Further interpretivist responses to business and the dilemmas of modernity

Interpretivists engage the realities of the world, both natural and social, through accounts, narratives, and stories. The point of interpretivism is to explore avenues to inform the importance of community, economy, and identity for citizens, people, and nation-states. Moreover, within interpretivist frameworks lie an expressive approach to language. This approach to language puts us in touch with the external and natural world. Through language, we are challenged to recognise the fallibility and risks we take in the world. On the interpretivist view, our decisions and judgments require careful attention to affects, effects, impacts, and consequences. There is no escape from judgment. It is for these reasons that the preface referred to Taylor’s (2008) important point that we are limited by the idea that thereare totally coherent solutions to all political problem. Rather we need new interpretations to conceive [of] our situation as a set of extremely painful dilemma. Difficult choices must be confronted. Can we continue to rely on capitalism? ‘We can’t live with it; we can’t live without it. We can’t live without it because it’s tied to certain kinds of growth and so on’ (Taylor, 2008, p. 15).

Furthermore, if we are to overcome the arbitrary Nature of defining in-terpretivism as a tool to explore capitalism and other social systems, it is useful to refer to the sociological work of Gadamer (1975a) as well as Taylor (1993) from whom this argument is derived. The impact of business and economic programmes can also be articulated politically through its narratives, stories, and other discursive structures. The aim is to enchant the public sphere through an appreciation of our place in Nature.

Taylor has stated that interpretivism is about handling and moderating complexity. He argues that to handle complexity requires a broad approach that builds to narratives, pictures, and stories. Of course, it is impossible to arrive at a full appreciation of any complex situation - that would be impossible. The interpretivist point, however, is that to understand complexity itself requires broad and inclusive thinking. On this view, interpretation reflects the revealing dimensions of an ongoing conversation. The conversation continues unabated. The conversation stops only when we take stock and reflect. This of course is a pragmatic point.

Therefore, it is important to remember that our appreciation of community and Nature involves complex narratives that cannot be reduced to liberal fictions such as capital market structures. Even more critical for accountability and ecological politics is what are we to do if modern liberal fictions no longer exist. What is to happen if it is the case that Nature cannot be modelled along the lines of traditional scientific models which assume that the world is stable and predictable. If, however, the natural environment is a ‘far-from-equilibrium’ system, then it is particularly urgent to investigate humanity’s impact on Nature and design ways of living and being in a world prone to disequilibrium. Here we are far from the Enlightenment view that stressed the stable, repetitive and universal and missed the dynamic, indeterminate implications of the relationships between humanity and Nature (Berlin, 1981).

This leads to the key point that new, radical solutions are needed that might utilise insights from interpretivism, social ecology, and deep green approaches (Devall & Sessions, 1985). This is because a major problem with current sustainability approaches is that they are phrased in terms of ‘growth’ and ‘profit’ but have limited or no analysis about how communities can achieve these objectives. Interpretivist accountability, as developed in this chapter, highlights how humanity is directly connected with the external and Natural world. Such environmental values must be articulated and expressed in the public sphere through languages such as accounting, law, and management. Such articulation and expression of issues can help humanity account for, and

Markets, the business case, and interpretiuism 47 develop, an appreciation of their place in the external and natural world. More particularly, interpretivist analysis of accountability addresses the functioning of humanity in the natural environment, and illustrates that language is integral to the public sphere (Boje, Oswick, & Ford, 2004).

Thus, a key point for accountability' and democratic theory is that when a social system has external elements imposed upon it, or presented to it, to which it has no natural affinity and/or no pre-existing mechanism by which those elements may be introduced and embraced, conflict invariably is the result. As a result, key environmental and social issues concerning the age of neoliberal free-market reforms are being overlooked. The first issue of significance is about whether right-wing neoliberalism can create accountable and meaningful relationships between different cultural groups and nation-states. The second issue is whether neoliberal procedure can put humanity in touch with Nature. Or, does neoliberal ideology perpetuate the idea that people are separate from Nature? This sets a challenge for modern accountability and democratic theory to determine how political systems can accommodate values of significance which include cultural and environmental factors.