1. introduction: having a postmodern turn - ijas

International Journal of Arts and Sciences 3(7): 163 - 188 (2010)

CD-ROM. ISSN: 1944-6934 © InternationalJournal.org

Postmodern Busıness Ethıcs and Its Reflectıons: The Perspectıves from Zygmunt Bauman and Mıchel Foucault Ali Caglar Uzun, Mugla University, Turkey Tugba Ucma, Mugla University, Turkey

Abstract: Postmodernism has beceome one of the most influential intellectual movements in the social sciences. The postmodern turn in social theory has raised questions for understanding the social and business world. Ethics has become increasingly fashionable across a number of social science disciplines. Zygmunt Bauman and Michel Foucault are arguably the most well-known theorists in postmodern ethics. They argue that to develop and enforce universal ethical laws or codes leads to an abdication of individual moral responsibility. Bauman and Foucault demonstrate how the continuation of social dialogue suffers from the postulation of fixed induvidual and organizational identities. The implications of ethics and its reflections are the central focus of this paper. The implications of a postmodern view of business life are examined and compared with criticism of postmodern theory in the light of two authors: Zygmunt Bauman and Michel Foucault. The aim of the paper is to explore Bauman’s (Levinasian philosophy) and Foucault’s positions to get understanding of what their postmodern ethics is “about” and what it may have to offer for the field of business ethics.

Keywords: Postmodern Ethics, Business Ethics, Zygmunt Bauman, Michel Foucault

1. Introduction: Having a Postmodern Turn It outlines a different style of life which involves salvation of the modern era individuals from the traditional identities taken over by them and radical projection and coding of society under the leadership of logic from bottom to top upon replacement of religion by logic and its productions as social organization. It is defined by the projection as a “society and individual” by its new name where people do not have to wait for the next world to see it and it is lined up under the leadership of a central structure in which there would be rules, orders, public order, standards and symmetry.

The modern period, which is also referred to as the era of enlightening, was a practice that materialized in two different areas although they were closely inter-related. As the first of these areas comprised expansion of the power and claims of the State, transfer of the pastoral function previously carried out by the church to the State and organization of the State in the framework of its function of production re-planning designing and administering of the public order, the second one entailed creation of the social mechanism providing guidance, which was designed totally anew and in a conscious manner in terms of action and aimed at regulation of the social life of those under the administration of the State which taught and administered them and subjecting it to rules. The administered society, namely the presumed society intentionally designed, planned and supervised by the central government, as fiercely advocated by the French revolution was nothing more than the product of rhetoric originated by the era of logic and maintained by the era of enlightening in conclusion (Bauman, 1996). As a matter of fact, the primary objective of the modern era is to re-regulate the society. In



this sense, as remarked by Bauman (2003, 2005), the emergence of modernity was a transition to the culture of garden which is more qualified and systematic than wild culture. As commented by Heiddegger in support of this view, modernity is merely a desire to put the entire globe in order.

By the end of the 20th century and at the onset of the 21st century, the concept of post-modernity started proclaiming its existence beside modernity. The second era studies by Wittingten in the area of scientific philosophy in particular, studies by Hisenberg and Feyereband, collapse of modern confidence in scientific objectivity as a result of Kuhn’s paradigmatic approaches, the rise of Althusser and several philosophers following him (Rotry, Bell, Derrida, Jameson, Adorno, etc.), introduction of relativism into science and application of constant scientific intellectual skepticism are all what postmodern “perspective” is referred to. At this point, the modernist theories which stressed the impartiality of method were replaced by the postmodernist period where the importance attached to language considerably increased. In the postmodern period, society has been referred to as an integrity of meaning which would be instrumental in use of language and probably in a better understanding of language (Hugman, 2003). A turn to postmodernism is now a fulfilled mission. This situation has had impact on all of intellectual areas. Debate has started on the dimensions of all the concepts referred to as modern in a postmodern context.

The basis of postmodernism is neither a school nor a theory and it is not a movement either. It is a pattern of thought originating as reaction to modernism, which advocates the lack of principles and rules. The advocates of postmodernism argue that this thought would liberate people. Their justification runs as follows: the theories or models set forth by modernity proclaim their existence on the basis of rhetoric such as a single truth, a single fact and a single thought, thus excluding human freedom. Therefore, postmodernism must oppose all the theories and models of modernity (Orkunoglu, 2007). This opposition originates from its very nature, namely its inherent skepticism.

Along with postmodernism, the attempt of enlightening to reach the period of adolescence backfired, with mankind having returned to the period of childhood. What was traditional, sacred, particular in nature and illogical made a comeback, with the background giving birth to enlightening being revisited after a long way around in another context and framework (Morie, 1998). The periods of “recipes and projects” have been discontinued by the fact dominating in intellectual dimensions that any deep breathing and comprehensive rhetoric addressing the entire mankind was teleological and totalitarian and revelation by exposing the terror underlying the enlightening that theories and premises are terrorizing and quarrelsome. A further step beyond skepticism, postmodernism has taken epistemic concerns to the ontological area, thus bringing the legitimacy of all the rhetoric on the brink of loss (Jameson et al, 1970).

Business ethics is yet another matter which must be focused on in line with these discussions. Therefore, the general purpose of the study is to demonstrate the postmodern comeback in the understanding of business ethics. The basic purpose of this study entails explanation of the ethical understandings of operations in the postmodern period and reflections of these understandings from the perspective of Zygmunt Bauman, who is well known for his works demonstrating both adaptation of postmodern philosophy and postmodern ethics in the sociological field and a sound assessment of the same on a generally theoretical level, and Michel Foucault who is regarded as one of the leading postmodern theoreticians. Thus, that



would allow discussion of the morality of business ethics behaviors of operations in the postmodern period and making new suggestions.

The basic questions attempted to be replied by the study are determined as follows: Does ethics in the postmodern period basically develop its own superior narrations in terms of their values and practices? Would it be possible to find rules, which are perfect and universal and not uncertain, in the ethical understanding in the sense of postmodernism in the business community? Would it be possible for any action to be called moral in the postmodern sense from the viewpoint of the business community? Would the terms by Zygmunt Bauman and Michel Foucault suffice to explain the actual situation in the business community in the context of postmodern ethical understanding? Would it be possible for operations to develop their own practices in the context of postmodernist ethics? Would postmodern ethics provide managers of operations with more wisdom? Would it be easy to act or decide on the basis of this wisdom in the postmodern setting? Would the ambiguity between the good and bad in postmodern ethics lead to problems in practices by operations?

The research has been composed by taking as a basis the ethical understandings of Zygmunt Bauman (Bauman 1992, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2005) and Michel Foucault (Foucault 1997, 2002, 2005, 2006a, 2006b, 2007a, 2007b) in their remarks on postmodernism. In the context of the remarks on the postmodern ethics, the behaviors of operations are analyzed in the business life, with assessment being offered on their implementations. Replies to the basic questions of the research have been sought and by identifying the opportunities and threats involving the ethical understandings of enterprises in the postmodern setting, assessments are offered with respect to the weak and strong aspects of the enterprises as well as their capability of coping with the postmodern situation.

First of all, the differences between the ethical understandings and understandings of business ethics as part of modernism and postmodernism are dealt with, followed by assessments on the basic questions of the research from Bauman’s and Foucault’s perspectives so that these findings can be made.

