Administrative Evil as a Social

Administrative Evil as a Social Construct

The reality that Dubnick & Justice (2006) attempt to address in the present article is simply that evil is a seemingly inherent byproduct of human affairs and interactions. Evil events occur and beyond this, are often facilitated by a rhetorical inversion of conventional ethical principles even to the extent that acts now viewed in hindsight as evil such as the institution of slavery or the various genocides which have been recorded in human events were at one time justified on distorted ethical rationales. In an effort to find a rational way of examining the seeming inevitability of such evil, researchers beginning with Adams & Balfour in 1998, have characterized this as 'administrative evil.' The discussion hereafter will evaluate this concept, attempting to define the perspective underlying this phrase and to evaluate the ethical and philosophical implications of such a perspective.

Key Tenets:

The primary tenet that drives the discussion in the article by Dubnick & Justice is that evil behaviors cannot simply be prevented simply through the use of ethical rhetoric. The inevitability of 'administrative evil' instead calls for an objective way of evaluating and understanding this evil. Accordingly, a key tenet of the article is that 'administrative evil' is best understood as a function of the culture and society within which it is allowed to occur. To this point, the article proposes to "explore the role of evil in administrative ethics from a functional perspetive, accepting its importance as a socially significant concept that requires attention on those grounds alone. Posited within the historical context of modernity, we find that various notions of evil have served (and continue to serve) a social purpose in both rationalizing and transforming otherwise morally inexplicable events and behavior. Understood in this way, evil has indeed played a key role in modern life, although more as a mediating social construct than as an actual metaphysical or natural force." (Dubnick & Justice, p. 237)

This contributes the tenet that when we make efforts to understand evil as a social construct, it is easier to view the consequences of this dysfunction.

Pros/Cons:

The article explicitly states that its consideration is not without its limits. To the point, the authors concede that the article is largely analytical and philosophical in nature. The article is therefore not to be perceived as a scientific research document nor do the authors wish to have their analysis perceived as a theory. Lacking any such empiricism, the article's primary drawback is the relatively unsupportable nature of its conclusions.

That said, the article is valuable to the extent that it explicitly proclaims to be, as a catalyst to a more open and honest discussion on the issues breached. Certainly, there is a tremendous value to placing a more objective and rational discussion around the concept of evil. As the text by Dubnick & Justice notes, the concept of evil has always troubled philosophers of morality and social convention. They remark that "in ethics, the challenge of evil is to deal with those actions that, by definition, defy moral comprehension. Despite its use in political rhetoric aand everyday life, the term evil remains ambiguous at best, a holographic concept that we see without being able to grasp its meaning." (Dubnick & Justice, p. 239) It is this very nature that renders the discussion on 'administrative evil' so categorically important. In administrative contexts such as governments or corporations, the proposition of ethical orientation may apply, but only in a supplemental context to institutionalized notions of ethical behavior that are likely to incorporate some degree of 'administrative evil.' This article is strongly recommended by its capacity to bring more balanced attention to this sometimes precarious balance between ethical orientation and the pressure of social constructs.

Application to Public Administration:

The article by Browder (2001) sums up well the application to public administration of a discussion such as Dubnick & Justice's. Particularly, Browder suggests that by reframing our understanding of evil events throughout history according to the idea of 'administrative evil' it is possible to create a greater body of awareness in public administration of the patterns leading to said evil. Accordingly, Browder notes that "the discipline of public administration has little sense of its historical circumstances and constantly re-issues 'new' calls for science and rigour. Instead, we must focus more research on critical, historically-based studies." (p. 1) Browder argues that the insertion of administrative evil into such discussions provides just such a basis for consideration.

Key Scholars:

The key scholars of importance in this discussion are Adams & Balfour, whose 1998 text Unmasking Administrative Evil is identified as the seminal work on the subject by Dubnick & Justice. Indeed, Adams & Balfour have continued to examine these issues, resolving as recently as 2007 that "the ethical framework within a technical rational system thus posits the primacy of an abstract, utility-maximizing individual, while binding leaders and professionals to organizations in ways that make them into reliable conduits for the dictates of legitimate authority, which is no less legitimate when it happens to be pursuing an unethical or even evil policy." (p. 4) This denotes that today, in the wake of events such as the War in Iraq, the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and Hurricane Katrina, social construct remains a powerful force in shaping the priorities and the ethical orientation of administrative institutions.

Works Cited:

Adams, G.B. & Balfour, D.L. (2007). Leadership, Administrative Evil and the Ethics of Incompetence: Lessons from Katrina and Iraq. The Third Transatlantic Dialogue: University of Delaware.

Browder, G.C. (2001). Book Review: Unmasking Administrative Evil. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 8(3), 173-184.

Dubnick, M.J. & Justice, J.B. (2006). Accountability and the Evil of Administrative Ethics. Administration & Society, 38(2), p. 236.

Order Number

Details

Messages

Pages

Due Date

Subject

Level

3

$30.00

Yes

APA

Public Administration

Article Critique

Dubnick_Ma...

Administrative Evil

Instructions:

Instructions for: Critical Article and Analysis (1 Primary article) as compared/contrast to the other two THEME related articles. BUT primary focus is the dissection and brining up the most important points and specific paragraph/quotes referenced please.

READING:

Melvin J. Dubnick and Jonathan B. Justice, "Accountability and the Evil of Administrative Ethics." Administration & Society 38 (May 2006): 236-267.

SUBJECT: Ethics

THEME: Administrative Evil

PURPOSE: Requirements for Critical Article and Analysis Data Mining. I am not seek a Literature Review but rather a review for the purpose of preparing for PhD Pre-Qualifying exams