Redefining Accountability in a Network Society:

1. Redefining Accountability in a Network Society: Mollie Painter-Morland, PhD mpainter@depaul.edu “The accountable corporation” Santa Clara 2005

2. Overview: • From grids to networks • Who are we? • How do we know anything about “right” and “wrong”? • Addressing the dynamics of the network society • Towards a new understanding of accountability

3. Elements of accountability Who are we? Agency How do we make statements about the “truth”? Epistemology What do we know about right and wrong?

4. Grid-like worldview World functions as mechanism Closed Intrinsically stable Rule-driven Facts versus values Direct cause andeffect Complex adaptive systems Organic systems Open systems Operate far from equilibrium Parts within whole connect in multiple ways > serial and parallel Non-linear From grids to networks:Mark Taylor

5. Decentralization, deregulation, dematerialization Cause and effect relationships become difficult to plot “Knowledge” is incomplete and involves creating risks of “blind spots’ Moral “truth” is not “out there” to be rationally identified, or a rule-based order Moral agents are players that influence the outcome, but does not determine it > ethics is not applying “rules” within a mechanistic system Multiple interactions > local, small things have global effects Knowledge is not about facts, but of “knowing” what the appropriate relational response is Knowledge often brings ignorance 3 challenges in a network society

6. Our dilemma within a network society Agent is part of network of relationships and part of various roles and practices Local events have global effect > cause and effect not directly established Moral truth is relationally established

7. Perspectives on who we are as decision-makers within a network society • No longer agents follow God’s instructions • Not quite the “rational” agent: Kant • Hermeneuticsversus Structuralism Subject determined by rules Interpreting moral agent Danger is subjective interpretation Danger: determinism

8. How do we know what we know? • In Kantian scheme: a priori truths • In hermeneutic scheme: Interpretative play > danger of relativism • In structuralist scheme: Rule-driven environment, morality is what makes the system works best > danger of determinism

9. MacIntyre’s critique of modern moral agency Telos/ Goal Foundationalist truth

10. Do we still know what we are talking about when it come to morality? • MacIntyre (1988): moral agents are without telos > our coping mechanism is to create artificial end of utility • Moral agents are also without foundationalist truth > we cope by creating artificial notion of human rights • MacIntyre (1999) identifies danger of compartmentalization

11. Recent responses Foucault: • Techniques of genealogy: historically constituted subjectivity • Unpacks power-relationships as constitutive of knowledge: you often know what you know because of who you are in the hierarchy • Identity does not refer to a fixed essential self, nor is one’s identity in complete flux • Jesuit concept of “heroic leadership”, you sometimes lead, you sometimes follow • Not big, complex dilemmas, basically asking: “Who are you in THIS situation? • Practices of the self: Jesuit practices of self-awareness

12. Contemporary responses (continued) Petersen: • Develops notion of the “moral fabric”: we all share certain universal responses, i.e. tacit knowledge that is part of being human, but also context-specific knowledge or “social grammar” • Emphasizes the biological and social influences in social systems and practices • Moral judgment entails conditioned responses, yet he allows for innovation and change though self-awareness

13. Implications for accountability • Accountability “for” needs to be expanded to accountability “towards”, or “in terms of” • 3 dynamics within a network society: • Deregulation and decentralization > the shift from representational to relational • No direct cause and effect • Knowledge and risk are intricately connected

14. The HOW and the WHAT of accountability Content and Process

15. Relational, but not relativist truth: the issue of culture Values as emergent properties of complex adaptive systems Anti-hierarchization and silos Importance of trust Tacit knowledge and social grammar Understanding risk as intimately bound up with knowledge The right climate, created by ethical “episodes”, contributes to the emergence of ethical culture Moral “truths” refer to appropriate relational responses Values as emerge as those aspects that say who we are and what we care about Entrusting what we care about to every single person Every individual is contributing to the culture as it is emerging and is accountable for it No “passing the buck” By “knowing”, we forget certain things: accountability means to remind yourself The WHAT of accountability

16. Establishing self-reflexivity Always ask: What is our social order making me unaware of? Create participative organizations with a certain “social grammar” Addressing fear Ethics education as engagement Being less risk-averse Understand networks as non-totalizing structures that function as a whole Creating self-aware individuals and corporations and create multiple feedback loops Constantly questioning: what am I not being told? Ethics as practice instead of recalling of “truths” Everyday vignettes discussing who the individual “is” in each case Recasting fear as being concerned about the things we care about Recasting risk and responsibility as opportunity Creating “clusters of “accountability” The HOW of accountability

17. Conclusion: • Redefining accountability in a network society means: • Understanding who we are as relational beings and corporations in society • Understanding that accountability is not “out there”, but that it is being created “in here” • Accountability is an emergent property of certain practices that have to be nurtured