The basic reason for having selected Foucault’s and Bauman’s theories in setting up the theoretical structure of the study is that the ethics of both theoreticians on social labor life and activities there is the subject matter of much criticism. As Foucault (2000, 2006a, 2006b, 2007a, 2007b) focuses on the concepts of discipline, power and ruling in particular, he makes assessments attempting to determine the place of ethics in social life and by following Socrates, he seeks replies to the questions: “Who would greet people? Are you caring for yourself?”. As for Bauman (1993, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2005), he provides clarification on the practices is social labor life by considering the concept of other, thus making an assessment of the professional knowledge and corporate capacity of an employee according to ethical behaviors. Besides, both theoreticians approach ethics from a liberal perspective, claiming that moral responsibility could be controlled. They believe that this could only be achieved through the free will of the individual. They advocate that there is nothing called moral action and that there could only be moral interpretations of actions individually.

2. Modern Ethics Ethics is etymologically a philosophical branch researching about what is right and what is wrong, investigating about the real purpose of human life and what elements a virtuous life must comprise (Pieper, 1999).



Although the concepts of morals and ethics are generally perceived as having the same meaning, there are obvious differences between both of them. Ethics focuses on moral duties and requirements in connection with determination of what is good and what is bad as a discipline. According to Bauman (1993, 2001), there is not simply a conceptual distinction between morals and ethics; at the same time, there are also differences in the approach to the concept of morals in the modern and postmodern senses. Morals deals with human thoughts and feelings and patterns of right / wrong behaviors. Ethics attempts to explain the morality of human behaviors in relation to rules, codes and norms. If we speak of a universal moral rule, we must absolutely use the concept of ethics at this point. This explanation made refers to the ethical understanding in the modern sense. However, when one speaks of ethics in the postmodern sense, then, the concepts of ethics and morals must be discussed again.

The modern ethical understanding have become marginal in the postmodern world. This is because there are differences in the patterns of the preparation self-achieved by the individual in the postmodern world as well as of the ethical efforts thereof. In the modern situation, ethics aimed at not only adapting the individual to a single rule but also turning the individual into the moral subject of his own attitude. Although a moral action aims at self-perfection, it also allowed development of a moral attitude arriving at a certain mode of existence, which is the distinctive feature of the moral subject by making use of this (Foucalt, 2007a).

Bauman recognizes as the ethical period the modern period when it presumably became more distinctive after the Industrial Revolution in particular. He argues that in this period, there were universal rules explaining and defining the morality of the behaviors of the individual. In the modern period, there was no individualization as part of assessment of the morality of the behaviors of the individuals (Baumann, 1993). However, as noted earlier, the existence of moral action must be discussed.

What was understood from ethics in the modern period is the whole of rules and values of action suggested by various ordering mechanisms such as families, educational institutions and church to the individuals and groups. The moral philosophy is the voice of society in the modern sense, calling on the members of society. Its function is to provide guidance to the behaviors in such a manner compliant with the said social life style. The moral philosophy is a request, not a reason and it consists of a conflict between and inside our moral selves (Poole, 1993). Parallel to this, individual interpretations of the morality of facts are involved.

Modern thinkers and lawmakers think that morals must be designed and imposed on human behavior without assuming the natural feature of man, thus attempting to develop a version of ethics covering and integrating everything; they attempted to fill the vacuum left by the church with a series of rules and logic and believed until the periods when mutual relationships turned blind as a result of belief that they could eventually regulate a more peace-loving, civilized and rational life. However, they unfortunately omitted the fact, which must have been known, that moral matters could not be solved and moral life of man not guaranteed through the calculating and law making efforts of mind (Bauman, 1998).

Modern ethics refer to the requirements of a certain social life; these moral principles are the voice of society, calling on the members of society. Its function is to provide guidance to the behaviors in such a manner compliant with the said social life style. In this sense, ethics has taken on the form of homework in the modern world, providing guidance to us over our choices leading to a meaningful life. However, the understanding of more integral morals in the modern world tries to restrict such choices rather than providing guidance over them



(Poole, 1991). Thus, it may be said that the understanding of morals in the modern world has become marginal. There is now an escape from the obligation of making a choice between the good and bad and taking moral decisions or universal morality is replaced by individual morality.

3. Postmodern Ethics and Its Reflections: Postmodern Morality and Postmodern Responsibility “Disintegrated entities are best identified piece by piece.”

Rainer Maria Rilke

In the recent years, the postmodern theory occupies a significant place in the social theory. Postmodernism started having a high profile in the intellectual area with the basic argument that the meta-narratives in the Western thought are now obsolete along with modernity and would no longer enjoy their original prevalence.

The postmodern theory, which started emerging as an expression of the paradigmatic changes taking place in the social theory after the 60’s in particular, achieved progress within a structure radically piercing the thought of integrity, singularity and universality, which is virtually recognized by modernity as a sacred dogma. By criticizing the modern paradigm which centrally treats the belief that scientific approaches reflect the reality, the postmodern theory is positioned at a relativist point taking as a basis the assumption that the modernist theories would offer partial perspectives on their own objects most probably and that all of our cognitive perceptions regarding the world are filtered through the surroundings of history and language (Bauman, 1993).

The fact that postmodernism has not a fixed definition is the only point on which the parties reach a compromise as part of the discussions exchanged in the context of the issue of defining postmodernism. When the disquieting difficulty to make a definition for a certain concept in general adds up to this, postmodernism confronts us as a quite amorphous and ambiguous concept. In this framework, the reference by certain authors to postmodernism to a metaphor of “ghost” closely fits its shapelessness and uncertainty. Thomas Docherty, who compares postmodernism to “ghost”, notes the following on this subject:

“There is virtually no single field of occupation not touched upon by the “Postmodern” ghost. It leaves its mark on every cultural discipline covering the routes such as architecture, zoology, biology, forestry, geography, history, law, literature and in general, arts, medicine, politics, philosophy and sexuality. However, this amorphous thing remains in a ghostly – and ghastly for some people – form because there has been no preoccupation with the debate dwelling on the postmodernity. The term itself keeps going the long way around unclearly between, on the one hand, quite complicated and difficult philosophical meanings in the most recent articles and, on the other hand, a very simple metaphorical substitution as a nihilist and crouching trend in the contemporary culture.” (Docherty, 1993)

Parallel to this, it may be noted that as the postmodern paradigm has facilitated the emergence of a structure fundamentally shaking the Western epistemology by exposing the structures of logic, truth, tradition and knowledge to deep relativity, it has led to repercussions over all the disciplines. Thus, the words such as “text”, “projection” and “scenario” define the external surroundings of the field of social science, it has turned out that they are actually the notions



which must be inherent with the area of social science through the postmodern paradigm. As noted by Richard Rorty, who is one of the major representatives of the advocacy on postmodernism, nothing has a nature, which is finalized or real. Everything is the product of time and chance. Therefore, the family tree of a situation reveals its very existence in its own projection.

As expressed above, as the modern philosophy of morals attempts to ensure use of inadequate human abilities with the aid of ethical standards and ideals by preserving the individual compromise, the postmodern philosophy of morals mostly concerns itself with the limitations of moral metaphysics affecting the certain current situations of individuals. The postmodern thought concerns itself with the modernity of the institutionalized and organized capital system where the logical rues and principles emerge illogically (Kelemen & Peltonen, 2001). Namely, it is preoccupied with the late capitalism.

The study uses Zygmunt Bauman’s and Michel Foucault’s perspectives in the remarks on the understanding of postmodern ethics. In line with this, Bauman’s perspective is first covered, followed by that of Foucault; subsequently, the reflections of postmodern ethics are proceeded with.

