Jacque Derrida's LIVING STORY vs. Narrative Violence

Jacque Derrida' LIVING STORY #derrida #shortvideo #philosophy Jacque Derrida;s approach to Living Story. David Michael Boje and Kenneth M. Jorgensen (2008) argued that traditional corporate narrative analysis in organizational studies focuses on the simplified "truth" of events in linear narratives, rather than their ethical implications of living stories. It does not do what Jens Larsen, Daivd Boje, and Lena Bruun (2021) all ‘True Storytelling.’ Larsen, Boje, and Bruun in True Storytelling, Tadvocate for a different approach, "living story," which emphasizes the dynamic, multifaceted, and often messy nature of organizational life. But there are two kinds of Living Story. By this token theoretic narrative becomes as Derrida puts it: “a violent instrument of torture” (Derrida 2004, p. 78), which imprisons life and other voices. Boje and Jorgensen (2008) extend living story to Jacques Derrida’s work. Derrida's Living Story is different in important ways from Indigenous Living Story (Kaylynn TwoTrees, 2007). Boje & Jorgensen say Derrida’a approach to Living story embraces multiple perspectives, acknowledges the influence of power dynamics, and prioritizes the interconnectedness of human action and ethical responsibility. This is like how David Boje (2001) and Kaylynn TwoTrees (2007) defines indigenous living story as having a place, a time, and a mind of its own, because living stories have an aliveness. Derrida’s living story is a bit different

A Derrida approach to living story embraces ambiguity, multiplicity, and the ongoing process of construction and deconstruction. Very similar to David Boje’s 2001 writing about Indigenous Living stories having a context, a place that is sacred, a time to tell it, and an aliveness all its own. Derrida‟s notion of writing describes this as the endless play of signifi- ers upon signifiers. Deconstruction implies in other words the continuous movement of language, which derives from the impossibility of language signifying essential truth. There is nothing essential being signified by the signifier. There is no underlying or uni- versal deep structure or grammar that overlays socially constructed reality. What David Michael Boje and Kenneth M. Jorgensen have instead is what Derrida calls a differential network, that is “...a fabric of traces referring endlessly to something other than itself, to other differential traces” (Derrida 2004, p. 69). Words, concepts and meanings thus conceal and erase themselves in their own production (Derrida 1997, p. 7).

Derrida, J. (1997). Of Grammatology. Baltimore, Maryland, Johns Hopkins University Press.
Derrida, J. (2002). Writing and Difference. London, New York, Routledge.
Derrida, J. (2004). Living On. Deconstruction and Criticism. H. Bloom, P. D. Man, J. Derrida, G. Hartman and J. H. Miller. London, New York, Continuum: 62-142.
Jorgensen, K. M. (2006). "Conceptualising intellectual capital as language game and David Michael Boje and Kenneth M. Jorgensen r." Journal of Intellectual Capital 7(1): 78-92.
Jorgensen, K. M. (2007). David Michael Boje and Kenneth M. Jorgensen without Glory - A Genealogy of a Management Decision. Copenhagen, Copenhagen Business School Press.
Jorgensen, K. M. and D. M. Boje (2008). Antenarrative Inquiry: Genealogy and Story Analysis in Organizations. Aalborg, Department of Learning, Education and Philosophy.


Thank you DavidBoje.com
FaceBook at   / drdavidmbojephd  
Instagram at   / davidbojephd  
https://x.com/boje_david
FaceBook at   / drdavidmbojephd  
Instagram at   / davidbojephd  
https://x.com/boje_david
   / @quantum-storytelling  
Find out about antenarrative at antenarrative.com
Find out about True storytelling at https://truestorytelling.org