Since liberalism is the correct moral stance this

system approximates the moral truth. Since liberalism is the correct moral stance, this means that
society becomes more liberal over time . This, I suggest, is the best explanation on offer for the trend
toward liberalization. Until a better explanation appears , therefore, the empirical evidence supports
liberal realism.

Politics of the Possible

1AC - Engagement Good
Our method is grounded in the politics of the possible is necessary to escape totalizing
negative approaches and develop ethical strategies. Even if our strategy isn’t a
cacophony, we can examine the tensions between it and other strategies for
engagement at multiple levels.
King 2014
- Nottingham Trent University
Daniel, "The possibilities and perils of critical performativity: Learning from four case studies,"
Scandinavian Journal of Management Volume 31, Issue 2, June 2015, Pages 255–265
This makes CMS as a discipline poorer in two key regards. Firstly
without the suggestions of alternatives it potentially
might be seen as irrelevant
(Walsh & Weber, 2002)
as it is unable to make an impact on existing management
practices
(Reedy & Learmonth, 2009). Secondly the relentless drive towards critiquing all aspects of management practice, including
humanising management or practices within alternative organizations (Kleinman, 1996) might put a perceived limit on the action that a
practitioner can take.
Whilst arguably theoretically ‘correct’ or pure
(a position that du Gay, 1998 calls a form of secular
holiness),
this view potentially destroys the ground for any positive action as all alternatives and actions are
able to be critiqued, nothing is beyond reproach
, and could, even,
potentially by co-opted or produce
oppressive power-relations
(as an example see Kleinman, 1996). As case study one demonstrates
, continual negative
critique can make practitioners feel guilty about any actions they engage in as it always provides the
illusion that there is something better than the existing way of organizing but continually refuses to offer
any suggestions of how to produce it.
Consequently rather than being emancipatory, as is CMS’ espoused ambition (Alvesson &
Willmott, 1992b), this negative critique could be seen as immobilizing, debilitating and ultimately destructive to any positive action, leaving few
possibilities for positive or creative action and ultimately leading to despair (see King & Learmonth, 2014). At the heart of the negative critique is
what Sedgwick (2007) describes as theorizing as a form of “paranoia”.
Seeking to protect the theorist against any surprises,
the critical theorist wants to know everything in advance, to be ‘right’, beyond reproach , and cannot
cope with the unknown or incongruous
(see Gibson-Graham, 2006b for a discussion).
It has three
key
characteristics,
fuelled by a “righteous anger” firstly its subject is that of the victim
(the oppressed, duped, controlled or co-opted),
secondly
its mentality is that of judgement
(the critique standing over others,
finding fault with their actions,
theories or practices