AGAINST POSTMODERNISM: CLASS ORIENTED QUESTIONS FOR CRITICAL ACCOUNTING

Sustaining diversity in social and environmental accounting research

One of the most conspicuous changes in the relationship between ecological thought and critical theory has resulted from the recognition that an ecological perspective on culture and literature is neither entirely new in the history of critical theory, nor that it is inherently opposed to positions of modern and postmodern aesthetics and theory. On the contrary, it has become evident that ecocriticism can only fully realize its rich potential through its dialogue with modern and postmodern theory and aesthetics, in the same way in which the latter needs to be redefined in new, more complex ways by the inclusion of an ecological dimension into their discourses. Important versions of critical and aesthetic theory have already anticipated an ecological perspective and are being reappraised on a broad scale from this new angle. This is one of the more surprising turns of recent literary and cultural studies after a phase in which ecocriticism and critical theory had mutually ignored each other as if they existed on different planets of thought. In their radical constructivist epistemology, critical theory and cultural studies had relegated ‘nature’, in their high phase of academic currency, from the domain of serious scholarly occupation altogether, declaring it a mere ideological fabrication which only served to hide interests of political power and dominance. Ecocriticism on the other hand (over-)reacted to this extreme form of cultural constructivism with wholesale rejection rather than with a differentiated assessment of relevant insights of critical theory.

Putting Class Back in the Picture Louisa Hadley (bio) Lawrence Driscoll , Evading Class in Contemporary British Literature. New York and Basingstoke, Eng.: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009. 243 pp. $90.00. Ever since Margaret Thatcher's notorious declaration in 1987 that "there is no such thing as society," the language of class has been increasingly removed from the discourses of the state and the media in Britain. 1 Indeed, under Tony Blair, class politics were supposedly entirely replaced by lifestyle politics. In his provocative study Evading Class in Contemporary British Literature, Lawrence Driscoll examines "the extent to which, since 1979, collective concerns and the issues of class and society, have been ideologically transformed into poststructuralist abstractions of 'identity' and the fulfillment of 'personal desire'" (170). Reading against the grain of postmodern and poststructuralist theory, however, Driscoll excavates the concern with class that he claims remains as "a troubling subterranean and repressed element in contemporary literature, theory, and culture" (1). This list more accurately captures the range of Driscoll's book than its title; complementing his analysis of contemporary literature, Driscoll incorporates a chapter that considers how class is inscribed in contemporary film and television. This chapter, the most engaging in the book, brings a unique interdisciplinary approach to Driscoll's analysis of the [End Page 384] position of class in contemporary British literature and culture. In discussing contemporary fiction, Driscoll focuses on the key texts of eleven major contemporary writers: Pat Barker, Ian McEwan, Kazuo Ishiguro, Zadie Smith, Will Self, Martin Amis, Peter Ackroyd, Hanif Kureishi, Alan Hollinghurst, Graham Swift, and Jonathan Coe. Through his analysis, Driscoll challenges the now-standard critical responses to these authors and successfully demonstrates the need to put class back into the picture in discussions of contemporary British fiction and culture. Although Driscoll's study focuses on the depiction of class in literary and visual texts, he is equally concerned with the ways in which critical theory, particularly postmodernism, seeks to erase class. This analysis of the critical accounts of contemporary fiction provides an important corrective to the usual focus of postmodern/poststructuralist theory, but it does, at times, overshadow his equally interesting analysis of the texts themselves. Driscoll's engagement with contemporary British fiction and critical theory is grounded in his distinction between ideological and political readings of literature. He claims that contemporary theory, particularly postmodern theory, reinforces the dominant ideology of the ruling culture, which focuses on the individual "fluid, flexible decentred subject" (1), at the expense of what Terry Eagleton terms "collective, and effective, political action" (qtd. in Driscoll 3). Consequently, postmodern readings of contemporary fiction present "ideologically complicit readings" which merely confirm the ideology of the novels themselves (18). Thus rather than critiquing the class-based ideology of contemporary fiction, postmodern readings collude with the erasure of class from the discussion. Such an approach seems predicated on the belief that literature transcends ideology to present universal experiences. By contrast, Driscoll argues that "literature is not so much what enables us to see through ideology . . . but that instead it is thoroughly ideological and may actually stop us from seeing certain things" (38). For Driscoll, what ideological readings prevent us from seeing is the persistence of class concerns in contemporary literature and culture. Following Raymond Williams, Driscoll proposes that we need to read "against literature," and indeed against postmodern theory, in order to [End Page 385] create a criticism that is truly critical (18). For Driscoll, a truly critical approach to contemporary literature is one that resists its absorption into postmodern theory and uncovers how postmodern identity politics have not replaced or resolved class issues but merely translated them into new terms. Driscoll recognizes the difficulties that beset such a critical approach to contemporary fiction. He notes that while "it is possible to seek out the bourgeois ideology that sneakily lies buried within Evelyn Waugh, or Virginia Woolf or Ezra Pound," critics seem to have a blind spot when it comes to tracing "the bourgeois ideology of our own moment" in the work of contemporary authors (38). Similarly, he claims that the current climate of political correctness hampers criticism. Thus he claims that reading the work of gay writer Alan Hollinghurst against the grain "is...