It is considered useful to make a reference to the pioneers of the ethical understanding in the I-Antiquities in the postmodern sense before Bauman’s and Foucault’s thoughts are covered. It is possible to see the pioneers of the ethical understanding in the Sophists * in the postmodernist sense. The Sophists adopted a more different and relative ethical understanding; there is no measurement which may be generally accepted in common and real. The measurement of anything depends on the individual and also, the measurement of ethics also depends on the individual. The first thought which advocates the relativity and objectivity in ethics – and even fits the postmodern theory – pertains to the Sophists. And this is a point which renders the ethical thought of the Sophists important; yet another one was that the Sophists did not limit their ethical understanding to free citizens, generalizing it and further describing that the slaves could also have virtues and learn virtues and when this is assessed in terms of that period, it refers to an environment where the class based differences entirely disappeared and freedom materialized in the full sense (Maclntyre, 2001) and therefore, it becomes more important. The ethical understanding of the Sophists may be considered having the qualification as the pioneer of individual morality in the postmodern ethical context.

In his work titled “Postmodern Ethics”, Bauman (1993) points out that postmodernism is a development, not a method of showing reaction or feedback as:

“ I suggest that the novelty of the postmodern approach to ethics consists first and foremost not in the abandoning of characteristically modern moral concerns, but in the rejection of the typically modern ways of going about its moral problems (that is, responding to moral challenges with coercive normative regulation in political practice, and the philosophical search for absolutes, universals and foundations in theory).”

• The Sophists are the traveling philosophers teaching philosophy on payment in the 5th century BC. In particular, the leading sagacious figures in Athens at the time criticized the existing values (kritias).They laid the



foundation of the relative and skeptic thought, developing it further. Etymologically, the word “sophist” originates from sophistes derived from the Greek ‘sophos’ (which means sagacious, skillful, intelligent); it is used to refer to the persons, who had the occupation of learning and teaching. The social developments in the period (Athens Democracy in the 5th century) allowed the Sophists to become influential. This is because the practical need felt by Athens Democracy for a brand new type of education and pedagogy is a decisive reason among the reasons for the birth of sophism. In a sense, they are the originators of the development, which would later be called ‘Greek Enligtening’. Sophist philosophers: Protagoras (482 - 411) , Gorgias from Leontinoi (483- 375) , Antiphon , Hippias from Elis , Alkidamos , Lykophron , Kallikles , Prodikos from Keos, Kritias , Simonides , Thyrasymakos from Chalkedon , Ahonymus Lamblichi.

In line with this, according to Bauman, ethics is a modernist thought and aims at structuring freedom which has moral uncertainty. According to Bauman (1993), the postmodern ethical perspective is a belief that the modern institutions designed to develop the morality of people have designed modern institutions usurping the moral responsibilities of individuals. It eliminates the efforts to render logical the moral responsibilities in the modern societies in line with universal moral codes and rules. It ensures institution of ethics for the sake of morality. According to Bauman (1993, 2003), modernity is the construction of rational foundations for ethical beliefs. Bauman rejects equality and rationality of morals. Moral feelings develop asymmetrically.

According to Bauman, this situation does not eliminate reality. Universal morals is probable but it has to be developed such that there would be responsibility for own / individual moral behaviors. Modern moral values cannot be relinquished but the methods developed for their solution may change. Individuals must be able to take decisions without being subject to any moral discussions, criticisms and any rules, principles or ethical codes. According to Bauman, this situation is not an escape from morality, rather a return to morality (Yuthas & Dillard,1999).

Bauman (2003) believes that from the modern viewpoint, ethics relates to not only humanity and that however, it is recognized as the required things attempted to be taught or introduced as part of human behaviors. Bauman has explained why universal and impartial ethics would not be practically possible. First of all, universal law is based on recognition but at the same time, it is independently determined from the rational sum of benefits and damages. Although learning or imposition of rules relies on individual autonomy and moral responsibility, it is actually dependent on cause and consequences (Yuthas & Dillard, 1999). Secondly, it is that universal law is valid for each moral dilemma. There is only one good choice and the others have lower rankings morally. The least moral choice only exists uncertainly and undoubtedly and they are dependent on moral decision making. Any effort to eliminate universal values manifests itself in the form of equalization of the individual by the moral instincts of the individual (Bauman, 1993).

Bauman (1993) rejects the idea that the origin of a moral behavior depends on society. He notes about the moral power of the individual against what is immoral, his power against the social order, mutual responsibility, existence of right behavior before socialization subject to social rules and the fact that we have already made a moral choice thereof. Bauman points out that the methodological individualization shaping societies emerges as a threat to the individual collectively. He argues that the individuals are first ethical and then social, namely ethics follow morality but that the opposite might also be true. Ethical behavior eliminates the individual responsibility to another one. When we are moral prior to being social, we are then unable to know about which ethical values we must adopt, which ones we must abandon and the pressures applied by the social institutions on us (Keleman & Peltonen, 2001).



According to Bauman, the postmodern ethical understanding, which is referred to as the uncovered morals, inherently accommodates creative destruction. It is necessary to act ruthlessly in order to attain this target. Bauman sees the postmodern period as the end of ethics and Foucault and Fukuyama refer to the postmodern period as the end of history by even going further. To this end, the living obsession in all the civilizations must be eliminated. This is because law, order and chaos may be lived through whatever is free for human existence and it stands somewhere between the unlivable world and the meaning and meaninglessness. According to Bauman and Foucault, the endless search for ethical principles in the modern sense cannot go any further beyond being a part of the living obsession. People are advised to do what is good and performance of this obligation constitutes the goodness itself. The modern era is the ethical era and regarded as the main product of the moral – ethical industry. The end of modernism means the end of the ethical era as well and at the same time, this heralds the end of morals. People are allowed to take decisions and most importantly, the practice of demarcating the ethical principles is now abandoned (Bauman, 2001). Thus, the practice of universalized rules measuring the morality of the actions of the individuals has been discontinued and the question, “is it moral or not?”, has turned into a practice inside the inner self of the individual.

Foucault (2006a, 2006b, 2007a, 2007b) explains morals subject to its own practice. If the behavioral rule is actually something, the behavior which can be measured according to this rule is something else. How man must behave, namely how the individual must develop himself as a moral object by behaving as per the obligatory elements constituting the law, is something else. There may be difference in the patterns of preparation and ethical endeavors realized by the individual on himself. In conclusion, it is conditional for an action to be reduced to an act or an integrity of acts meeting a law or a value so that it may be named moral. It is correct that every moral action is linked to the law within which it is developed and real and makes a reference to but such an action also involves the relationship of the individual with himself (Foucault, 2007a). Given this situation, it emerges as a result of the act of the individual, which requires individual morality on the ethical basis but cannot be explained by the fully universalized codes. Assessments thereof also vary from condition to condition depending on this act. Therefore, there is no single truth, no single mistake, no single action and no single bad action.

The critical ontology adopted by Foucault, who is regarded as one of the advocates of the postmodern expression, envisages that the limitations dictated as universal, compulsory and unavoidable be disintegrated and that exceeding these limitations be tried historically and practically. Foucault (2006b) stresses the part played by the particular, formational and arbitrary elements in what is offered as universal, compulsory and unavoidable. Foucault defines the philosophical ethos adopted by him as a limitation – attitude and describes it as the disintegration of the limitations of the critical approach. In this framework, the negative question by Kant as regards which limitations knowledge must exceed turns into a positive question as to what the role played by the particular, formational and arbitrary elements in the one offered universally, compulsorily and unavoidably is; therefore, the critical question directed in the form of compulsory limitations is replaced by the practical criticism in the form of exceeding the probable limitations. Accordingly, Foucault’s critical pattern of thinking abandons the quest for certain universal and formal structures and instead envisages performance of a historical questioning of the events leading the individuals to define themselves as an object. Therefore, by abandoning the quest for universality and formality, Foucault actually rejects any kinds of love and metaphysical thinking pattern and instead



historically treats those expressions supplementing the things done, said and thought over the formation of the subject (Foucault, 2000).

