1
Luc Boltanski, Directeur d’études, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Paris
Eve Chiapello, Professeur associé, Ecole des Hautes Etudes Commerciales, Paris
Paper to be presented to the Conference of Europeanists, March, 14-16, 2002, Chiacgo
The New Spirit of Capitalism
The contrast between the France of 1968-78 and the France of 1985-95 cannot help
but draw attention. The earlier decade was marked by aggressive social movements (not all of
which were the doings of the working class); an extremely active trade unionism; changes in
the allocation of value added which benefited wage-earners (as did the adoption of securityenhancing
social legislation); and at the same time, lesser product quality and lower
productivity gains, due at least in part to employers’ and corporate leaders’ inability to control
labour.
The later decade was marked by the quasi-absence of social movements (humanitarian
aid being their only real manifestation); disoriented unions who had become reactive rather
than proactive; an employment relationship that had been increasingly precarious; a greater
disparity in incomes and an allocation of the value added that once again had become
favourable to capital; the re-subjugation of a labour force undermined by a significant
reduction in the number of strikes and social conflicts and by a drop in absenteeism and in
staff turnover; and the manufacturing of higher quality goods.
How was it possible for so much change to occur in such a short lapse of time, without
running into any real resistance? A book entitled Le Nouvel Esprit du Capitalisme (“The New
Spirit of Capitalism”, Boltanski, Chiapello, 1999) attempts to answer this historical enigma by
carrying out an investigative enquiry.
Our involvement in this issue centres on the concept of the spirit of capitalism. We
describe how this spirit has changed over the past three decades. In truth, it is relatively easy
to trace and observe ideology-related transformations. This can be achieved by analysing
published works, a much easier option than studying the changes in practices that can be
disparate and dispersed, of varying magnitude, and which can affect the organisation of
companies of all sizes and in all sectors.
We believe nevertheless that the historical importance of the practices that are being
recommended in such texts is much higher than their statistical representation such as it can
be measured over the same period of time1
. These are best practices which can in fact be
viewed both as the modus operandi of an influential avant-garde, and also as the practices that
are applied by the world’s largest multinationals - firms whose impact on the economic sphere
is much higher than suggested by the proportion of private sector workers (versus the total
number of workers) who are directly employed by them.
This study of changes in the spirit of capitalism has revealed a major re-organisation in
dominant value systems. In our opinion, this provides a very interesting explanation for the
absence of any critical resistance throughout the 1980s, and at least until the mid-1990s, to the
capitalist sphere. If we consider that criticisms are usually made in the name of values that are
deemed to have been betrayed by the capitalist process, any major transformation of a value
system serving as a justification for a capitalist world is apt, at least temporarily, to disorient
critical activities.
1
We have for example evaluated that the systems which the new spirit of capitalism praises affect in France
around 20% of all establishments - including the largest ones (Boltanski, Chiapello, 1999, p. 292-300)
2
To tell the story of the way in which capitalism (mainly apprehended in the present
article through the organisation of work), the spirit of capitalism and the criticism of
capitalism have all changed over the past 30 years in France, the present article develops a
model with more of a general overview. Of course, we are not saying that what has occurred
in France is an example for the rest of the world, nor that the models which we have built on
the basis of the French example possess per se any universal validity. Nevertheless, we have
good cause to believe that relatively similar processes have marked the development of the
ideologies that have accompanied capitalism’s redeployment in other industrialised countries
– and that our model merits being tested to see whether it can help cast a spotlight on other
countries’ historical circumstances.
1. The concept of the spirit of capitalism
We have labelled as a “spirit of capitalism” the ideology that justifies people’s
commitment to capitalism, and which renders this commitment attractive. In many ways,
capitalism2
is an absurd system: wage-earners have lost ownership of the fruits of their labour
as well as any hope of ever working other than as someone else’s subordinate. As for
capitalists, they find themselves chained to a never-ending and insatiable process. For both of
these protagonists, being part of the process of capitalism is remarkably lacking in
justification. Capitalistic accumulation requires commitment from many people, although few
have any real chances of making a substantial profit. Many will be scarcely tempted to get
involved in this system, and might even develop decidedly adverse feelings. This is an
especially thorny problem in modern economies that require a high level of commitment from
their employees, in particular from managers. The quality of the commitment that one can
expect depends not only on economic stimuli, but also on the possibility that the collective
advantages that derive from capitalism will be able to be enhanced.
The concept of a spirit of capitalism allows us to combine within one and the same
dynamic the changes in capitalism as well as the criticisms which it has faced. Indeed, we
affirm that criticism is a catalyst for changes in the spirit of capitalism. It is impossible for
capitalism to avoid being at least somewhat oriented towards the attainment of the common
good, as it is this striving which motivates people to become committed to its process.Yet
capitalism’s amorality means that the spirit of capitalism cannot be solely predicated on what
capitalism alone is able to offer, that is only, the capacity for accumulation. So capitalism
needs its enemies, people who have a strong dislike for it and who want to wage war against
it. These are the people who provide it with the moral foundations that it lacks, and who
enable it to incorporate justice-enhancing mechanisms whose relevancy it would not
otherwise have to acknowledge. The capitalist system has turned out to be infinitely more
robust than its detractors, starting with Marx, had ever imagined. Yet this is also because it
has discovered a road to salvation in the criticisms it has faced. Is it not true for example that
along with fascism and communism, the new capitalist order that rose out of the ashes of the
2
Capitalism is characterised by:
a) a minimal format stressing the need for unlimited accumulation by pacific means. Capital is cut off from
material forms of wealth and can only be increased through continuous reinvestment and circulation. This
endows it with a clearly abstract quality that contributes to the perpetuation of the accumulation process.
b) competition. Each capitalistic entity is constantly being threatened by the actions of competing entities.
Such dynamics create a perpetual state of concern. Self-preservation is thus a very strong motivation for
capitalists - it is a never-ending catalyst for the accumulation process.
c) wage-earning. Many of those who hold little or no capital make money from the sale of their labour rather
than from the sale of the fruit of their labour. They owns no means of production, and therefore depend upon the
decisions of those who do own them.
