Yes, I'll admit that theory is useful for grad students as it helps them to do structured thinking within their newly adopted disciplines. However, some disciplines like Sociology do not have an over-arching theory that teaches budding sociologists how to think like a sociologist (i.e., to develop the critical eye of a sociologist). Indeed when Talcott Parsons tried to develop one ("Structuralism") several Sociology students took out a contract on his life. Fortunately, assassination became unnecessary because Structuralism died an unceremonious death of its own volition.

In this Book Review, I criticize the authors for using political theory to evaluate the legitimacy of applying the term "citizenship" to corporations. In fact, after spending the first half of the book mounting arguments to explain why it is inappropriate to apply the citizenship concept (as developed under political theory) to corporations, the authors spend the remainder of the book rehabilitating the use of citizenship concepts to delineate the responsibilities of corporations to the greater society (i.e., to describe CSR). The irony is that it becomes increasingly clear in the second half of the book that political theory (and its definition of citizenship) was only raised as a red herring in the book's first half as it is completely void of probative value in terms of exploring whether corporations can be good citizens. Have we become slaves to theory, rather than using theory as a tool to gain insight?

Article Book Review: Corporations and Citizenship

More Gwendolyn Yvonne Alexis's questions See All
Similar questions and discussions