The object is not compulsory but formational for Foucault focusing on the issue of object in this framework. Foucault claims that the modern object is determined by the Enlightening and that the Enlightening is still a privileged area of solution in this framework. However, Foucault opposes those elements regarded by the Enlightening as compulsory for formation of autonomous objects as well as “actual limitations of the absolute necessity” (Foucault, 2000). On the other hand, as it is known, the understanding of modern history depends on the assumption that history has a direction since the Enlightening thought and that it inevitably advances forward. The postmodern thinkers oppose the idea that history has laws and that it compulsorily advances towards a direction. Foucalt stresses breakages and distribution rather than historical permanence and identicalness by the family tree method. According to Foucalt (1980), the family tree studies the formation of the area of information, expressions and objects in a historical framework without making any reference to any object in respect of any love. But, his historical perspective does not rely on determinism or the logic of absolute necessity. Accordingly, history is not the effective existence of the past today and something which sets the present time into motion internally. In this framework, Foucault claims that the family tree method does not attempt to “map the fates of the individuals” (Foucault, 1998).

As it can be understood from the expressions above, Foucault’s philosophy is sceptic. Ironically, Foucault’s postmodern ethics does not incorporate any discussion on socialist utopia or the dream of a rational society dependent on the probable liberties. Foucault’s thinking pattern is intertwined with the postmodernism and not dependent on any doctrines, methods or schools of thought (Chan & Garrick 2002).

The first reflection of the postmodern ethics taken as a basis by the study is the postmodern morals. As the postmodern morals is studied, assessment of the morality of the facts not a moral action is taken as a basis. In the postmodern expression, it is not dependent on an act or an integrity of acts fitting a rule, a law or a value so that an action may be named moral. Each moral action is related to the truth in which it is formed and also to the law to which it makes a reference but such an action also involves the relationship which is with the individual himself and this relationship refers to not only the self awareness but also the formation of the self as the moral object. As part of the postmodern expression, there are models by which the individual forms and develops his relationships with his real self, the individual thinks of his self, knows, tests and reveals himself as well as for the changes the individual tries to achieve on himself (Foucault, 2007a).

According to the postmodern morals, the postmodernism is both a threat to and a chance of the individual; and, which one of these two faces of the postmodern situation is a moral question (Bauman, 2001). Ethics is something more than the definition of merely what people do; it is even something more than the definition of the things they believe they must do on a route, which has good manners, is fair, good or right more generally. The ethical propositions are those propositions not relying on the things believed by people that they actually do or must do for their own correctness. If the thing remarked by the ethical propositions and what people do or believe are not in harmony, the following conclusion is reached in this situation: People are what is wrong. As only ethics can tell what must be actually done so that the good may be followed in the modern sense, in the postmodern period, as ethical Lyotard notes, the



legitimization by the ethical codes of development with the promise to liberalize the mankind integrally is a whole of impossible rules (Bauman, 2001).

Another reflection of the postmodern ethics is the postmodern responsibility. As it is known, as the morality of an action is discussed, responsibility is discussed as the other side of this situation. As a matter of fact, responsibility is a result of moral actions. This situation is analyzed by the modern ethical theories under various titles. For instance, Kant’s homework morals qualifies the actions, for which man is individually responsible, as moral. Again, according to Bentham and Mill, social benefit comprises the sum of individual interests of the persons forming the society and the results of the actions of the persons also bring about the responsibility towards the society at the same time.

Bauman sets forth the separation of moral responsibilities from the self on the individual within the social structuring as the objective pursued by modernity. If this is not possible, modernity agrees that observable man having moral judgment are exempted by others. This individuality becomes moral residue and ethics substitute it. This is because, according to Bauman (1993), ethics is a modernist thought and it is a social mechanism aiming at structuring freedom, which has moral uncertainty, an therefore, accommodating the responsibilities inherently. Two institutions are in the center of this: bureaucracy and enterprises. The market, state or an organization cannot decide on morality. It cannot have a responsibility which covers others on its own. In this situation, it is not a category presumably covering others but it is so individual to accommodate sympathy and feeling inherently. The responsibilities of others individually develop and that is where morality starts. But, it automatically brings about becoming responsible towards others, having power on others and passing to others (Keleman & Peltonen, 2001).

In the framework of the postmodern moral responsibility, moral replies do not materialize in a manner meeting the social contract or rules in a society. Therefore, as noted by Bauman (1993), the moral responsibility is a starting point rather than the product of a society. It is feedstock in development of the social or public interaction in moral persons. A culture or a society cannot make the moral development of the individuals possible. The moral capacity in the human relationships emerge in the forms of what remains of the societies with respect to the old as being less happy or happy. This is because morality is not individual or social. There is not a hierarchical set of rules affecting them (Yuthas & Dillard, 1999).

Emmanuel Levinas, who also considerably influenced Bauman, must be analyzed in order to be able to understand responsibility in the postmodern sense better. Levinas is one of the philosophers having a central place in the postmodern discussion in the contexts of difference, the entity as being others and ethics. According to Levinas (2005), the postmodern responsibility becomes visible on the face. Namely, the surface describes the infiniteness and ethics manifests itself in the description itself, namely in the feeling of becoming responsible relative to honesty. Levinas fiercely advocates the thought that this responsibility can never be avoided.

In the modern ethics, the other is regarded as the most ghastly of the obstacles facing the self on the way to completion. By reversing the principles of the modern ethics, Levinas assigns the priority to the others, which was previously directed at the self unquestionably. The other in the postmodern ethics is the subject, which is responsible. The postmodern ethics re-establishes the other as a very important character in the process by which the moral self



reaches the place it deserves and in the postmodern ethics, “humanity of man, namely subjectivity, is a responsibility for others.

It is attempted by the parts above to analyze the transformation from modernity to post-modernity in the context of ethical understanding. However, it is also necessary to observe the social, economic and political effects of this transformation on the social life and assess the rules of business ethics defined as the guidelines for the enterprises in the current economic system where the late capitalism is under way. The next part provides assessments on the postmodern business ethics.

4. Postmodern Business Ethics According to Nietzsche (2001), anything, which is referred to as good or bad, relates to hierarchy, superiority, subordination and management. There is no natural and intrinsic / inherent relationship between any behavior and goodness. In order for this relationship to be visible, this must first be ordered and the power which would ensure compliance with this order must be possessed. In the postmodern world, the law stands somewhere between order and chaos, between the livable and unlivable world and meaning and meaninglessness. Therefore, the infinite search for the ethical principles and telling people about their obligation to do whatever is good and expression of goodness through performance of this obligation pertain to the modernist expression. The line followed by the standards of business ethics attempted to be developed as noted by the modernist expression changed or marginalized in the postmodern period (Bauman, 2001).

The historical development of business ethics dates back to the Antiquities just like the development of ethics. In the ancient Greek and Roman worlds, authors and philosophers did not regard businesses and commercial activities favorably. This is because such activities involved the passion for making money, lies and deception and it was believed that as a result of the relationships with the merchants, the civilizations would be degenerated by irregularities and corruption to be inflicted by these merchants on the society (Behrman, 1981). However, the religions and church in particular made significant contributions to the development of business ethics in the Medieval Age. According to Weber, although the Jewish holy texts draw attention to the evilness and dangers of income and wealth inequality, it is however noted that accumulation of wealth would not go against general morals (Habermas, 2001).

