An institutional palimpsest? The case of Cambodia’s political order, 1970 and beyond

Abstract

How do continuity and change coexist and co-evolve? How does continuity enable change and changes reinforce continuity? These are central questions in organizational and political research, as organizational and institutional systems benefit from the presence of both reproduction and transformation. However, the relation between the processes of change and continuity still raises significant questions. To contribute to this discussion, we analyse the coexistence of deep institutional continuity and radical political change in the second half of 20 th century Cambodia. Over a two decade period, Cambodia was ruled by radically different political systems of organization: a traditional monarchy with feudal characteristics, a failing republic, a totalitarian communist regime, and a Vietnamese protectorate, before being governed by the UN, and finally becoming a constitutional monarchy. We use an historical approach to study how a succession of radical changes may in reality signal deep lines of continuity.

The Historical Embeddedness of Organizational Paradoxes: Risk-related Rituals and Realities in Emergency Management

“…All 'organizations are complex structures-in-motion that are best conceptualized as historically constituted entities' (Clegg, 1981, p. 545). Paradoxes are a product of the accumulation of historical layers, as if written in a palimpsest in which the past is not buried in time but remains active in the shaping of the present (Cunha et al, 2015). We therefore contribute to the debate on interdisciplinary views of paradox by highlighting the relevance of historical knowledge and show how to use historical organization studies (Clegg, et al, 2021;Maclean, et al, 2016), not only to understand the past but also to understand how paradoxes are embedded in it.…”

Elgar Introduction to Designing Organizations

“…Earlier change attempts do not evaporate but become inscribed in the organization's memory, becoming "sedimented" (Clegg, 1981) in practices taken-for-granted that can act as a deterrent against further changes. If change is not written over a blank page, it may be better viewed as being registered in a palimpsest that retains active vestiges of past changes (Cunha et al, 2015; see also Highlight 7.2).…”

Through the looking glass: leader personhood and the intersubjective construction of institutions

“…Situated meanings crystallize, with specific vocabularies of motive attributed to leaders (Mills, 1940). Leadership processes can be represented as inscribed in institutional palimpsests resulting from processes of inter-subjective construction, The metaphor of the palimpsest refers to the fact that later institutional layers are cumulative: new institutional layers do not efface previous layers (Cunha et al, 2015) but are deeply sedimented in the stratified practices and memories of institutions (Clegg 1981). The palimpsest is an apt metaphor as every layer of meaning is written over pre-existing layers and each emotional act is produced over pre-existing emotional residues.…”