3
Second World War attributes a significant role to the State, allowing for a certain amount of
State intervention in the economic sphere? In fact, it is probably capitalism’s amazing ability
to survive by endogenising of some of the criticisms it faces that has helped in recent times to
disarm the forces of anticapitalism, giving way to a triumphant version of capitalism.
We insist on the fact that the spirit of capitalism, far from being a simple adornment or
“superstructure” (as Marxist ideology would have it), is central to the process of capitalistic
accumulation that it serves, in that it applies constraints to this process. If one were to take
these explanations to their logical conclusion, then not all profit would be legitimate, nor all
enrichment fair, nor all accumulation (however significant and rapid) legal. Actors’
internalisation of a particular spirit of capitalism thus serves in the real world as a constraint
on the process of accumulation. A spirit of capitalism approach thus provides a justification
both for capitalism and for the criticisms that denounce the gap between the actual forms of
accumulation and the normative conceptions of social order.
First and foremost, a spirit of capitalism stems from a relatively stable set of
arguments, most of which have been shaped by economic theory 3
. Yet some of the
explanations that one finds in economics are too general in nature, and too static over time.
They do not impel ordinary persons to take up a particular type of lifestyle (i.e., type of
profession), nor do they provide people with the argumentative resources that will enable
them to cope with the circumstantial denunciations and personal criticisms which they may
have to face. A spirit of capitalism will only be consolidated if its justifications are
concretised, that is, if it makes the persons it is addressing more aware of the issues that are
really at stake, and offers them action models that they will actually be able to use.
Three dimensions play a particularly important role in providing a concrete
expression for the spirit of capitalism.
a) The first dimension indicates what is “exciting” about an involvement with capitalism - in
other words, how this system can help people to blossom, and how it can generate
enthusiasm. This “excitement” dimension is usually related to the different forms of
“liberation” that capitalism offers.
b) A second set of arguments emphasises the forms of security that is offered to those who
are involved, both for themselves and for their children.
c) Finally, a third set of arguments (and one that is especially important for our
demonstration) invokes the notion of fairness, explaining how capitalism is coherent with
a sense of justice, and how it contributes to the common good.
When seen in this light, the spirit of capitalism can be said to have undergone a
number of historical changes. From the literature on the evolution of capitalism, one can
sketch at least three “spirits” that have appeared, one after the other, since the 19th
century.
a) The first, described amongst others by W. Sombart, corresponds to a predominantly
domestic form of capitalism. Its main incarnation is the entrepreneurial bourgeois. The
“excitement” dimension is manifested by an entrepreneurial spirit; its security dimension
by the respect for bourgeois morality. In this instance, fairness mechanisms essentially
revolve around charity and personal assistance.
3
There are essentially three types of arguments. Their logic stresses:
a) a type of progress that cannot be dissociated from the current state of technology or the economy; or
b) the efficiency and effectiveness of competition-driven production; or
c) the fact that capitalism is supposed to be an auspicious regime for individual liberties (which can be
economic and also political in nature).
4
b) A second “spirit” (descriptions of which were found between the 1930s and the 1960s,
e.g., in Galbraith’s work) which focuses on the idea of the large, integrated firm. Its main
incarnation is the salaried director. Security is to be achieved through mechanisms such as
career development and by the link between private capitalism and the rise of a welfare
state. Fairness takes on a very meritocratic form in that it incorporates skills whose
certification involves the awarding of credentials.
c) A third form of capitalism, which began to manifest itself during the 1980s. Our book is
mainly devoted to the construction of an ideal-type for this third variety of the spirit of
capitalism.
2. Comparing the new spirit of capitalism to the former one
In order to describe the way in which the spirit of capitalism changed between the
1960s and 1990s, we based our efforts (as Weber and Sombart had done previously) on texts
that provide moral education on business practices. For our era, this meant two bodies of work
from the field of management studies: one from the 1960s; and one from the 1990s (each
representing around 500 pages and 50 texts). For the 1960s, we included texts published
between 1959 and 1969 - for the 1990s, we used texts published between 1989 and 1994.
Consultants wrote the vast majority of these management texts (especially the 1990s writings
we used). These were all articles that had been written in French and drawn from
"professional" (as opposed to academic) management reviews. Some of these articles had
been translated from the American. The extracts we chose are those where the authors tried to
provide an overall picture of the "new" world in which we are living, as well as the
characteristics of the new corporate hero, nowadays commonly called a "manager" in French
(this term having been only recently introduced in the French language, with "cadre" or
"directeur" having dominated during the 1960s). Above all, these texts focus on the
organisation of work, on new corporate organisational forms, and on managers’ work
environment.
Each body of work has been processed in two ways. First it was subjected to a
standard thematic analysis seeking to answer certain questions. How have the authors
formulated the issues at stake? Which problems have they identified? Which answers and
solutions have they provided? Which parts of the current situation have they rejected? Table
1 summarises the ways in which both bodies of work answer each of these questions.
Appendix 1 offers several elements belonging to the 1990s analyses.
We subsequently processed our findings according to basic lexicographical methods,
counting the number of times that a given name or category of names cropped up.
This analysis has lead us to conclude that a new representation of the firm has
emerged, featuring an organisation that is very flexible; organised by projects; works in a
network; features few hierarchical levels; where a logic of transversal flows has replaced a
more hierarchical one, etc. This new representation contrasts specifically with a former
representation of the firm, one that had focused on an organisation which is hierarchical,
integrated and geared towards the internal realisation of activities (vertical integration). This
had been a dominant form during the 1960s, praised at the time but subsequently decried (by
the 1990s authors) for its excessive “bureaucracy”. In addition, a new type of commitment has
been promised in the economic domain - one that suits the new spirit of capitalism.
5
As opposed to the type of job security that was on offer during the 1960s, involving a
meritocratic approach that was based on the achievement of negotiated targets, careers are
now viewed as a series of fulfilled projects. Job security is now predicated on the
"employability" that a person develops as he or she gains experience.
6
Table 2: Comparing the two bodies of work
During the 1960s During the 1990s
The problems that
have been
identified (the
issues that have
caught the authors’
attention)
Unsatisfied “managers”
(excessively technical roles that
lack in autonomy; criticisms of
company directors’ power;
decrials of the negative side
effects of bureaucracy).
