SPAEF

[Introduction]Author(s): ROBERT CUNNINGHAMSource: Public Administration Quarterly, Vol. 33, No. 3 (FALL 2009), pp. 300-302Published by: SPAEFStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41219984 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 03:37

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

SPAEF is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Public AdministrationQuarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.251 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 03:37:30 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

TO KILL THE KING BY DAVID JOHN FARMER: A REVIEW SYMPOSIUM

ROBERT CUNNINGHAM University of Tennessee, Knoxville

Just as Pablo Picasso mastered realism before moving to cubism and neo-expressionism, Farmer demonstrated his command of the sweep of administrative theory in his earlier book, The Language of Public Administration (University of Alabama Press, 1995). Through the paradigm of language he organized and explicated why we see what we see as we read various theories of public administration. In To Kill the King Farmer launches his own governance recommendations- revolutionary ideas, subtly stated - to scholars and the literate public.

Farmer perceives important ideas in both unique and normal events, and he connects these happenings to ideas across space and time. He sets his sights on the high road, the big picture, and implications for the future, adhering to the principle that ideas should be explained as simply as possible without distorting the reality. One of my graduate students raged about the incomprehensibility of The Language of Public Administration', yet at the end of the semester refused to sell me his copy of the book, which was then out of print.1 Robert Schneider knew important meaning was to be had, and he was determined to find it.

For the past 15 years David Farmer has been a central figure writing normative theory. In addition to regularly-appearing journal articles, Farmer also penned a quarterly column for Administrative Theory & Praxis carrying enigmatic titles such as "Lobby(ectomy): Not in

1 The Language of Public Administration has recently come back into print.

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.251 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 03:37:30 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

PAQ FALL 2009 301

Our Tradition," "Frigginomics Begins in Kindergarten," and "Quiddities: Toward a PA Dik-tionary."

In this review symposium each selected scholar was asked to reflect on To Kill the King, to have a conversation with the book. There were no page limits. If asked, we responded, "five to ten pages, single- or double-spaced, whatever font size and margins you like." Each of these well-published reviewers constructed a unique reality, almost as if each of the four reviews is discussing a different book. In the spirit of constructivism and the opportunity to err, I will offer my interpretation of theirs.

OC McSwite suggests that Farmer offers the idea that the broken modernist system cannot be redeemed by a single leader, but by open conversations among system actors as they cope with the issues before them, specific "little *t' truths" might be uncovered and implemented. If decisions through dialogue become a collective value, the King disappears. Catlaw emphasizes a complementary point, seeing neighborly loving, individual relationships (which he describes carefully) as Farmer's underlying and necessary value foundation for removing our dependence on a king. Schachter posits methodology as the major issue, finding that Farmer has planted both feet firmly on the qualitative/constructivist/artistic side of that methodological divide, de-emphasizing hard science/positivism/obj ectivism. Schachter also acknowledges that poets can play a policy role. Where Farmer treads lightly, Kouzmin, Witt, and Thorne, while lauding and emphasizing the "justice as seeking" aspect of Farmer's troika perspective and narrative, weigh in forcefully on the failure of ASPA, PAT-net, and practicing managers to think critically or to raise even a weak reed to resist the king's dicta.

With these multiple interpretations, what are the specifics of Post-Traditional (PT) reality, and/or how is it to be realized? Is To Kill the King a giant Rorschach test? To

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.251 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 03:37:30 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

302 PAQ FALL 2009

know this book is to understand David Farmer: ultimate gentleman - attentive to the other, polite, engaged, smiling, extracting positives from others' statements, appreciating and celebrating paradox and diverse points of view with tantalizing language, and encouraging all to join the conversation. To Kill the King exhorts us understand the governance issue and to participate in saving society from a dead and deadly hand.

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.251 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 03:37:30 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions