132 6: Postmodern Th eory
- Th e primary value in the development of a normative theory for pub-
lic administration is mutuality, which is the normative premise deriv-
ing from the face-to-face relations (encounters) between active- social
selves. - Just as descriptive theory about larger collectivities is derivative of the
encounter, so, too, should normative theory about those collectivities
be derived from mutuality, the normative expression of the encounter.
Th e idea of social justice is the logical extension of mutuality applied to
social collectivities and should therefore be regarded as the normative
premise underlying “aggregate” policy decisions made by and imple-
mented through public organizations. (Harmon 1981, 4–5)
Applications of postpositivism to public administration were informed
by phenomenology, the philosophical argument that reliable scientifi c inquiry
cannot be based on external observation by outside researchers. Th e actions of
persons in collective settings can be understood only from the standpoint of the
actors themselves (Denhardt 1993). Th e phenomenological approach seeks to
determine how actors interpret their circumstances, the meaning they attach to
those circumstances, and the patterns of interpretation between actors in col-
lective settings (Harmon and Mayer 1986). In this perspective, meaning and the
interpretation of meaning are at the core of administrative behavior:
Th e world of meaning becomes central to a phenomenologist and represents
a critical break with the technique of the natural sciences. All consciousness is
consciousness of something: we seek something, we hope for something, we re-
member something. Every act of consciousness, as we refl ect on it, bestows on
our world meaning to which we in turn give order. Th e human capacity to en-
dure action with meaning sets the reality to be examined by the social scientist,
quite apart from the reality of the natural scientist, and therefore, the method-
ology of the natural scientist cannot be copied by the social scientist. Rather, the
social scientist must seek ways to understand the structure of consciousness, the
world of meanings of the social actor. (Denhardt 1993, 189)Adherents to the phenomenological approach to research and theory in pub-
lic administration tend to be grouped into the interpretive theorists camp, rep-
resented by Michael Harmon, and the critical theorists camp, represented by
Robert Denhardt and Ralph P. Hummel.
Interpretive or action theory was at the time a rather straightforward chal-
lenge to the rational decision theory of the day (Harmon 1989). As we describe
in Chapter 7, in the decision-theoretic perspective, the decision is the focal point
of understanding administration. Th inking precedes deciding, and deciding pre-
cedes action. Decision-theoretic logic is built on an assumption of instrumental
rationality insofar as it is possible to calculate the relationship between means and