Managerial problems associated
with firms’ gigantic size (the
threat of bureaucracy for
liberty)
Rejection of hierarchy as a form of
domination
“Liberation” of all wage-earners (and
not only of managers as was the case
during the 1960s)
Competition and permanent change
The solutions Decentralisation
Meritocracy
Management by objectives
Competent “cadres” and/or
“directeurs”, i.e., managers and
executives, selected on the basis
of personal merits demonstrated
during an entire career spent
working for a single firm.
Hierarchical control
Lean companies, organised in
networks or by projects;
reengineering; flexible, innovative
and competent organisations
Leaders and other visionaries
(capable of managing people who are
autonomous and creative)
Coaches, “managers ” (the new
French word for managers), experts
Self-control, control by the client,
trust
What is being
rejected
The private sphere (personal
judgements, nepotism,
promotions through loyalty as
opposed to merit, allegiances
and privileges)
“ cadres ” (the old French name for
managers)
Bureaucracy
Separation between one’s private and
professional lives
Management literature during the 1990s offered ideals, propositions for the
organisation of people and modes for structuring objects and forms of security – all of which
were so different in nature from that which had been on offer during the 1960s that it is
difficult not to conclude that capitalism has broadly changed its spirit in the past 30 years.
Table 2 summarises the changes on the spirit of capitalism over the last century.
Table 2: three spirits of capitalism
First spirit
End of 19th
Century
Second spirit
1940-1970
Third spirit
Since 1980s
Forms of the
capital
accumulation
process
Small family firms
Bourgeois Capitalism
Managerial firms
Big industrial
companies
Mass production
States economic
policy
Network firms
Internet and biotech
Global finance
Varying and
differentiated
productions
7
Excitement
Freedom from local
communities Progress
Career opportunities
Power positions
Effectiveness possible
in “freedom
countries”
No more authoritarian
chiefs
Fuzzy organisations
Innovation and
creativity
Permanent change
Fairness A mix of domestic and
market fairness
Meritocracy valuing
effectiveness
Management by
objectives
New form of
meritocracy valuing
mobility, ability to
nourish a network,…
Each project is an
opportunity to develop
one’s employability
Security Personal property,
Personal relationships
Charity,
Paternalism
Long term planning
Careers
Welfare state
For the mobile and
the adaptable
Companies will
provide self-help
resources
To manage oneself
The transformations of the last decades have been accompanied by a relatively radical
change in the definition of what comprises a fair work situation, and a fair treatment of some
employees as compared to others. The following section allows us to identify the nature of
this change.
3. The emergence of a new value system
To be able to identify the exact nature of the notion of fairness as depicted in the
management texts we studied, we used a theoretical construct that Luc Boltanski had
developed together with Laurent Thévenot in an earlier publication (Boltanski, Thévenot,
1991): the “justificatory regime ”model (“Cité ” in the French). This construct had initially
been designed with a view towards highlighting the conditions that make it possible to say
whether an evaluation or distribution of goods was being done in a fair and legitimate manner.
These situations are characterised by the fact that whatever judgement people
ultimately make, they face a certain amount of criticism. Refusing to remain within the
confines of the opposition that is usually drawn between the sociology of consensus and the
sociology of criticism, Boltanski and Thévenot argued that these “legitimate orders” can be
used to reach agreement as well as to support criticism. They called these constructs Cités,
thus referring to classical political philosophies whose object had been to design a legitimate
order based on a principle of justice. However, as opposed to political philosophies that had
usually attempted to anchor this social order in a single principle (utopianism), they argued
that, in complex modern societies, several justificatory regimes can coexist within the same
social space, even though their relevance may vary in accordance with the situation’s
characteristics (i.e., with the material or symbolic nature of the objects involved). Finally,
unlike the “linguistic turn”, and in order to avoid an idealistic construction that is overly
reliant on verbal argumentation, Boltanski and Thévenot considered that people’s claims had
to be confronted with the real world, hence pass a series of more or less standardised
procedures they called tests (“épreuve” in the French). In the end, it is the outcome of these
8
tests that lends substance to the judgements people make. This is what provides them with the
strength that they need to stand up to challenges.
The authors identified six justificatory regimes:
a) the Inspirational Cité,
b) the Domestic Cité,
c) the Cité of Renown,
d) the Civic Cité,
e) the Market Cité, and
f) the Industrial Cité.
Each of these justificatory regimes is based upon a different principle of evaluation.
Each approach views humans through the filter of its own choice; it excludes any other type
of categorisation; and offers its own specific ordering of the populations it studies. This has
been entitled the “equivalency principle” since it entails a form of general equivalency (a
standard) without which comparative evaluations become impossible. We can therefore say
that in terms of a given standard (for example, efficiency in the Industrial Cité), people’s test
results can vary (and thus their specific- for example industrial- value for the rest of society).
A person’s worth, assessed through a legitimate process and in terms of a given standard, was
called his/her “greatness”.
In the Inspirational Cité (a), greatness is defined as being akin to a saint who has
reached a state of grace (or else to an inspired artist). This quality appears after a period of
ascetic preparation, and is expressed mostly through manifestations of inspiration (sainthood,
creativity, an artistic sense, authenticity, etc.). In the Domestic Cité (b), people rely on their
hierarchical position in a chain of personal interdependencies in order to achieve greatness.
The political ties that unite people spring from a model of subordination which is based on a
domestic pattern. These ties are thought of as a generalisation of generational ties that
combine tradition and proximity. The “great one” is the elder, the ancestor, the father to
whom respect and allegiance are due, and who in turn grants protection and support. In the
Cité of Renown (c), greatness only depends on other people’s opinions, i.e., on the number of
persons who will grant credit and esteem. The “great one” in the Civic Cité (d) is the
representative of the group, the one who expresses its collective will. In the Market Cité (e),
the “great” person is the one who makes a fortune for him- or herself by offering highly
coveted goods in a competitive marketplace - and who knows when to seize the right
opportunities. Finally, in the Industrial Cité (f), greatness is based on efficiency and
determines a scale of professional abilities.
