One example is the strategy of accountability: of making the actors in a situation accountable for what they do. This is not necessarily the same thing as making them man-agerially or politically responsible or making them liable in law. At its most fundamental, it can be understood as the imposition of a responsibility to communicate, upon request, a narrative of the actions undertaken in the context of the circumstances that obtained at the time (Holdsworth, 1994). This strategy assumes that in certain cases action will have been taken. It also tacitly assumes that the action involves risk. It is a strategy which may well result in the ascription of blame, but its first consequence is not that but to provide the information necessary for society to learn by its mistakes. To the extent that it assumes that we act from behind a veil of ignorance it could be thought of as Rawlsian. To the extent that it entails an evolutionary, trial-and-error view of the growth of knowledge, it can be thought of as Popperian. As a combination of these two elements, it implies a social contract: a contract between society at large and the actors at the leading edge of knowledge.
Was this article helpful?