Periphery and centre in comparative perspective: Opportunities for accounting praxis

The first decade of the 21st century is marked by serious drawbacks in economic and overall social development even in the most advanced countries. New knowledge is being searched for, and at the same time interest is revived in classical and new theories of development. Without attempting to present a return to the 'big', classical theories of development, including Marx's theory of social development, as the sufficient starting ground for finding solutions to contemporary problems, this paper offers a relatively comprehensive 'rereading' of some of Marx's writings. The intention is to overcome certain misinterpretations of Marx's understanding of the 'logic' of the transformation of modern (pre-capitalist, capitalist and 'future') societies and to place again on the 'working table' of sociologists and other social scientists some of the key questions that Marx confronted while studying transformations of 19th century capitalist societies. Marx's theory of social development, it is argued, cannot be reduced to 'economism', 'technological determinism', or any other form of mono-causal explanation of key factors of social development. Of crucial importance is his complex investigation of historical 'formation of societies', differences in 'logics' of 'building', functioning and 'deconstruction' of specific 'historical societies', with a particular emphasis on the role of various 'social actors' in those transformations. If this 'rereading' is accepted, it becomes evident that is impossible and unadvisable to forget Marx' theory of social development.

The essence of critical theory* is to change society rather than simply understand and analyze it. While there are many positions within the broad school of critical theory, particularly those related to the Frankfurt School of thought, we will focus in the first instance upon one main dimension, namely Marxist theory. I go on to highlight later critical theory, developed out of the shortcomings of Marxist thought, to come to terms with later incarnations of capitalist society and the failure of Soviet-style interpretations to protect and develop individual freedom. The key proposition of Marxist theory is that urban areas and planning cannot be treated as objects of study separate from society. They are produced by that society and, more fundamentally, have an internal logic and function that is primarily derived from the economic structuring forces within that society — in most cases capitalism. Put simply, cities and planning (including planning theory) are reflections of capitalism and at the same time help constitute it. Such a perspective poses serious challenges to many cherished concepts, particularly in approaches such as those described in the previous chapter. For example, planners often justify planning by reference to the ‘public interest’. According to critical and Marxist perspectives, there is no such public interest but only an interest of capital that projects or creates a state mech-anism such as planning to help it continue and give the impression of public control. This amounts to what Nicholas Low (1991, p. 4) has termed a dissenting theory of planning because it is highly critical and yet provides few alternatives to the status quo beyond dismantling it.

During the 1980s Jürgen Habermas and other theorists associated with the critical theory of the Frankfurt School emerged as key critics of postmodern theory.1 Habermas carried out polemics against Derrida, Foucault, and postmodern theory, while his associates polemicized against Lyotard (Honneth 1985; Benhabib 1984), Foucault (Honneth 1986), Derrida (McCarthy 1989), and other postmodern theorists. The polemics have often obscured some interesting similarities, in addition to important differences, between the postmodern theories and critical theory. Both critical theory and much postmodern theory agree in important ways in their critiques of traditional philosophy and social theory. Both attack the academic division of labour which establishes fixed boundaries between regions of social reality, and both utilize supradisciplinary discourses. Both carry out sharp critiques of modernity and its forms of social domination and rationalization. Both combine social theory, philosophy, cultural critique, and political concerns in their theories and, unlike more academic theories, some versions of both attempt to orient theory toward practice, and discourse toward politics. Both critical and post-modern theory have engaged in heated polemics against each other, and have been synthesized with feminist theory.

In this article I argue that the critical theory developed by the so-called Frankfurt School provides both a model for radical social theory and important perspectives on contemporary society. I provide some historical background on the origins of critical theory and then explicate the method and project through a close reading of key methodological texts by Horkheimer. I then examine the substantive contributions to contemporary social theory in the critical theory tradition and argue that they constituted the cutting edge of radical social theory from the 1940s through the 1960s. Yet critical theory failed to develop as social theory thereafter, focusing instead on philosophy and cultural critique. It has been postmodern theory which has attempted to articulate the current trends and new social conditions in contemporary society. Consequently, if critical theory is to once again become the avant-garde of social theory, it must be reconstructed in the present age in the light of the postmodern critique and theory. I conclude by indicating some reasons why I believe that a reconstructed critical theory can indeed restore the tradition to the forefront of contemporary social theory and thus call for a revitalization of the tradition.