Justificatory regimes are described using a basic “grammar” that specifies:
a) an equivalency principle (in reference to which an evaluation can be made of all actions,
things and persons for that particular Cité);
b) a state of greatness, a “great one” being a person who strongly embodies the Cité’s values,
and the state of smallness, defined as lack of greatness;
c) a definition of that which is important to each world in terms of categories of objects (the
directory of objects and devices), human beings (the directory of subjects), and verbs
(natural relationships between beings) signalling relationship which are specific to each
form of greatness;
d) a greatness ratio specifying the nature of relationships between the great and the small,
especially the way “great” persons, because they contribute to the common good, are of
use to “small” persons;
9
e) a format of investment, this being a major pre-condition for each Cité‘s stability since, by
linking greatness to sacrifice (which takes a specific form in each Cité), it ensures that all
rights are offset by responsibilities;
f) a paradigmatic test which, for each justificatory regime, best reveals a person’s greatness;
g) a harmonious figure of natural order, conveying the ideal-types that correspond to the
universes within which there has been a fair distribution of the quality of greatness.
We analysed the two bodies of work through the filter of this analytical grid. It seems
that the six justificatory regimes identified by Boltanski and Thévenot (1991) cannot fully
describe all of the types of justification that can be found in the 1990s texts that we have
studied. We think that a new and increasingly influential justificatory logic has cropped up,
one that emphasises mobility, availability and the variety of one’s personal contacts. To stress
its novelty and specificity, we have encoded this logic as a 7th
justificatory regime, a Projectsoriented
Cité. This refers to a form of fairness that is appropriate in a world which is
organised by networks (still described as being connexionist and reticular in nature). Table 3
offers a brief look at the characteristics of this latest Cité.
Table 3: The Grammar of the Project-OrientedJustificatory Regime
Equivalency Principle (General Standard): activity; project initiation; remote links between people
A State of Smallness: inability to get involved, to trust in others, to communicate; close-mindedness,
prejudice, authoritarianism, intolerance, stability, over-reliance on one’s roots, rigidity…
A State of Greatness: adaptability, flexibility, polyvalence; sincerity in face to face encounters;
ability to spread the benefits of social connections, to generate enthusiasm and to increase
teammates' employability
Directory of Subjects: managers, coaches, innovators
Directory of Objets: computer and information technologies. New organisational devices (subcontracting,
flexibility, outsourcing, autonomous units, franchises…).
Natural Relationship: trusting and being trustworthy; ability to communicate; adaptability to others’
needs
Greatness ratio: “great” persons enhance “small” persons’ employability in return for their trust and
enthusiasm for project work (i.e., their ability to take part in another project).
Format of Investment: ready to sacrifice all that could curtail one's availability, giving up lifelong
plans
Standard (Paradigmatic) Test: ability to move from one project to another.
Harmonious Figure of Natural Order: where the world's natural form resembles that of a network
Hypothesizing the emerging of a new Cité where the relevant tests deal with the
establishment of connection does not imply that forming networks is something drastically
new, as some recent network studies seem to suggest. Our stand is different. Networks,
however large, are not any newer than the market was when Adam Smith wrote Wealth of
Nations. But, it seems that it was not until the last third of the 20th
century that mediating - the
art of connecting and making use of the most diverse and furthest ties - became autonomous,
set apart from other activities behind which it had until then been hidden, and was identified
and valued in itself. This process, we believe, is what constitutes an important novelty.
In the Project-oriented Cité the general standard, with respect to which all persons’
and things’ greatness is evaluated, is activity. Contrary to what happens in the Industrial Cité
- where activity means “work” and being active means “holding a steady and wage-earning
position” - in the Project-oriented Cité, activity overcomes the oppositions between work and
no-work, steady and unsteady, paid and unpaid, profit-sharing and volunteer work, and
between that which can be measured in terms of productivity and that which cannot be
assessed in terms of accountable performances. Life is conceived as a series of projects, all
the more valuable when different from one another. What is relevant is to be always pursuing
10
some sort of activity, never to be without a project, without ideas, to be always looking
forward to, and preparing for, something along with other persons, whose encounter is the
result of being always driven by the impulse of activity.
When starting on a new project, all participants know that it will be short-lived, that it
not only may but surely will one day come to an end. The perspective of an unavoidable and
desirable end is encapsulated in the very involvement without curtailing the enthusiasm of the
participants. Projects are well adapted to networking for the very reason that they are
transitory forms: the succession of projects by multiplying connections and increasing the
number of ties results in an expansion of networks.
In the Project-oriented Cité, a “great one” must be adaptable and flexible. He or she is
polyvalent, able to move from one activity, or the use of one tool, to another. A “great one” is
also active and autonomous. He or she will take risks, make contact with new people, open up
new possibilities, seek out useful sources of information, and, thus, avoid repetition.
Still, these qualities by themselves cannot suffice to define the state of “being great”
because they could also be implemented in an opportunistic way, to pursue a strictly selfish
course towards success. By contrast, in our model, a “great” person will take advantage of
his/her given qualities to contribute to the common good. In the Project-oriented Cité, a “great
one” therefore also generates a feeling of trust. He or she does not lead in an authoritarian
way, as did the hierarchical chief. He or she manages his/her team by listening to others with
tolerance and by respecting their differences. He or she redistributes between them the
connections he or she has secured when exploring networks. Such a project manager hence
increases all his/her teammates’ employability.
As each justificatory regime is associated with a specific vocabulary, we used a
lexicographic software to analyse the lists of names that are associated with each regime, and
then tried to found out which Cités cropped up most frequently in both bodies of work. The
presence of a Cité is measured here as the number of times that the category which had been
created to represent that justificatory regime appeared in a givenbody of work (cf. Table 4.)
Table 4: The seven worlds’ presence in each of the bodies of work4
1960s 1990s
Industrial logic 6764
Domestic logic 2033
Market logic 1841
Civic logic 1216
Network logic 1114
Inspirational logic 774
Renown logic 479
Industrial logic 4972
Network logic 3996
Market logic 2207
Domestic logic 1404
Inspirational logic 1366
Civic logic 793
Renown logic 768
Our first observation, an unsurprising one given that the aim of both our two samples
was to improve the organisation of work, is that the Industrial logic dominated during both
periods - with references to this logic having been generally positive during the 1960s yet
often critical during the 1990s. The predominance of an Industrial logic was clearcut during
the 1960s, but much less so in the 1990s. Note the ratio between the number of times it
occurred in each sample, and the number of times each decade’s second-place logic occurs. In
the 1990s, the Industrial logic’s relative importance is diminished by the many representatives
4
The two bodies of work are more or less comprised of the same number of names in absolute terms.
