Discussion of Willmott
回应Willmott对Laclau和Mouffe话语理论的解读，从批判实在论的缺失出发，重点讨论Margaret Archer的工作，并为组织理论研究者提出挑战和未来研究方向。
To assume that what Laclau and Mouffe mean by discourse is self-evidentand can therefore be grasped without regard to the context of its use in relation to other key elements of their thinking -is, in effect, to render their work inaccessible or incoherent.So says Hugh Willmott in his counterposing of the work of Laclau and Mouffe to what he presents as some elements of critical realist thinking.In the spirit of Hugh's comment, I do not intend to grapple with his reading of Laclau and Mouffe, as for that to be done properly would demand a knowledge of their work that I do not possess.Rather, I would to start from some of the absences in Hugh's account of critical realism that render his account, to my eyes, problematic.I start with some brief comments on the nature of critical realism in order to situate my later discussion.I then turn in particular to the work of Margaret Archer.I explain why I think this needs the sort of close attention that Hugh demands for Laclau and Mouffe.In particular, I want to draw out some elements of her project which I think Hugh misses or glosses over.I do this in order to suggest some challenges for organizational theorists who find the questions that Hugh raises of importance.This then leads me to consider the nature of 'discourse theory' and to point to some avenues for investigation which are opening up.I close with some brief comments on science and emancipation.Given the time and space I have, the aim is not to engage in detailed textual critique of Hugh's argument but to suggest how some areas may be taken further.