ANGELIC ORGANIZATION: HIERARCHY AND THE TYRANNY OF HEAVEN

Angelic Organization: Hierarchy and the Tyranny of Heaven

Student’s Name:

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Institution:

Lecture:

Course:

Date:

Angelic Organization: Hierarchy and the Tyranny of Heaven

Angelic Organization: Hierarchy and the Tyranny of Heaven is an article, which talks about the writings of Pseudo-Dionysius on the hierarchy of about 1500 years ago. Pseudo suggests that organizations should be equal to the hierarchy through giving political and ontological reasons. This assumption rarely exists nowadays but the hierarchy ideals are central to organizational theories and managerial justification. Pseudo uses angels as mutable creatures and employs their diverse incarnations to open up to the fifth common sense. He concludes that angelic obedience should be treated with suspicion in order to lead people into the tyranny of hierarchy. Therefore, Pseudo-Dionysius’s philosophies in this article have been criticized for operating in the shadow of his assumptions and are therefore not clear since he demands that organization should be equal to the hierarchy

The key argument of this article is to deliberate on mediaeval debates about angles, which is translated in the theological work of Pseudo into political justification on modern managerial system operating in the shadow of his assumptions. Understanding organizational management can be drawn from diverse cultural sources. In the organization, the ideas of hierarchy are central to managerial justification. Leaders in an organization are given certain responsibilities depending on the levels in an organization. The hierarchy starts from the top to the middle and to the lower part but all these follows the theory of organization. Therefore, the idea of Pseudo whereby the organization should be equal to the hierarchy is non-existant but it is central in organizational theory (Tadajewski, Maclaren, Parsons and Parker, 2011).

Bunzel and Parker (2009) argue that interrogating the central concepts of the organizational studies through use of angelic organization can weaken their managerial powers. There is no need of connecting the above argument, which extends beyond the organizational studies domain and rather comments on the result of such an extension. This is quite possible since some people will translate angelic hierarchy into the contemporary governance and array. Therefore, it is difficult to understand Pseudo’s work because in case one chooses to side with Lucifer, and positions the angels as enemies in significant project, the project will not succeed (Parker, 2002).

Parker (2009) argues that the case against the Episcopal organization in church governance is established by God. He comments that this pattern of worship was made by King David. Having grounded the Presbyterian argument in accordance to Hebrew Scriptures, he proceeds to argue on the case of Aoronic priesthood, which follows a pattern of hierarchy in priesthood in the Episcopal organization in the churches. Actually, monarchy does not stand fall in any form of priesthood because traditionally, the kingdoms are temporal and spiritual. The priesthood hierarchy is seen as sacred and priesthood receives supports from God directly. However, monarchy can only benefit in case they are released from the yoke of an Episcopal prelacy (Crane, Driver, Kaler, Parker, and Parkinson, (2005)

Pseudo-Dionysius was a theologian and a philosopher of the earlier century. His work especially on the Angelic organization is a mystery because he demands that organization should be equal with the hierarchy. Pseudo seems to have come from the group that relies on orthodox teachings because his mystical teachings challenge many people. During the medieval period, his teachings were appreciated by some people who wanted to expand on the ideas of angelic hierarchy. The Christian theologians of the medieval period agree with the idea of Pseudo that angels are organized in a hierarchy form. Although, Pseudo’s work is not extant, we can be able to assemble its content from his descriptions of other works. It seems that he devoted himself on three persons with godhead as their leader. These names are representations, which he used to explain on the hierarchy and the tyranny of heaven. He describes these names as the father, son and Holy Spirit with godhead in the top hierarchy. He does not even explain the reason of using representation term of the three names making hard for people to understand his philosophies.

Pseudo and his philosophy on Angelic organization help one to denaturalize hierarchy hence thinking more on the concepts involved (Rhodes and Parker, 2008). However, this article does not offer substitute organization theories but it only points some areas where these theories may be found. The work of Pseudo is critical because when we place our particular words back to history, we need go meet these angels but it is believed that they are found in different denominations. Angels are spiritual beings but who guide people in different denominations including Christians, Judaism and Mormonism. In reality, angels are not ruled but people believe that they exist in real sense. Jones, Parker and Bos, 2006) point out that the fallen angels have wings and they simply provide orders which are supposed to be followed. They are God’s representatives on Earth. They form a hierarchy in which God is their head and then followed by the angels followed from the top leader to the bottom (Bell and Parke, 2009).