11
of the Projects-oriented Cité (a.k.a. a Network logic) – who were twice as numerous in the
1990s as the second-place logic had been during the 1960s.
The rising power of the second-place Network logic is definitely one of the major
changes between our two eras. This means that with our theoretical construct of a Projectsoriented
Cité, we have succeeded in crystallising at least some of the new discursive aspects
of the management texts being studied. Other logics that have also increased their presence
include the Market logic - no surprise given the rise of a worldview which is based on
increased competition, and which makes room for corporate reorganisations aimed at ensuring
that all employees have a sense for the pressures and demands emanating from a firm's
clients. There has also been a strengthening of the Inspirational logic, which should be seen
in light of the emphasis that was placed during the 1990s on innovation, risk, the permanent
search for new solutions, highly personalised qualities, etc. As for the Domestic and Civic
logics, they have lost ground, in much the same way that the Industrial logic has also
weakened.
Changes in France's capitalistic process between the 1960s and 1990s have been
accompanied by a major re-ordering of the systems and values that are considered to be
relevant and legitimate for the assessment of people, things and situations. More specifically,
there have been changes in the mechanisms that are intended to ensure the fairness of work.
Not only have firms altered the types of organisation they propose, but they have also
changed behavioural norms, the definition of good and bad actions and the sources of their
justification. Reformulated using the language of a Cité model, a transformation of the sort
can also be interpreted as a change in standard tests or in testing systems. This is because
those concrete systems whose goal it is to inscribe the principles of fairness into the world are
none other than tests themselves.
4. Proposition of a theoretical framework for analysing the way in which norms change
4.1. Tests of strengthand legitimate tests
We make a distinction between two different test modes: tests of strength (épreuves de
force); and legitimate tests (épreuves légitimes).
Of course, a test is always a test of strength. Yet a test can be considered to be
legitimate as long as strengths are being measured according to the tenets of the particular
Cité model within which it falls. An overriding requirement is the obligation to specify the
type of strength that is involved in a specific test and to arrange a testing device that does not
call upon the use of any other kind of strength. All in all, a legitimate test must always test
something that has been defined, presenting itself as a test of something: for example, a test of
industrial efficiency, market opportunism, respect for domestic duties, or even (the school
system offers many examples) Latin or sociology. If a test is to be legitimate, the strengths
upon which it focuses must undergo a process of qualification and categorisation.
By contrast with a legitimate test, it is acceptable in a test of strength to mobilise any
and all kinds of strength. Nothing is specified beforehand. Anything goes, as long as it is
crowned with success. In a legitimate test, on the other hand, everything is not possible.
If a legitimate test relates to the work world, it may ultimately end up adding to the
constraints that impede the process of capitalist accumulation. In other words, the spirit of
capitalism, insofar as one of its components is an awareness of fairness, acts as a constraint on
12
the economic process. Indeed, it is because of the existence of this constraint that the process
is legitimised. We could even say that the price to pay, if people are to consider corporate
activities (and the organisational models they inspire) to be legitimate, is the implementation
of testing systems that act as a constraint upon firms’ general management.
We are going to take one example of the way in which the accumulation can be
constrained by references to that which is being required of a firm (expressed in terms of the
common good, i.e., using the vocabulary of the present article, in terms of the justificatory
regime). In a Market Cité, the validity of profits (and of the societal order that results from the
confrontation between the many different people who are also seeking a profit) depends
entirely on whether the market test fully satisfies constraints such as the equality of chances so
that success can be fully attributed to merit alone (in the present example, to the ability to
seize the opportunities that the market offers, and/or to the attractiveness of the goods and
services on offer) rather than to any pre-existing balance of power. Amongst these constraints,
note first and foremost the assurance that any given situation will be a competitive one
(marked by an absence of dominant positions, previous agreements, cartels), and that
information will be transparent. As such, it is only under certain extremely restrictive
conditions that a market test can be said to be legitimate. Moreover, the fulfilment of all of
these conditions fails to provide, in and of itself, any specific contribution to the creation of
profit. Quite the contrary – it can be a serious handicap.
At a broader level, in a society where much testing is subjected to the same constraints
as those that feature in our definition of a “legitimate test”, the strength of society’s stronger
members is diminished. This is because the ways in which the tests are formulated (attempts
to make them “fairer”) tend to restrict opportunities for people who possess a diversified yet
poorly defined set of strengths – forces that tend to be displaced, confused, exchanged and
extended for no other reason than the strategic necessities of a given situation. You cannot
pay a literary critic so that s/he will recognise you as a great and inspired author; you do not
become a chief of staff simply because you are the minister’s cousin, etc. Victory by any
means is not possible.
And yet, tests of strength and legitimate tests should not be construed as standalone
entities that exist in opposition to one another. There is a continuum between the two, leading
to a situation in which tests are seen as being more or less fair. Moreover, we can always find
out how it is that an action which stems from a test’s underlying strengths detracts from its
avowed legitimacy. One example is the way in which the handicap of a child’s socioeconomic
situation is recognised nowadays as something that affects scholastic performances – without
examiners having done anything explicit about it.
Each of these two types of tests (the test of strength and the legitimate test)
corresponds to a specific mode of action. We call the first a “mode of categorisation” because
an individual’s actions are publicly judged by other people. Here, the judgement is based
upon certain explicit and acknowledged principles of equivalency, many of which are legally
enforced. As a result, this mode refers to social conventions that are imbued with a broadbased
validity as well as with a certain type of externality (i.e., a form of transcendence).
Consequently, such conventions can be envisaged independently of the situations in which
they are acted out.
