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

lead to adverse and unforeseen result. Risk’s global and inherently uncertain nature therefore undermines the modern political and social project of technological control. This induces an ambivalent attitude towards knowledge, undermines modern forms of organisation and the social institutions of first modernity with their ethical and political principles, and renders them uncertain, contingent, and radically uncontrollable (Heaphy, 2007). Risk, uncertainty and ambivalence thus explain the erosion of the values and institutions of first modernity, and largely determine the unique character of second modernity: Take what you will: god, nature, truth, science, technology, morality, love, or marriage—modernity transforms everything into ‘liberties fraught with risks’. All metaphysics, all transcendence, all necessity and certainty, is being replaced by artistry (Beck, 2014, p.92). The uncertain nature of social processes in second modernity give rise to reflexivity,which for Beck involves the necessity to make decisions without recourse to certain knowledge or sources of legitimacy and authority (Eid, 2005). Reflexivity highlights the radical doubt and uncertainty generated by expert knowledge in second modernity, while we continue to rely on it to learn about risks and deal with them. In every account of second modernity, the rapid transformation, revisability and hence contingency of practices, scenarios and structures affects all aspects of society. Which professions, investments or pension funds will still exist in the foreseeable future is something just as uncertain as which technologies will be available – not to mention the uncertainty about which new fields of action and forms of practice will emerge (Rosa, 2013). Growing levels of uncertainty characterise lifestyles, careers, relationships etc., and they thus assume a form similar to consumer choices (Bauman, 2000). This is supported by the postmodern construal of diversifying consumer markets as a pluralistic world that provides opportunities for people to carve their own niches and identities. In its extreme, postmodernism views consumerism as a witty journey through a cultural supermarket of fleeting impulses and desires (Gabriel & Lang, 2006). No relationship is considered stable and constant, while both people and things move in and out of one’s field of vision like the “schizophrenic” succession of video images that is typical of postmodernism according to Jameson (1991). Yet the making of consumer choices has also become unavoidable, and being uncertain also generates fear of losing the value and sense behind our choices. Thus, we experience the world as risky and unsafe, in which our social standing, income, the market value of our skills, our relationships, our neighbourhoods are all unstable and vulnerable (Bauman, 2001). The fate of the poor and outcast underclass is presented as the only alternative to participation in the race, thus making our decision to risk the horrors of the flexible world easier. Management was among the first fields to focus on escalating uncertainty as a prominent feature of the business world. Managerial discourse underwent a significant metamorphosis concurrently with the advent of second modernity. At the heart of the new discourse lay the observation that the social and business environment is rapidly changing, challenging existing forms of knowledge and organisation. These changes involve spiralling levels of uncertainty concerning consumer tastes, financial markets and successful strategies in a global setting wrought with unpredictable risks and intense competition (Thrift, 2005). Facing such conditions, organisations must become flexible, adaptable, knowledgeable, and continuously act and react to developments. This new managerial discourse marks the transition of management theory from a specialised academic discipline to a prolific popular business involving authors, publishers, media outlets, consultancies, a range of academic departments etc. It posits management as a rational, scientifically based field for devising strategies and policies to cope with the dangers of uncertainty (Jackson, 2001). Management is portrayed as a source of existential comfort for professionals, being the rational way to quickly adjust social systems and handle growing uncertainties on route to success (Knights & Morgan 1991). Thus, management presents itself as the ultimate meta system to control all expert systems, and becomes a prime agent of reflexivity. It generates change by encouraging swift responses to developments in world economy, and promotes the spread of new knowledge and technology as a means of organisational survival (Jackson, 2001). In conditions of such rapid reflexivity, control of the global economy increasingly lies with knowledge rich systems such as finance and management, which steer the relationship between productive systems (Lash, 2003). Moreover, when knowledge and praxis are legitimised by performativity then management, with its expertise in maximising performance, is what determines legitimacy. The managerial ethics of neutrality therefore reflects the postmodern release from comprehensive value systems and metanarratives. Lyotard already clairvoyantly claimed that the ruling class in the postmodern world will be made up of corporate leaders and the heads of organisations (Lyotard, 1984). Their unique asset is control of the access to knowledge that allows for the best decisions to be made in conditions of uncertainty. © 2023 Global Journals Volume XXIII Issue II Version I 74 ( ) Global Journal of Human Social Science - Year 2023 C Epochal Change and Second Modernity as a Sociocultural Manifestation of Managerialism