Taking this as a starting point, it is possible to comment that Weber explained the professional ethics as part of business ethics. According to Weber, business ethics is explained on the basis of Protestant ethics. By taking the Calvinist teaching as a basis, he regards the success of professional work as an external sign of being sure, not a direct tool of reaching happiness in the next world. Thus, it stresses the aspect by which morals is forced to be applied to all the areas of living and all the phases of life evenly under the guidance of ethical belief and principles with respect to exclusion of believers from the unsystematic nature of daily life practice (Weber, 2008). Both religions and church as well as the economic and social developments experienced directly contributed to the development of business ethics until the 20th century. In this period, which is called modern period, the principles of business ethics institutionalized in the form of universal principles and were adopted in such a manner allowing them to guide the enterprises. Religious teachings and daily practices were taken as references over its development depending on time and circumstances.



The understanding of business ethics changed in the postmodernist period. The postmodern business ethics do not comply with the traditional ethical model or ontological ethical theories and what is more, it is not a result oriented model and it does not meet an ethical understanding based on value / virtue. As commented by famous postmodernist philosopher Lyotard, the postmodern ethnical understanding is not based on a single ethical theory or moral principle and refuses the meta-narratives in the ethical theories. In addition, Lyotard claims that the postmodern situation itself is a setting of disagreement and that the morality inside it can only materialize in the form of minimizing the mistakes (Nuyen, 2004). When this situation is evaluated from the viewpoint of the current business environment, these questions come to mind first: Does the postmodern period, which defines itself as a condition of disagreement and uncertainty, have any business ethics or is it possible to refer to business ethics in such an environment?

These questions constitute the starting point of the study. It is useful to explain the basic reason as to why the postmodern business ethics became important before seeking replies to these questions. It will be more correct to explain this reason as expressed by Bauman. Post-modernity means “liberalization from the typical modern instinct ambiguity aims at overcoming”. The modernity, which established a uniform rational order, carried out a project which upset the magic of the world and deprived it of its identity. The post-modernity is the modernity not having illusion. “The love of modernity never ended; it just changed form. That great battle fought against the modernity for three hundred years is now maintained by the troops of free consumers, which assemble and leave in the dark dead end streets scattered between the boulevards illuminated by the bright lights of Disneylands.” (Bauman, 2005). At this point, it became more difficult for the ethical values to bring correct behavioral standards to mind and therefore, the view that the non-ethical behaviors brought to light by the postmodern ethics could also have morality began being used as a reference in definition of ethics in the organizational sense.

The postmodern business ethics has the function of a guide over understanding uncertainty. This uncertainty and potential is the method of overcoming destructive consequences and requires the enterprises to be more careful in their behaviors. Fear can be used as a tool in prevention of emergence of dangerous consequences from the decisions of the enterprises. This is because it is necessary to calculate the consequences of decisions and their risks which might arise whenever a decision is made. At this point, it is difficult to remain independent or away from the moral viewpoints (Yuthas & Dillard, 1999) but this does not require use of universal values or theories.

According to Green (1993), business ethics is post-modern and this has two basic explanations. Firstly, business ethics is post-modern because it rejects the whole or summarizes the explanations of truth and this rejection emerges in the form of the rejection by Lyotard of the meta-narratives or foundations. This is because business is more suspicious according to the economic calculations of Marx, Friedman or Adam Smith. And all the mega-narratives are suspicious. In brief, business ethics is postmodern because it disqualifies a single viewpoint pointed out by the social and economic theory or ethical problems of organizational and economic life. According to Green’s second argument, business ethics is postmodern because business ethics shares the view that the post-modernism must be disassociated from the center and reveals the marginality condition of the other for what is different and experience. As a matter of fact, these arguments also explain the justifications of existence for the post-modern business ethics.



The post-modern approach to business ethics does not suggest characteristic relinquishment of modern moral anxieties but instead advises that solution be sought to moral problems through modern methods (It ensures that moral replies are given to the imperative normative arrangements in the political arena / practices and that the entire, universal psychology inside the theory must be investigated). The post-modernity developing inside the modernity does not have any objectives different from those of modernity (equality, justice, suspicion of dogma). It just has a different strategic approach which rejects the quest for total, universal values. The post-modernity and business ethics how moral dilemmas are unclear and how it leads to reduced optimism as final results are found. The post-modern business ethics may be referred to if it does not incorporate any values inherently and offer a set of ethical principles for development of an ethical structure (Gustafson, 2000).

In this sense, it is possible to list the basic properties of the postmodern business ethics as follows (Gustafson, 2000):

- Holism: The first property of the postmodern ethics is that individual and professional behaviors are radically disassociated from each other. Namely, it accommodates integrity inherently but it is also individual proportionately.

- No abstracted ethics in a vacuum: The postmodern business ethics does not focus on the abstract theories; what is more than this, it focuses on the epic approach of a person, which accommodates a viewpoint of a person on life and places the enterprise on a corner of his life. The postmodern ethics is not against the ethical phenomenon but it is suspicious about the traditional approaches of the basic ethical theories and the objective of ethical values / virtue requires acting like a hero rather than disassociation of the abstract principles.

- Suspicious of Universal Theories: The post-modern ethics has a suspicious approach to the universal theories. They are inclined to do and accept business as per local rules rather than universal values. The post-modernists have lost their optimistic hopes vis-à-vis the best society and set of excellent rules. Basically, post-modernism is incapable of providing a reply but it is a good starting point to raise questions.

The post-modern business ethics does not keep questioning ethics but it questions a certain area and his is a limited questioning. The limited questioning herein is the questioning of what best fits the ethical behavior or of the concepts. The willingness felt towards the post-modern business ethics ensures transition to political and social pluralism in our culture and faces us a flexible method in this ethical decision making. Given this, the post-modern ethics may be regarded as more pessimistic compared to the modern ethics (Gustafson, 2000); the basic reason for this is that it accommodates the suspicious questioning inherently.

As a matter of fact, approaching the business ethics in the post-modern sense causes them to have a structure which signifies them in the form of a natural law which is not scientific rather than reducing the ethical issues packed with viewpoints full of values. In the post-modern sense, the values are not impartial and universal and are not presented as if they were fundamental issues. In the business life, the values are biased, uncertain and constant; at the same time, the values are not extractions pertaining to a situation. They do not develop due to the nature of the laws which are applicable for the business life and the values are structured in line with the relationships of people with the ruling power. However, the post-modern ethical values are partial because they support or oppose a certain condition. They recognize that there is not a separate system of values outside. This is because all the situations are full



of values inherently. They are of such a nature which would lead to interesting consequences sometimes. After all, social justice in view of the enterprises emerge in the differentiated situations contributing to the development of these values (Swartz, 2007).

Bauman (199; Swartz, 2007) argues that there are the signs of the post-modern ethics in the society of which we are a part. These signs are:

1. Humans are morally ambivalent, and we need to learn how to live without guarantees of a perfect society or a perfect human being.

2. Moral phenomena are inherently “nonrational” and do not fit a “means-end” schema. They are not regular, repetitive, or predictable.

3. Morality is incurably aporetic. Few, if any, choices are unambiguously good. Most choices are made between contradictory impulses, and most moral choices, if acted on, lead to immoral consequences (e.g., domination, oppression, annihilation).

4. Morality is not universalizable. This does not endorse moral relativism and a nihilistic view of morality. Rather, the universalization of morality has silenced the moral impulse.

5. Morality is and is bound to remain irrational. The social management of morality is a complex and delicate operation that cannot but precipitate more ambivalence than it manages to eliminate.

6. Given this ambiguous state, the moral responsibility of being “for the other” precedes being “with the other” and is the first reality of the self.

7. Thus, postmodern ethics does not propose a relativism of morality nor a “do nothing” attitude. Rather, a positionality of “for the other” compels a moral stance.

These signs exactly take place in the business ethical principles which occupy a significant place in the business life. This is because the post-modern ethical decisions are a quality contrary to the traditional organization rationality. Although the enterprise ethics argues that the ethical value of an action meeting universal ontology depends on the intention or results of individual action, the tools of the business ethics are regarded as unlimited maximization and recognition of freedom of each individual (Keleman & Peltonen, 2001).

