Global Journal of Human Social Science, C: Sociology and Culture, Volume 23 Issue 2

Epochal Change and Second Modernity as a Sociocultural Manifestation of Managerialism Sharron Shatil Abstract- This paper returns to the prevalent notion of an epochal change that transformed advanced societies towards the turn of the millennium. Using the neutral term ‘second modernity’ to capture this polyonymous phenomenon, three of its constitutive cultural attributes are discussed – uncertainty and insecurity; immediacy and accelerating rates of change; and the flattening of hierarchies and rigid organisations. The paper first reviews the way these attributes and their consequences were analysed by proponents and opponents of a postmodern break with the past. It is then shown that the new managerial discourse and practices which arose concurrently with all these transformations both endorsed and propelled them. At the same time, these processes, their effects and interpretations all increased the importance and social standing of management in organisations and society at large. They also promoted the ethical and ideological foundation of the social ascendency of managers. Together, this lends support to perceiving the rise of second modernity as the sociocultural manifestation of the new social order of managerialism. I. I ntroduction – S econd M odernity and the M anagerialist R evolution round the turn of the millennium, significant academic attention was devoted to the swift and comprehensive transformations of the social, economic and cultural foundations of advanced societies. These transformations were explained as anything from a postmodern break with the character of modernity to its hypermodern intensification. Eventually, a type of ‘overlapping consensus’ emerged out of these debates, concerning the rise of a second modernity , to borrow Beck’s relatively neutral term, involving a set of fundamental shifts in the makeup of current society. 1 Furthermore, as Delany claimed, ‘The postmodern challenge… now no longer sets the terms for debate, for its radical claims have been more or less accepted, having been to an extent realised in The consolidation of this consensus was probably one of the reasons why the discussion has somewhat abated since, while some of its themes found their way into subsequent discourses, such as globalisation and consumerism. 1 Nowadays, we are already seeing the phrase ‘third modernity’ being increasingly used in reference to contemporary society (see for example de Vulpian, 2008). However, I do not believe that historical ages actually change at the pace that researchers require for the production of original concepts and catchphrases. social practice today’ (Delany, 1999, p. 180). However, I wish to readdress this notion of a second modernity based on the contention that the changes associated with it are manifestations of the rise of the new social order of managerialism. I argued previously (Shatil, 2021) that at the same time frame as the rise of second modernity, notably the final two decades of the previous millennium, a surreptitious and unannounced social revolution took place. A new social order emerged, in which a corporate elite of managers and associated professionals replaced the business owners as the dominant class in society. I wish to argue that the prominent features of second modernity are the effects of the managerialist social order, constituting the sociocultural logic of managerialism , to paraphrase Jameson’sfamous turn of phrase. The impact of managerialism on various characteristics of second modernity will be analysed using a small number of typical managerialist ideological constructs. I will explain them in the context of management’s home ground of the business world, but it should be remembered that in managerialism, they become integral to the constitution of society at large. First, the definitive social and psychological character of a managerialist society is busyness and the maximisation of hustle and bustle. Ever since Taylor’s first experiments with the stopwatch, management’s concepts of efficiency and productivity have always been tantamount to maximising output per unit of time. Amid constant activity and pressure for time, careful management becomes crucial to success. This results in an unprecedented rate of activity in all aspects of social existence. While change is the mark of modern life, and Marx already identified the need of a capitalist economy to constantly transform the means of production, change in managerialism is no longer the result of discovery and invention, but an end in itself. Another distinctive feature of managerialism is its construal of social reality, in which everyone is capable of satisfaction and success in their social dealings. This picture forms the core ethical order and value system of managerialism (cf. Shatil, 2021). In particular, management’s typical employment of scientific based value neutrality – its purported ability to efficiently achieve any desired ends – thereby acquires an ethical dimension. Weber famously highlighted the dangers posed by the merely instrumental rationality that is prevalent in A © 2023 Global Journals Volume XXIII Issue II Version I 71 ( ) Global Journal of Human Social Science - Year 2023 C Author: Open University, Israel. e-mail: sharronshatil@gmail.com