Traditional theories are concerned with understanding and explaining what is happening so their agenda goes no further than discussion. Critical Theory, however, is different because it not only critiques but it seeks to make changes. It is political. Critical Theory seeks to emancipate and transform those who are oppressed and marginalized through functional steps:Critical theory is politically committed in the sense that it aims to achieve emancipation and transformation of individuals and society through human action. Theory and practice form a single process and philosophy is 'put to work' to provide analysis and critique of society and leading to social change (Jessop 2010: 3).It was Horkheimer of the Frankfurt School who initially coined the term Critical Theory. The Frankfurt School which was also known as the Institute for Social Research, was originally located in Germany but then moved to New York when the Nazis forced its closure and exiled its Jewish members (McLaughlin 1999: 110). Key developers of Critical Theory include Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse and later Habermas who formed the second generation. Critical Theory emerged from a group of men who saw the atrocities inflicted by humans on humans. The scholars from the Frankfurt School wanted to understand how people could act the way they did but also how such behaviour could be stopped. Although the scholars were Jewish, Kellner (n.d.) states:The Frankfurt School had a highly ambivalent relation to Judais . . . They were also, for the most part, secular Jews who did not support any organized religion, or practice religious or cultural Judaism. In this sense, they were in the tradition of Heine, Marx, and Freud for whom Judaism was neither a constitutive feature of their life or work, nor a significant aspect of their self-image and identity.Despite the Frankfurt scholars being religiously detached, their focus in developing Critical Theory was 'nothing less than the discovery of why mankind, instead of entering a truly human condition, is sinking into a new kind of barbarism' (Adorno & Horkheimer 1997: xi). The function of Critical Theory is empowerment, it seeks to encourage transformation for those 'whose voices are silenced or marginalised' (Bercaw & Stooksberry 2004). After critiquing society and understanding 'what is', it then asks 'what should be' to create a 'better life' (How 2003: 9). Developers of Critical Theory saw how mass media or the culture industry 'played a highly manipulative role in modern society and served to control or subvert oppositional consciousness, thus removing any threat to the dominant capitalist class' (Strauss: 2012). The demonization of the Muslim masses is a good example of subverting 'oppositional consciousness'.According to Habermas, 'critical knowledge was conceptualized as knowledge that enabled human beings to emancipate themselves from forms of domination through self-reflection and took psychoanalysis as the paradigm of critical knowledge' (Huttunen 2011). Habermas developed the theory of communicative action. This was a way that people could work together and produce positive social transformation. The theory of communicative action refers to interpersonal communication geared towards mutual understanding. Mutual understanding leads to mutual civility and this works to exclude barbarity. I will discuss the Islamic equivalent of this theoretical perspective later in my introduction to Islamic critical theory:Actors do not primarily aim at their own success but want to harmonize their action plans with the other participants. Opposite to communicative action is the concept of strategic action, which means calculative exploitation, or manipulation, of others. An actor who acts strategically seeks primarily his or her own ends and manipulates other people either openly or tacitly (Habermas 1984: 285).Critical PedagogyCritical pedagogy was initially based on Marxist theory (Lyles 2008: 38). …

The king is dead. Long live the king!

This article contains a previously unpublished essay of personal reflections on the relationship between Catholicism and Marxism. The essay includes a critique of the social teaching encyclicals written by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and Pope John Paul II in the 1980s. We will see how John Paul II subtly incorporated some of the key ideas of the liberation theologians into the official body of Roman Catholic social teaching after 1986. This article should help younger researchers who might be interested in but are struggling with Catholic social teaching and/or Marxism in either theoretical and/or practical realms. This is especially important given that some Marxist authors within critical accounting are near or past retirement age and there is a real risk that the understandings of Marxist theory which they had will be lost to the discipline. We also look at some potential research topic areas which a developing country-based researcher could profitably explore using a Marxist perspective with a special focus on Fiji Islands, Indonesia and Singapore.

Critical realist accounting research: In search of its emancipatory potential

This research maps the social and organizational dimensions of accounting research through a systematic literature review (SLR) combined with bibliometric analysis. Drawing on 196 peer-reviewed articles indexed in Scopus and published between 2019 and 2024, the study examines how accounting operates as a social practice embedded in power relations, institutional arrangements, governance structures, and professional work. Following PRISMA-based screening procedures, the dataset was analyzed using VOSviewer to identify thematic clusters, keyword co-occurrence patterns, and intellectual structures within the literature. The analysis reveals six dominant research streams: (1) crisis and organizational resilience, (2) public sector governance and control, (3) critical accounting and power relations, (4) institutional logics and sustainability, (5) global standards and translation processes, and (6) professional work and auditing practices. The findings demonstrate a strong shift away from positivist approaches toward sociologically informed perspectives, with critical and institutional theories increasingly shaping accounting scholarship. By synthesizing fragmented debates across these clusters, this study contributes a structured overview of contemporary sociological accounting research and identifies future research agendas to advance theory, context-sensitive inquiry, and methodological pluralism in accounting studies.

Critical accounting research in hyper-racial times

The contemporary literature on change in psychoanalysis has struggled to integrate recent developments in theory. Reasons for its limitations are discussed. The present article brings to bear relevant concepts drawn from postmodernism and complexity theory on ideas about how change occurs in psychoanalysis. In elaborating these two skeins, it looks critically at some recent attempts to incorporate them and considers their relationship to each other. A general description of complexity theory is offered because it has not yet been well documented in the analytic literature. Postmodern theory is talked about in relation to change; it has been discussed more generally in the author's earlier work. Ways in which postmodernism and complexity theory can inform psychoanalysis but also constrain some of its assumptions are explored. The nature and occurrence of qualitative events of psychoanalytic change are described. Four kinds of such events are described and illustrated with clinical vignettes. Analytic change viewed from a macro rather than a micro level is also discussed.