thoughts on the feedforward concept I talked about at the New Haven meeting. I'm afraid I wasn't very articulate at that time but what I'm trying to gain with this concept is an analytical perspective on how organizations perceive the mass public as a critical interlocutor. The organization's reading of the public and array of techniques to engage more favorable or more efficaciously with the public constitutes "feedforward", in contrast to the feedback which is produced outside an organization but with the purpose of either entering or shaping the horizon of the organization.
What I'd love to hear from you guys is references to concepts that are already out there that seem to do similar work (or any other thoughts). I think of mediatization in media studies and buffering in organizational studies as grasping at this issue. I suspect both game theory and ethnomethodology have something to contribute since they both focus on recursive or reflexive epistemological contexts. Also I think Giddens's structuration has some overlap but I'm not very knowledgeable about that.
I know Joe is working on this concept as well from a more sophisticated direction. My ultimate goal is to create a more nuanced arena to discuss the political work of large organizations as they endeavor to shape their context. Basically a refining of Weber's notion of bureaucracies differentiating and gaining autonomy over their realms -- this isn't a single act of separation, but a continuous and ever-more-complex process of political work.
Tom
Briefly, as I'd too like to know what others think of the idea (especially those who haven't heard your talk, and are possibly encountering the concept for the first time): I've recently come across some discussion in the science studies literature of "popularization" as a concept, indicating the circulation and legitimization processes for spreading new epistemologies. Could be something to look into for parallel cases of technology adoption, etc., which engage publics in new ways.
ReplyDeleteJoe
Will follow up on this, thanks!
DeleteAnd yeah, other people's thoughts would be appreciated here as well.
Hi Tom, I didn't see your talk in New Haven, but what the hay! Here's some ramblings.
ReplyDeleteFeedforward sounds like a cool concept and your post got me thinking on a more hyper micro-level (e.g. ethnomethodology and symbolic interaction). There you see theorists deeply engaged with how actors construct social reality out of the flow of meaningful impressions coming at them through both retrospection (memory) and prospection (anticipation). (Mead's Philosophy of the Present is a touchstone piece on this). Bumping these concepts up to a meso-organizational level could be really interesting. It seems like defining what counts as THE past and THE anticipated future (and the relationship between them) might be important parts of the political struggle between organizations that are trying to shape the field of interaction through feedforward.
It might be kind of obvious, but I guess I'm saying (and this is not a shocker coming from me) thinking temporally about feedforward is important. There's a wealth of literature on this kind of stuff in the sociology of time that I'm pretty familiar with. I would be happy to share if you're interested. Hope this helps.
Ben
Thanks so much, Ben! This is very helpful. I had ethnomethodology in the back of my mind but didn't know where to look to get at this key issue -- I really appreciate the Mead reference as a result.
ReplyDeleteOn the issue of temporality... I'm presenting on this topic at the ASA and will hopefully have resolved my own take on the time element then, at which point expect an email re sociology of time references.
Thanks again for this helpful and encouraging reply!