The second we call a “displacement mode”. This is because the orientation of the
actions and the forces which it infers change depending on local circumstances and/or the
13
degree of resistance they encounter. In this instance, the test is a test of strength. This is a
mode that does not require anyone to make a judgement. Contrary to the categorisation mode,
it does not refer to social conventions, and assumes neither externality nor generality. As
such, displacement is always local, eventful, and circumstantial. It can easily be mistaken for
randomness and is satisfied with a limited amount of reflexivity. Displacement can be
described with reference to one plane only (that which Gilles Deleuze calls the “plane of
imminence”). It thus avoids any justificatory constraint, one that would have inferred the
necessity of referring to a second plane – precisely the same level that, within a logic of
categorisation, serves as an embodiment of the equivalency convention.
Broadly speaking, changes in test systems seem to involve groups of actors trying to
free themselves from that which keeps them from enjoying and from increasing their
privileges. They do this by looking for new ways to succeed and to gain recognition without
having to take currently legitimate tests. Such actors tend to avoid established tests by
experimenting with hazardous, local and often low-key displacements.
When they are successful, these displacements gradually modify the test system. They
substitute new, less formalised, and less acknowledged tests for previous ones that (being well
established, prominent, and often constrained by legal regulations) have been increasingly
subject to criticism. In a given society, these displacements increase the relative importance of
tests of strength with respect to legitimate relationships based on institutionalised tests.
Yet new legitimate tests may emerge if at least one of the following two conditions is
fulfilled.
1. If the people who have enacted these displacements think that they have strengthened their
position and feel that they are entitled to specific acknowledgement, they may claim to
have contributed, each in his/her own way, to the common good.
2. When the displacements that these people have carried out (shifts that others had
heretofore deemed to be individual, circumstantial or marginal in nature) start to be seen
as something that is generally effective. These behaviours will then be subjected to
criticisms that will equate these new devices (stemming as they do from previous
displacements) to new tests that have not yet been identified or categorised.
Actors to whom such displacements have been beneficial can then develop, both for
themselves and for others, a value (a “greatness”) that will convey their hold on the world.
Moreover, by so doing, they can inject an autonomous moral dimension into their situation.
They turn these new tests into something that is justifiable.
Along with this legitimisation process, norms are established (quite often through legal
rules) so as to differentiate between morally acceptable and morally unacceptable and abusive
(i.e. selfish) ways of making use of new resources 5
.
5
In this perspective, a Cité appears as a self-referenced critical device that is part of (imminent to) a
world which in the process of being built and which needs to set up bounds for itself if it is to last. In Le Nouvel
Esprit du Capitalisme we argued that capitalism’s transformation over the past three decades has made it
possible both for a world that we call “connectionist” (i.e., self-described, using the network metaphor) to
unfold, and also for an increase in the number of people who are justified in becoming mediators. Here we are
arguing that the creation of a Project-oriented Cité is intended to legitimise the connectionist world and restrict
its practices in such a way as to substantiate the affirmation of a justificatory constraint that acts on behalf of the
common good.
14
4.2 The role of criticism
We have allocated an essential role to criticism in these categorisation and
displacement interactions (which enable us to describe how testing systems are being
transformed). The concept of criticism lies outside of the theoretical polarisation that exists
between interpretations that are based on the balance of power and those that are based on the
legitimacy of the relationships involved. The very idea of criticism only makes sense if it is
seen as the difference between a desirable state of affairs and a real situation. To be valid, a
criticism must be able to justify itself, that is, cast a spotlight on the normative foundations
upon which it is based, especially when it is dealing with justifications such as those whose
actions are the object of the criticism itself. A criticism therefore continually refers to the idea
of fairness - for if fairness is an illusion, why criticise at all? Yet on the other hand, a critic
builds up a world in which the need for fairness is continually being ignored. S/he reveals the
hypocrisy of the moral pretensions that actually hide realities such as the balance of power,
exploitation, domination, etc.
Criticism and testing are closely interrelated. Criticism leads to testing inasmuch as it
questions the existing order and casts suspicions on the relative strengths of each of the parties
that comprise this order. Testing on the other hand, particularly when it pretends to be
imbued with legitimacy, is subject to criticisms that hone in on the injustices that have been
caused by the actions of hidden forces.
As such, we can consider that there are two ways of criticising tests.
The first has a corrective purpose. The criticism unveils that which during the tests in
question has transgressed the fairness requirement, and more particularly, the strengths that
some of the protagonists, unbeknownst to the others, have started to mobilise (thus gaining an
undeserved advantage). The purpose of criticism in this case is to improve the fairness of the
test (we would say, to tighten it up); to ensure that the test is rooted in widely accepted
conventions; and to enhance the regulatory or legal framework within which it is encased.
Institutionalised tests such as political elections, scholastic examinations, sporting
competitions, face-to-face negotiations between social constituencies etc., are other products
of a type of work in which fairness is enhanced through a process of “purification”. Their aim
is to only admit those strengths that are deemed to be coherent with that particular type of test.
Nevertheless, such tests must continually undergo further improvements and are therefore
subject to criticism. The purifying process is in fact an unending one, inasmuch as
ontologically there are an unlimited number of relationships that can be used to judge the
people involved.
A second way of criticising tests might be termed the radical method. Here the
challenge is no longer to correct the test so as to make it fairer but to eliminate and possibly
replace it with another one. This time it is the very validity of the test itself (and thus the
factor that conditions its very existence) that is being contested.
At this point, we should discuss possible outcomes for corrective criticisms of any
given society’s central institutionalised tests. If the tests being criticised are considered to be
legitimate (i.e., if their justification revolves around the same normative positions as those
which the criticism itself invokes), it is impossible for those who are responsible for their
actual administration to continue to ignore the comments that are being made about them. To
15
remain legitimate, they must incorporate a response to this criticism. This can either consist
of showing how the criticism is wrong (in which case convincing evidence must be provided)
or else it can involve tightening up the test’s control, cleaning it up in such a way as to ensure
that it is more in line with the underlying fairness model. This is what happens, for example,
when following a series of criticisms an examination that had originally borne the names of
the people being tested becomes an anonymous one.
However, there is another possible reaction to the corrective criticism of a test. This
consists of trying to circumvent this criticism instead of answering it. It may be in the interest
of a certain number of actors for the test to lose some of its importance, i.e., for it to become
relatively marginalised, especially if it becomes too difficult to answer criticisms that are
constantly being renewed and which therefore force the test organiser to tighten it up and
increase its total cost. In lieu of a direct criticism of these institutionalised tests, a proposition
that would be too expensive (above all in terms of legitimacy), they end of having to look for
sources of profits that are new and based on displacements which are local, of little
significance, not very visible and multitudinous.