Parker, Fournier and Reedy (2002) argue that the new way of understanding the tyranny of heaven is through understanding the figure of God. God is portrayed as the king of paradise. He does not endorse kinship or recommend a kingdoms model of deity on Earth. Pseudo suggests that monarchy on Earth is organized in a hierarchy form and this is same in the tyranny of heaven whereby the kingdom is arranged in a monarchy form. However, God’s portrait in paradise serves as a scratching critique of medieval people who were tied in the yoke of kingship (Davis and Parker, 2007). It was an era, which maintained its brief period of freedom but maintained the image of heavenly kingdom. The tyranny of heaven is marvelous and it is sharply argued, learnt and elegantly written in many books. Thus, many books use the tyranny of heaven to connect it with the responsibilities of management intellectuals (Dunne, Harney and Parker, 2008).

In conclusion, Pseudo-Dionysius’s philosophies in this article have been criticized for operating in the shadow of his assumptions and they are not clear since he demands that organization should be equal with the hierarchy. The key argument on this article is to indicate on mediaeval debates about angles, which is translated in theological work of Pseudo. This is translated into political justification on modern managerial system operating in the shadow of his assumptions. This article does not offer substitute organization theories but it only points some areas where these theories may be found. Thus, the new way of understanding the tyranny of heaven is through understanding the figure of God.

References

Bell, D and Parker, M (2009) ‘Organizing the Space Age’ Management and Organizational

History, [1744 9359] 4/3: 227-28.

Bell, D. and Parker, M. (2009). Space travel and culture: from Apollo to space tourism. Malden,

MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009.

Bunzel, D and Parker, M (2009) ‘Serving ‘The Guest’: Gunther Anders at the Grand Seaside

Hotel’ Marketing Theory, [1470-5931] 9/1: 55-74.

Crane, A, Driver, C, Kaler, J, Parker, M and Parkinson, J (2005) ‘Stakeholder Democracy:

Towards a Multi-Disciplinary View’ Business Ethics: An European Review, 14/1: 67-75 [0962-8770]

Davis, P and Parker, M (2007) ‘Co-operatives, Labour and the State: The English Labour

Economists Revisited’ Review of Radical Political Economy, [0486-6134] 39/4: 523-542.

Dunne, S, Harney, S and Parker, M (2008). The Responsibilities of Management Intellectuals: A

Survey’ Organization, [1350-5084] 15/2: 271-282.

Jones, C, Parker, M and Bos, R (2006) ‘Response to Rhodes’ Organization Studies, [0170-

8406] 27/2: 308-3

Parker, M. (January 01, 2009). Space age management. Management & Organizational History,

4, 3, 317-332.

Parker, M. (November 23, 2009). Angelic Organization: Hierarchy and the Tyranny of Heaven.

Organization Studies, 30, 11, 1281-1299. Retrieved on August 12, 2011 from http://oss.sagepub.com/content/30/11/1281

Parker, M., Fournier, V. & Reedy, P. (2002).The Dictionary of Alternatives: Utopianism and

Organization, London: Zed.

Parker, M (2002). Contesting Histories: Unity and Division in a Building Society’ Journal of

Organizational Change Management, [0953-4814] 15/6: 589-605.

Parker, M and Pearson, G (2005) ‘Capitalism and its Regulation: A Dialogue on Business and

Ethics’ Journal of Business Ethics ,[0167 4544] 60/1: 91-101.

Parker, M (2006) ‘The Counter Culture of Organization: Towards a Cultural Studies of

Representations of Work’ Consumption, Markets and Culture, [1025-3866] 9/1: 1-15.

Rhodes, C and Parker, M (2008). Images of Organizing in Popular Culture’ Organization,

[1350-5084] 15/5: 627-63

Tadajewski, M., Maclaren, P., Parsons, E. and Parker, M. (2011). Key concepts in critical

management studies. Los Angeles, Calif. ; London: Sage.