After the explanations on the post-modern business ethics, the table below summarizes the differences between the business ethics in the modern sense and the business ethics in the post-modern sense:



Table 1: Differences Between Modern Business Ethics and Postmodern Business Ethics

Modern Business Ethics

Postmodern Business Ethics

Master narratives and meta- narratives

Master narratives and meta-narratives of business, marketing and organization culture, history and business, corporate identities as accepted before

Suspicion and rejection of Master Narratives for business history and culture; local business narratives, ironic deconstruction of master narratives: counter-myths of origin.

Grand Theory/Relative Cultural

Faith in Grand Theory (totalizing explanations in business history, science, stragtegy and culture) to represent all knowledge and explain everything, every strategy

Rejection of totalizing business theories; pursuit of localizing and contingent business theories

Unity/Disunity Faith in, and myths of, social and cultural unity, hierarchies of social-class and ethnic/national values, seemingly clear bases for unity.

Social and cultural pluralism, disunity, unclear bases for social/national/ ethnic unity.

Scientific Knowledge/ Wisdom (Cultural Knowledge)

Master narrative of progress through science and technology.

Skepticism of idea of progress, anti-technology reactions, new age religions.

Centering/Decentring Sense of unified, centered self; "individualism," unified identity.

Sense of fragmentation and decentered self; multiple, conflicting identities.

Holism/Fragmentation Hierarchy, order, centralized control. Subverted order, loss of centralized control, fragmentation.

Mono- vocality/Poly- vocality

Faith and personal investment in big politics (Nation-State, party).

Trust and investment in micropolitics, identity politics, local politics, institutional power struggles.

Symbolic Meaning/Simulacra

Faith in the "real" beyond media, language, symbols, and representations; authenticity of "originals."

Hyper-reality, image saturation, simulacra seem more powerful than the "real"; images and texts with no prior "original".

Depth/Surface Root/Depth tropes. Faith in "Depth" (meaning, value, content, the signified) over "Surface" (appearances, the superficial, the signifier).

Rhizome/surface tropes. Attention to play of surfaces, images, signifiers without concern for "Depth". Relational and horizontal differences, differentiations.

Creation/Deconstruction Dichotomy of high and low culture (official vs. popular culture). Imposed consensus that high or official culture is normative and authoritative, the ground of value and discrimination.

Disruption of the dominance of high culture by popular culture. Mixing of popular and high cultures, new valuation of pop culture, hybrid cultural forms cancel "high"/"low" categories.

Distance/Participation Mass culture, mass consumption, mass marketing.

Demassified culture; niche products and marketing, smaller group identities.



Master Code/Idiolect Knowledge mastery, attempts to embrace a totality. Quest for interdisciplinary harmony. The encyclopedia.

Navigation through information overload, information management; fragmented, partial knowledge; just-in-time knowledge. The Web.

Transcendence/Immanence Broadcast media, centralized one-to-many communications. Paradigms: broadcast networks and TV.

Digital, interactive, client-server, distributed, user-motivated, individualized, many-to-many media. Paradigms: Napster and the Web.

Centering/Dispersal Centering/centeredness, centralized knowledge.

Dispersal,dissemination, networked, distributed knowledge

Genre, boundary/Text, intertext

Sense of clear generic boundaries and wholeness (art, music, and literature).

Hybridity, promiscuous genres, recombinant culture, intertextuality, pastiche.

Determinacy/Indeterminacy Determinacy, dependence, hierarchy. Indeterminacy, contingency, polycentric power sources.

Expanded and Adopted from: Martin, 1997

As it can be clearly seen from the table above, initially, ethics and morals were recognized as the direct results and founders of modernism. Business ethics was thought to be in the form of the preservation of own morality of economic relationships, which have an increased importance as a result of less ethical standards in the business life and emerge in the form of a reply. Particularly after the Industrial Revolution, the rise of new types of organization, the importance attached to consumers increasing in terms of both products and distribution, definition of the market as the authority and fulfillment of best and mostly accepted behavior for the individuals were rendered necessary (Kelemen & Peltonen, 2001). However, the post-modern period has marginalized the approaches to the business ethics. Any kinds of viewpoints covered by the post-modern expression have had an impact on the business ethics or direct activities of the enterprises and their decision making. Decision making has now shifted towards the dynamics of the post-modern society from the dynamics of the modern society theories in such a manner questioning its rationality.

This situation causes perception that in the social sense, ancient organizations had a much more ethical understanding. However, the post-industrial relationships and post-modern epistemology based the ethnical understanding on more foundations. Nowadays, they are interchangeable in connection with ethics and morality. In particular, Bauman’s and Foucoult’s studies stand out with such quality defining morality. These authors look for the golden rules of behavior inside the modernity project with respect to ethics, studying the post-modernist morality which is individually recognized. Both authors focus on morals and identities in the post-modernist context (Kelemen & Peltonen, 2001).

In particular, Foucault’s concepts of ethics and subject have made highly considerable contributions to the area of management. By demonstrating ethics and morality as different concepts, Foucault notes that ethics refers to the efforts of the individual to shape up himself according to a given moral subject, claiming that morality is a concept, which cannot be observed in the human sciences naturally, is in a preserved form normatively and better understood as it is practiced. The identification by Foucault of ethics as having links with an



intermediate expression or powers causes the understanding to diffuse that the individual and person therefore determines his own rights according to the resistance (Kelemen & Peltonen, 2001). Thus, ethics stands out in the form of the behavior of the individuals mutually exposing themselves in their behaviors on earth.

The part on introduction in the study covers the questions serving as a basis for the study. The following table has been prepared for the sake of better seeing the replies provided to these questions in terms of modernism and post-modernism in line with the explanations made up to the present point.

Table 2: Questions Serving As A Basis For The Paper

Questions serving as a basis for the research

Reply given by the modern business ethics

Reply given by the post-modern business ethics

- Is there moral action? Yes

There is moral action.

No

There is no moral action. Actions have moral interpretations individually.

- Do the practices of business ethics accommodate their own meta-narratives basically?

Yes

Meta-narratives such as Marx, Friedman and Smith

No

Local narratives

- Is it possible to find perfect, universal and clear rules in the ethical understanding in the business community?

Yes

Modern ethical theories: teleological and deontological theories

No

- Does the business ethics have its own ethical codes? What are their reflections in applications?

Yes

Uprightness, impartiality, social responsibility, respect to individual rights, corporate responsibility, moral concerns and moral dilemmas

No

Morality in the post-modern sense and post-modern social and corporate responsibility

- Is it possible for the enterprises to develop their own practices in the ethical sense?

No

They are explained by the universal modern ethical theories. The enterprises just have to act in compliance with one or several of them.

Yes

It is possible for them to develop their own practices by questioning the morality of events.



- Do the ethic codes / principles / theories provide sagacity to enterprise managers in their practices? Is it easy to act on the basis of such sagacity?

No

Because there is already a set of rules which are demarcated, it is sufficient to act in compliance with them only.

Yes

As part of their own practices, they are allowed to act more sagaciously by being more inquisitive and skeptic and calculating the risks. It is not easy to act on the basis of this sagacity. However, it is useful as it inherently accommodates caution.

- Is there the unclearness of the results of ethical dilemmas, namely the ambiguity between the good and bad? If yes, does this lead to problems in corporate relationships?

No Yes

The ambiguity between the good and bad may cause unforeseeable results in practices.

- Is it possible to discuss the morality of the results of behaviors of the enterprises?

No

As long as they act as per one of the ethical theories, the results are already considered moral.