These displacements can be geographic in nature (delocalisation towards regions
where workers are inexpensive and where labour law is underdeveloped and/or rarely
respected). One example would be where companies decide that they do not want to improve
the breakdown of revenues between wages and profits, if this is what critics are demanding.
Environmental legislation provides an analogous situation. Another example would be a
firm’s modification of its career-related criteria for success after it has decided either to
circumvent its customary career management procedures or else to eliminate formal
(graphological, psycho-technical etc.) testing during its recruitment process - actions that are
often seen as being too expensive.
Another consequence of this new type of reaction to criticism, involving the use of
displacement, is that it temporarily disarms criticisms by presenting critics with a world that
they no longer know how to interpret. The criticisms and systems of criticism that are
associated with a previous spirit of capitalism are barely relevant to new forms of testing that
have not yet been subjected to any attempts at recognition, institutionalisation, codification or
categorisation. This is because one of the primary tasks of criticism is in fact to identify the
main tests of a given society, and to clarify and/or incite protagonists to clarify the principles
underlying these tests so that it is subsequently possible to carry out a corrective or radical
(reformist or revolutionary) criticism - depending on which options are available at the time,
and on the strategies of the persons who are involved.
Criticism can thus impact testing in several ways.
1) It is the role of criticism to identify those tests that are truly important to a society by
exposing its "tests of strength" in broad daylight. Here criticism proceeds by
categorisation, that is, by organising a series of individual situations that are shown (by
the criticism) to have something in common – in this instance, the fact that they determine
people’s position in society, and thus their comparative social value.
2) Criticism of the tests’ format can purify the tests (tighten them up) in terms of the fairness
that they embody. The purpose is to ensure that strengths that should not feature in the test
are not in fact a part thereof - or else to promote the implementation of procedures and
regulations that make the test fairer.
16
3) Criticism is responsible for continually keeping an eye on a society's central tests,
ensuring that legitimate tests respect the agreed format (and that variances from this
format are denounced).
4) Inversely, criticism can try to get certain tests eliminated in the name of the general desire
to see changes in the currently prevailing system of values. In this instance, criticism
helps to delegitimise the tests, not from inside the system (as is the case with the strong
members of a society, those who have succeeded at the tests without having had to pay
their real cost) but from the outside. The idea here is that it is unacceptable for
evaluations and selections to be made on the basis of certain principles that should in fact
be abolished.
5. Applying the model to changes in France between 1968 and 1995
Since the spirit of capitalism that prevails during a particular era contribute, to the
building of a legitimate test that can be used in capitalist work situations, the aforementioned
criticisms are actually aimed at the capitalist system itself.
Criticism of capitalism is as old as capitalism itself. Capitalism is in need of
justification for the very reason that it is criticised. Where there is no criticism, there is no
need for justification (and then for something like a spirit of capitalism). We have therefore
distinguished between the two types of criticisms that have developed since the 19th
century.
We label the first “social criticism”. Here the emphasis is on inequalities, misery,
exploitation, and the selfishness of a world that stimulates individualism rather than solidarity.
Its main vector has been the labour movement.
We label the second form of criticism (which Chiapello (1998) studied in her previous
book, Artistes Versus Managers, derived from Grana’s book Bohemian versus Bourgeois)
“artistic criticism”. This form first emerged in small artistic and intellectual circles, and
stresses other characteristics of capitalism. In a capitalist world, it criticises oppression
(market domination, factory discipline), the massification of society, standardisation and
pervasive commodification. It vindicates an ideal of liberation and/or of individual autonomy,
singularity and authenticity.
What underpins the transformation that took place between the second spirit of
capitalism (still found to a large extent in our sample of 1960s management literature) and the
third spirit (illustrated by our 1990s management literature)? We have tried to explain this
movement without relying entirely on devices that are determined mechanically (and
therefore, to a certain extent, fatalistically), as is often the case when the entire emphasis is
being placed on globalisation, market development, and technological transformations. Our
account is drawn from French examples. Yet we believe that it can be more broadly validated,
albeit with specifications that take into account the particularities of the different Western
societies.
Here, summarised in a very brief form, are the various stages of this transformation.
a) >From 1965 to 1975, there was a very significant increase in the criticism of capitalism.
1968 was the absolute peak, but this high point lasted for a period of several years. This
17
criticism threatened to generate a major crisis in capitalism. Far from being nothing more
than a verbal outburst, this criticism was accompanied by waves of strikes and violence. It
disorganised production in such a way as to diminish the quality of industrial goods and,
according to some estimates, cause a doubling in wage costs. There were criticisms levied
at almost all of the established tests upon which the legitimacy of the social order had
been based. These criticisms included:
i) tests that served as a foundation both for the salary/profit breakdown as well as
for the way in which the value added was being shared between shareholders and wage
earners;
ii) tests that legitimised power asymmetries and hierarchical relationships (not
only in the workshop but also in schools and even in families);
iii) tests that served as a basis for social selection (scholastic examinations,
professional recruitment, career planning, etc.)
Criticism unveiled those elements that, in the most prominent of these tests, were
infringing upon social justice. It especially unveiled those hidden forces that disrupted the
tests by pointing out the unwarranted advantages that were accruing to certain protagonists.
This high level of criticism alarmed many capitalist institutions’ leaders. Employers,
in particular, through the voice of their representatives, complained of a “crisis of authority”
and of the refusal to conform to work discipline and/or adhere to a firm’s objectives. This was
said to be especially rife amongst the youth of the time.
One significant specificity of the 1968 crisis was that both types of criticism, artistic
criticism and social criticism, were equally important in the process. In previous crises,
artistic criticism had only been expressed in circumscribed intellectual circles. This
transformation can be attributed to the rapid increase in the number of students during the
1960s; and to the increasingly important role that managers, engineers, and technicians (all of
whom possess a significant amount of cultural capital) were playing in the production
process.
