In this comment I argue that in order to change our model I need to change from a dualistic to a non-dualistic mode of thinking about business as well as from a binary thinking in terms of signifier and signified to a more complex discourse model.

What are our “narrative” traditional models of business and capitalism?
To me, there are two ways to think about this: The first way is to look at great heroic narrations as entrepreneurical archetypes, which serve us as blueprints for our autobiographical novel, which we write through our (professional) lives, decisions and actions.
Take for example Homers “Ulyss” as an example of modern strategic management. Adorno did this, for example, when deciphering the encounter of the Sirens in Homers “Ulyss” as a metaphor for value-creation.
I think, that Goethes “FAUST” has very much expressed and influenced the entreprenuerical archetype or narrative model, at least in Germany. I am sure, there are similar narrations in the US, in France, Poland, China and Africa, who function as metaphors in George Lakoffs sense, as a clustering of propositions on what a sucsessful living in and for business means.

Another way of thinking about our narrative model is, to see, what it essentializes and where are its contraints are. And fherefore what it excludes, omits or opposes: My personal narration of capitalism has been so far very dualistic: Capitalism is the opposite of Socialism. Capitalism aims at a technical utopia, Socialism at a social utopia, Capitalism is driven by individualism and egoism, Socialism by collectivsm and altruism, and so on…

Now Freeman asks me to change my narrative model, in the sense, that I should integrate these binary metaphors into one named “stakeholder capitalism”. Sounds like a good way to integrate, what has been separated and fiercely battled about in the last century and bring back the notion of a social utopia, which has been lost due to the agonizing disenchantment and fall of the idea of state socialism and to place it among people and markets.

Is Freeman then actually proposing a paradigmatic shift in our narration of capitalism by changing that which is signified instead of further manipulating the signifier (crest smiles)?
If so, this is a very challenging task. It means to overcome dualisitic and binary thinking and to look at the whole process of signification / production as the result of a democratic discourse among the stakeholders of a business in order to find out what we need, what serves us best, how we all can survive. This seems to be a great idea. I wonder, if it is already put to work somewhere.