Yes

Because there would be a result on ground of a behavior without being subject to any theory, morality of the results would be open to discussion.

As it can be understood from the table, the post-modern business ethics rejects any earthly beliefs impartially presented or measurable and suggests that truths must be re-interpreted and impartial. These interpretations take place in a condition intertwined with the behaviors and attitudes of the individual as well as with the social system. The post-modern business ethics rejects universal theories. This is because the theories have a historical and cultural structure and theories are not dominant. The post-modern business ethics rejects universal paradigms because the paradigms cannot be objectively measured by another person in each individual case. As noted by Bauman, history sets down like the twilight in the post-modern period, constituting renovation / renaissance of morals. Of course, in such an environment, both individuals and enterprises as required by the subject matter of the study have more responsibilities in the modern period than what is presumed.

5. Conclusion The post-modernism emerges as an intellectual movement which is quite active in social sciences. As part of the post-modern expression, there is a post-modern viewpoint also



meeting the business ethics. This is because the components of post-modernism reject to explain the priority reasons and rational values from modern viewpoints. In the post-modern context, the ethical viewpoints point to the weak aspects of the ethical theories, providing alternative methods of understanding on the moral facts (Yuthas & Dillard, 1999). This is also important to signify the business ethics and changing business community anew.

According to Bauman (2001), the endless battle fought for the ethical principles in the modern period was a part (an integral part) of the craze for legislation. Man must be advised of his obligation that he must do what is good and after all, fulfillment of such obligations was actually the goodness itself. And people must be persuaded into following this line of obligation they would otherwise hardly do unless they would be taught or forced. The modernity was the Antiquities and had to be so because there would otherwise be no modernity. Just like the premise of law over order, ethics must have a premise on entire morals. The ethical philosophy was the performance knowledge of technology as the ethical teaching was the performance knowledge of moral industry. The planned product of this industry was goodness as its scrap or sub-standard product was evilness. According to Bauman, the post-modern ethics was the morals not having any ethical codes inherently. The approach to the business ethics in the modern period is not different from what is expressed by Bauman. In particular, big company scandals are actually a sign of the failure of the ethical principles in the modern period to manage the business community. Therefore, improvements were introduced and the sanctions for any unethical issues including any kinds of ethical dilemmas have been defined more heavily.

Bauman and Foucault, who are referred to in the development of the theoretical structure of the study, share a view supporting the above expressions. Both Bauman and Foucault regard the ethical behaviors of the individual as the requirement that the subject follow the rule. Their post-modern alternative was an order or disorder sometimes where feelings and moral instincts rendered intrinsic by the modern entities were set free but it does not accommodate any new rules as part of this order. According to Bauman, ethics was basically a modernist project as morality was the start of the post-modernity or modernity inquiry. According to Foucault, ethics was the effective individual verifications whereas morality constituted expressions which again made us effective through normative truths (Kelemen & Peltonen, 2001).

When in the post-modern world, a person particularly encounters an unexpected behavior, resistance replaces the desires or rational response of the individual. The destructive nature of potential results has to be something which cannot be qualified as bad in practice but is still acceptable. In this condition, in the modern period, ethics emerge as a style dependent on advancement or power / ruling power oriented activities. As the modernist ethical theories allow us to regard the individuals as having universal improvement capability as good and bad, the approach to the ethics from the post-modern angle causes us to see the individual as a piece acceptable or recognizable in the outside world. Therefore, as expressed by Bauman again, one must look at the pieces one by one in a fragmented order. This is because the notion of integrity is out of the question in connection therewith. What is really involved is the integrity between the pieces themselves only.

The section on the post-modern business ethics explains in detail the decision making processes of the practices of business ethics for the enterprises in the post-modern setting and



their effects thereof. The model provided below will assist us with a better understanding of this decision making process.

As it can be clearly seen from the decision making model, not only profession ethics and organizational ethics on a managerial level are effective in the ethical decision making processes of the enterprises. At this point, the individual attitudes of the employees are important in both ethical factors. The individual ethical attitudes must directly question the professional values and organizational values of the enterprise, apply an inquisitive approach to the existing models of behavior and consider the expectations of the outer setting and image of the organization as they do all of this. In conclusion, the suspicious approach to all the processes of the organization starts and more local theories and practices are preferred to universal theories. However, the most important point in this context is that the most correct decision must be made for the organization. This is because although the individual ethical values directly affect or question the organization activities, as a result, the decision made by the organization must meet the moral and social responsibilities in the modern and postmodern senses respectively.

There is also another important point worth mentioning after assessment of the study in a general sense. And this is the limitation of the study. That the study has been made merely in a theoretical context, that no empirical analyses have been made in connection with the study and that the assessment herein cannot be measured constitute the major limitation of the study. Therefore, no numerical data analyses have been made on the issue of the validity of the theories and paradigms set forth herein. Yet another limitation of the study is that the presumed questions are assessed in the framework of the enterprises both in Turkey and the world. Considering Turkey’s religious, cultural, economic and social developments, it might be difficult to determine the ethical behaviors of the enterprises in the post-modern setting and compare this with the enterprises throughout the world. Therefore, this study for which the theoretical context is drawn up herein could constitute a point of reference for the empirical studies which would be made in the future.



Figure 1 : Decision Making in Postmodern Business Era (Expanded and Adapted from: Vasiljevienė, 2006)



Figure 2 : The History, Evolution, Diffusion of Modern & Postmodern EthicS



REFERENCES Bauman, Zygmunt. (2005). Bireyselleşmiş Toplum (The Individualized Society). Translated by: Yavuz Alogan. Ayrıntı Yayınları. Birinci Baskı. Istanbul, 90-91.

Bauman, Zygmunt. (2003). Modernlik ve Müphemlik (Modernity and Ambivalance). Translated by: İsmail Türkmen. Ayrıntı Yayınları. Istanbul.

Bauman, Zygmunt. (2002). Modernite. Postmodernite ve Etik- Zygmunt Bauman ile Söyleşi (The Interview with Zygmunt Bauman). Doğu-Batı Dergisi. Sayı:19.

Bauman, Zygmunt. (2001). Parçalanmış Hayat: Postmodern Ahlak Denemeleri (Life in Fragments- Essays in Postmodern Morality). Translated by: İsmail Türkmen. Ayrıntı Yayınları. Istanbul, 18-53.

Bauman, Zygmunt. (2000a). Ölümlülük. Ölümsüzlük ve Diğer Hayat Stratejileri (Mortality. Immortality and Other Life Strategies). Translated by: Nurgül Demirdöven. Ayrıntı Yayınları. Istanbul.

Bauman, Zygmunt. (2000b). Postmodernlik ve Hoşnutsuzlukları (Postmodernity and Discontents). Translated by: İsmail Türkmen. Ayrıntı Yayınları. Istanbul.

Bauman, Zygmunt. (2000c). Siyaset Arayışı (In Search of Politics). Translated by: Tuncay Birkan. Metis Yayınları. Istanbul.

Bauman, Zygmunt. (1997). Modernite ve Holocaust (Modernity and the Holocaust). Translated by: Süha Sertabiboğlu. Sarmal Yayınları. Istanbul.

Bauman, Zygmunt. (1996). Yasa Koyucular ve Yorumcular (Legislators and Interpreters). Translated by: Kemal Atakay. Metis Yayınları. Istanbul, 87-88.

Bauman, Zygmunt. (1993). Postmodern Etik (Postmodern Ethics). Translated by: Alev Türker. Ayrıntı Yayınları. Istanbul, 4-145.

Bauman, Zygmunt. (1992). Intimations of Postmodernity. Routledge. New York and London.

