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

modernisation processes. He claimed that it potentially constitutes an ‘iron cage’ counteracting the substantive rationality of modernity, including the capitalist work ethic and individual human rights (Kalberg, 1980). Managerialist ethics resolves this contradiction by positing instrumental rationality as the means of satisfying everyone. Management’s value neutrality thus becomes a new substantive ethical order, which is presented as superior to the classical individualism of the business owners. The latter relied on conflict, competition and ruthlessness as routes to success. Aggression, frustration and loss are therefore endemic to this ethical model. In managerialist ideology, in contrast, people need only perform well with others in a productive setting to merit satisfaction and success. Their sociability, quick adaptability, flexibility and commitment to the demands of tasks and organisations, which make them ideal team workers, are the principal virtues that entitle everyone to be a winner. This portrays management as the means of making everyone successful, regardless of unique skills or prowess. Managerialist ideology first denounces the meritocracy and elitism of the business owners as involving conflict, frustration and inequity. Elitism and meritocracy are consequently reaffirmed as long as they optimise the quality of service provided to everyone. Management’s control of social assets and activities is therefore justified because management practices are supposedly the means of achieving universal satisfaction in all fields of life. An equally important element of managerialism is its surreptitious nature. The social domination of management intrinsically aims to remain unrecognised. It operates by providing the best service and offering maximised performance to everyone. Managements are thus rarely the official heads of organisations, a position usually reserved for elected officials in the case of public institutions and owners of private ones. Not only has profit remained the definitive objective of business, but emphasis on shareholder value is frequently used to justify managerial practices. Management therefore never aims to be widely proclaimed as the dominant or determining factor of social values and objectives. Its authority is justified by scientifically backed claims of neutrality, efficiency and universal satisfaction. Managerial social dominance is always oblique and has to be extracted and uncovered beneath appearances. These highly distinctive attributes of managerialist ideology and social order will help to identify its influence on the character of second modernity. Due to considerations of length, I will limit the discussion to three of its essential aspects, appearing in almost every analysis of second modernity, however it is construed. These are endemic uncertainty, insecurity and risk; the perpetual and accelerated rates of change; and the dissolution of hierarchies. It should be remembered, however, that the distinction between them is largely analytical, while in reality, they are inextricably linked. Thus, reference to all of them is unavoidable while discussing each in turn. II. U ncertainty, I nsecurity and R isk One characteristic of second modernity that is evident in nearly all its social and cultural manifestations is the growing levels of uncertainty and general scepticism about values, goals, technologies and institutions. First modernity was an age imbued with certainty and confidence. The imperialist industrialised West, enjoying unrivalled global domination, was confident in its concept of progress and its abilityto rationalise human existence. Disease, poverty, prejudice and ignorance were to become a thing of the past in the wake of a new and transformed civilisation. This is surely somewhat of a caricature, but accepted wisdom considers it the distinctive perspective of modernism. Second modernity, in contrast, is marked by ‘a realization that the goals and values which have been central to Western 'European' civilization can no longer be considered universal, and that the associated 'project of modernity' is unfinished because its completion is inconceivable and its value in question’ (Smart, 1990, p. 27). Uncertainty and doubt concerning the values that have shaped Western civilisation ever since the Enlightenment clearly resonates from the term ‘postmodernity’. It signifies a break with the sociocultural codes and values of the modern age: Where the modern world was allegedly well organized along a linear history yielding straightforward meanings, the post-modern world is thought to be poorly organized in the absence of a clear, predictable historical future without which there are, at best, uncertain, playful and ironic meanings (Lemert 1997: 36) For Lyotard (1984), modernity was based on the scientific conception of knowledge, in which legitimacy is the crucial factor and truth is the aim of the game. The mark of truth is objective proof, which is accessible to the expert community and leads to a consensus amongst it. The scientific abhorrence of contradictions and discrepancies makes scientific knowledge systematic and universalistic, or as Lyotard has it, totalising. It aims to unify all fields of knowledge, while any other type of knowledge is perceived as illegitimate and baseless. Combined, these features establish a universal and imperialistic drive towards rationalisation and progress inthe name of the emancipation of humanity, which Lyotard perceives as the grand narrative of modernity. Instead © 2023 Global Journals Volume XXIII Issue II Version I 72 ( ) Global Journal of Human Social Science - Year 2023 C Epochal Change and Second Modernity as a Sociocultural Manifestation of Managerialism