________________
3.2 The social constructionist approach: an introduction
As said already in the general introduction, the genre of the inquiry that inspires the current study of the relation between the ethical stance of the CEO and the practical doings' in the corporation can be characterized as postmodern and social constructionist. Among other things, that means that it is generic, or demonstrates and engages in real action, and includes others. Let us briefly summarize a few characteristics of that type of research as Ken Gergen expounded them himself in a lecture on social constructionism in a conference for practitioners and academics in 1996 in Taos, New Mexico (cited by Sailing, J, 2005, p. 247). In what he called “A family of Criteria for Social Constructionist Practices”, he listed the following ones:
1. Centrality of Language (vocabulary of emotions). Is the practice sensitive to the centrality of language in creating the sense of the real and the good? Is it also sensitive to the limitations of language alone in creating realities. There are multiple realities (I come out from many realities). Does it recognize the potential of vocabularies, rhetoric, etc., in the creation of the good and the real. Does it recognize the potential for multiple constructions of self, for multiple voices of the person?
2. Language as performative (i.e., when we are sensitive to the use of language, we should also realize that different accounts can draw people together, but eventually also force them apart, generate hierarchies, suppress, coordinate).
3. Does the practice take into account the notion of constructed reality, does it promote reflection on the historical and cultural (or local) constitution of what counts as real and good?
4. Does the practice enables language to be employed in generating more promising futures? Realities and ethics as functional/dysfunctional.
4. Does the practice recognize the need for shared realities and ethics, but also the limitations of consensus in relationships?
5. And last but not least, does the practice share its own premises and limitations with others?
Various parts of this list of characteristics were already demonstrated in the preceding part. The existence of particular words and stories, carrying their own meaning and implications in local, cultural and historical context was amply demonstrated in section I. The possibility of similar or different interpretations in other religions, and the value of triangulating with them in various forms, from directed questions to open dialogical interviews on matters in life, religion and business, was demonstrated in the second section. We now move toward a seemingly contradictory form, namely that of making clear how thoughts and ideas are put down in strategy, and even normative documents, such as the Guidelines and Principles that the corporate strategy is built upon. Is this not in
407