Behrman, J.N. (1981). Discourses On Ethics and Business. Cambridge, Mass. : Oelgeschlager, Gunn & Hain, 23- 25.

Byrne, Edmund F. (2002). Business Ethics: A Helpful Hybrid in Search of Integrity. Journal of Business Ethics. Volume:37, 121-133.

Chan, Andrew and Garrick, John. (2002). Organizational Theory in Turbulent Times: The Traces of Foucault’’s Ethics. Organization. Volume:9-4, 683-701.

Docherty, T. ((1993) Postmodernism: A Introduction. Docherty. T. (inside) Postmodernism: A Reader. Harvester. New York. 1-31.

Duska, Ronald F. (1993). Aristotle: A Pre-modern Postmodern? Implications for Business Ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly. Volume:3. Issue:3, 227-250.



Ferrell, O., Friedrich J. Ferrell L. (2005) Business Ethics. Sixh Edition. Hougton Miffin Company. Boston. New York.

Foucault, Michel. (2007a). Cinselliğin Tarihi (The History of Sexuality: An Introduction. Vol. 1 and Vol.2. Translated by: Hülya Uğur Tanrıöver. Ayrıntı Yayınları. Istanbul, 138-142.

Foucault, Michel. (2007b). Toplumu Savunmak Gerekir (Il faut defendre la societe. Cours au College de France 1975-1976. Translated by:Şehsuvar Aktaş. Yapı Kredi Yayınları. 3. Baskı. Istanbul, 139.

Foucault, Michel. (2006a). Hapishanenin Doğuşu (Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison). Translated by: Mehmet Ali Kılıçbay. İmge Kitabevi Yayınları. 3. baskı.

Foucault, Michel. (2006b). Kelimeler ve Şeyler: İnsan Bilimlerinin Bir Arkeolojisi (The Order Of Things) Translated by: Mehmet Ali Kılıçbay. İmge Kitabevi Yayınları. Istanbul, 26-31.

Foucault, Michel. (2002). Kliniğin Doğuşu (The Birth of the Clinic: An Archaeology of Medical Perception). Translated by: Temel Keşoğlu. Doruk Yayıncılık. Ankara.

Foucault, Michel. (2001). Fearless Speech. Los Angeles CA:Semiotext(e).

Foucault, Michel. (2000). Özne ve İktidar. Translated by: I. Ergüden ve O. Akınhay. Ayrıntı Yayınları. Istanbul, 185-188.

Foucault, Michel. (1998). Nietzsche. Genealogy. History. Faubion. J. D. (inside) Aesthetics. Method. and Epistemology. Translated by: Robert Hurley vd.. Vol. 2. The New Press. New York. 369-391.

Foucault, Michel. (1997). Ethics: Subjectivity and Truth. The Essential Works Of Michel Foucault 1954- 1984. Edited by: Paul Rabinow. Volume:1. The New Press. New York.

Fukuyama, Francis. (1992). The End of History and The Last Man. Hamish Hamilton. Londra; The Free Press. New York.

Green, Ronald M. (1993). Business Ethics as a Postmodern Phenomenon. Business Ethics Quarterly. Volume:3. Issue:3, 219- 221.

Gustafson, Andrew. (2000). Making Sense of Postmodern Business Ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly. Volume:10. Issue:3, 649-654.

Habermas, Jürgen. (2001). İletişimsel Eylem Kuramı 1. Ve 2. Cilt (Theorie des Kommunikativen Handels Band 1 und Band 2. Translated by: Mustafa Tüzel. Kabalcı Yayınevi. Istanbul, 238-240.

Howard, A. Wilson J. (1992) “Leadership in a declining work ethic”. California Management Rewiev 24.

Hobbes, Leviathan. Derleyen: Michael Oakeshott. 1975. Introduction to Leviathan in Hobbes on Civil Association. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 83.

Hugman, Richard. (2003). Professional Values and Ethics in Social Work: Reconsidering Postmodernism?. British Journal of Social Work. Volume:33, 1025-1041.



Jameson, F., Lyotard, F. and Habermas, J. (1970). Postmodernizm. Hazırlayan: Necmi Zeka. Kıyı Yayınları. Istanbul, 56.

Kelemen. Mihaela and Peltonen, Tuomo.. (2001). Ethics. morality and the subject: The Contribution of Zygmunt Bauman and Michel Foucault to Postmodern Business Ethics. Scand. J. Mgmt.. Volume:17, 151-166.

Levinas, Emmanuel. (2005). Zaman ve Başka (Time and The Other). Translated by: Zeynep Direk. Metis Yayınları. Istanbul.

Maclntyre, Alasdair. (2001). Ethik’in Kısa Tarihi: Homerik Çağdan Yirminci Yüzyıla. Paradigma Yayınları. Istanbul. Subat, 18-28.

Martin, I. (1997). Postmodern. Postmodernism. Postmodernity. http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/irvinem/theory/pomo.html 10.10.2009

Morie, Pauline. (1998). Post- modernizm ve Toplum Bilimleri (Post-modernism and the Social Sciences). Translated by: Tuncay Birkan. Ark Yayınları. Istanbul, 45.

Musil,. Robert. (2009). Niteliksiz Adam (The Man Without Quality). Translated by: Ahmet Cemal. Yapı Kredi Yayınları. 5. Baskı. Istanbul.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. (2001). Ahlakın Soykütüğü Üzerine (The Genealogy of Morals). Translated by: Ahmet İnam. Yorum Yayınevi. Ekim. Istanbul, 26-36.

Nuyen, A.T. (2004). Lyotard’s Postmodern Ethics and Information Technology. Ethics and Information Technology. Volumu:6. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 185-191.

Orkunoglu, Yener. (2007). Nietzsche ve Postmodernizmin Gerçek Yüzü. Ceylan Yayınları. Istanbul, 136-137.

Pieper, Annemarie. (1999. Etiğe Giriş. Translated by: Veysel Atayman ve Gönül Sezer. Ayrıntı Yayınları. Istanbul, 32.

Pinkney, T. (1993). “Modernism and Postmodernism”. The Blackwell Dictionary of Twentieth - Century Social Thought. W. Outwhite ve T. Bottomore (Eds.). Okxford: Blackwell.

Poole, Ross. (1993). Ahlak ve Modernlik. Translated by: Mehmet Küçük. Ayrıntı Yayınları. Istanbul. Ekim, 183-184.

Said, Edward W. (2009). Entelektüel: Sürgün. Marjinal. Yabancı (Representations of The Intellectual: The (1993 Reith Lectures). Transleted by: Tuncay Birkan. Ayrıntı Yayınları. Istanbul.

Swartz, Ronnie. (2007). Social Work Values in an Age of Complexity. Journal of Social Work Values&Ethics. Volume:4. Number:3, 5-6.

Taylori Victor E. and Winquist, Charles E.. (2001). Encyclopedia of Postmodernism. Routledge: Taylor & Francis Group. London and New York.

Vasiljeviene, Nijolė. (2006). Discrimination Of Women in Science From Management Perspective. Presented in An International Workshop on Sociological Study Tartu. Estonia



November 21-22. Available Date: 10.09.2009. http://www.basnet fp6.eu/meetings/tartu_meet/ppt/(2(1/Vasiljeviene_TARTU.pps

Weber. Max. (2008). Protestan Ahlakı ve Kapitalizmin Ruhu (The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism). Translated by: Zeynep Gürata. Ayraç Yayınları. Ankara, 42-45.

Yuthas, Kristi and Dillard, Jesse F. (1999). Ethical Development of Advanced Technology: A Postmodern Stakeholder Perspective. Journal of Business Ethics. Volume:19, 35-49

1. introduction: having a postmodern turn - ijas

Documents