In the French business world, artistic criticism manifested itself mostly through
demands for self-management (mainly expressed by the CFDT union), that is, through
demands for employee control of firms’ management, and for enhanced personal autonomy
and creativity. Such demands were voiced for the most part by technicians, engineers and
executives. By contrast, traditional social criticism demands were primarily voiced by the
CGT union (a union that was closely related to the Communist Party, dominated by skilled
workers and in the majority on most shop floors).
French employer organisations successively tried two very different ways of exiting
from the 1968 crisis.
First exit strategy: Around 1968-1973, a first exit strategy consisted of strongly rejecting
those demands that were related to artistic criticism, whilst remaining attentive to those
demands that were related to social criticism. Employer organisations therefore sought to
come to terms with the unions through a test process that had been established during the
1950s (negotiations within a collective bargaining framework, negotiations at a national level
under State control, etc.). And the unions, who were also frequently disorientated by a social
unrest that they themselves had not initiated, played the game. These negotiations lead to
18
increases in the country’s lowest wage levels, a lessening of wage disparities, and to the
signing of a number of national agreements that strengthened workers’ job security. As for
tests involving the selection of people and the allocation of authority, criticism ultimately led
to the creation of tests that were fairer, in that they were closer to the meritocratic ideal. This
was achieved through a modification of test mechanisms, which were altered in such a way as
to avoid any mobilisation of strengths that did not belong to the test’s official definition.
Criticism thus had the effect of making the tests, in our vocabulary, tighter. A tighter test
penalises those actors who had previously found themselves in a privileged position, that is,
who had had easy access to the different resources that, in the various test situations, could
give them an advantage over their competitors.
Second exit strategy: The growing recognition of these socially critical demands (and of their
high economic and symbolic costs) did little to put an end to the crisis. Criticism thus
remained acute, as did the disorganisation of production. Around 1975, employer
organisations, reacting to lower profits following the first oil crisis, began to adopt a new
strategy. This involved an abandonment of established tests (where social criticism was being
voiced), with employers starting to listen to new critical demands proceeding from the
"artistic criticism".
Change was especially apparent in organisation of work. A great many large companies
innovated and experimented in an effort to “improve working conditions” – a phrase that
became a general slogan for employer organisations during the latter half of the 1970s. At
first these changes were implemented locally and almost haphazardly. Subsequently those that
proved to be successful were diffused and coordinated by employer organisations. These
organisations, influenced by sociologists and by the new “kinds” of consultants who came out
of the 1968 movement, formed a new understanding of the crisis, interpreting it as an uprising
against obsolete (i.e., Fordist) working conditions and traditional forms of authority.
To a large extent, these changes involved acknowledging that the validity of the
demand for autonomy. In addition, advantages that had hitherto been restricted to executives
(autonomous teams, flexible schedules, bonuses, efficiency-related salaries, etc.) were
generalised to all categories of management. At the production organisation level, similar
types of changes took place. A succession of transformations broke down large integrated
companies into a series of small units that were connected through a network of contracts
(temporary work, sub-contracting, outsourcing activities that did not belong to the company’s
core business, etc.).
In short, this “second exit” involved abandoning the previous system of established
tests (professional relationships) in favour of a series of displacements. These displacements
produced new tests (for example, new requirements for operatives whose ability to
communicate became an important pre-requisite for their selection). Yet these new tests were
difficult to identify per se by the people whom they affected, insofar as they had not yet been
subjected to any qualification, categorisation and regulation initiatives.
During the 1980s, one of the consultants' main tasks was to coordinate and make sense
of these changes, notably by interpreting them through the language of networks, itself
borrowed from the field of social sciences. The “second exit” succeeded where the first had
failed. Displacements gave management the opportunity to control the workforce once again.
It unfettered capitalism, and helped it to renew its expansion.
19
The new capitalist deployment was greatly facilitated by critics’ silence during this
period of time. And to a large extent, this silence was the product of preceding displacements,
on two levels at least.
Social criticism, usually voiced by the principal labour unions, was disarmed by a
form of change it could not interpret. It had been built in an isomorphic relationship to its
opponent, the large integrated firm. It therefore lost its ability, in the new process, to exert
pressure on employers' decisions.
Artistic criticism, on the other hand, lost its edge for a very different reason. Many of
those who had been voicing this form of criticism at the time of the 1968 crisis had become
satisfied with the changes that had taken place in the organisation of work and, more broadly,
in society. The incorporation of many components of artistic criticism into the new spirit of
capitalism had deprived earlier critics of reasons for feeling discontented – and rendered them
insensitive to the superficiality of the achievements of the so-called liberation movement.
Moreover, in the Socialist era that has been France’s hallmark since 1981, many supporters of
artistic criticism have been co-opted into the power elite.
Capitalism’s renewed growth during the 1980s was largely due to its ability to
overcome the constraints that were a part of the second spirit of capitalism, and render them
obsolete. Changes in the nature of tests, and silence from disorientated critics, enabled
capitalism to spread once again, freeing it from most of the constraints that it had previously
had to face. One outcome of this process was that the wage/profit ratio again began to benefit
capital. The cost was rising inequality, precarious working conditions, and the
impoverishment of many wage earners.
Worsening conditions for a great many individuals brought criticism back to life in the
1990s – as shown by the wave of strikes that hit in late 1995. Criticism’s current renewal is
mostly apparent in the field of social criticism, with artistic criticism remaining silent or
becoming standardised (hence inefficient). This renewal of social criticism raises the question
of how new tests can be tamed and rooted in new regulations - one of the main concerns being
the way in which flexibility can be structured. It is possible that the aim of many of the
measures that are currently being explored in France is to embed the Project-oriented Cité in
devices that are stable in nature. One example is the “activity contract” (“contrat d’activité”)
which, when combined with an employment contract, allows workers that a firm cannot or
does not want to keep to seek further training or employment with a non-profit organisation.
Of course, this is the history of France, a country characterised by almost
uninterrupted Socialist rule since 1981, and therefore a society that has handed power over to
those who in 1968 had been demonstrating in the streets under the banner of artistic criticism.
The history of Great Britain is a very different one, having been marked by the Thatcher
revolution. Indications are that different organisational models and spirits of capitalism will
ultimately prevail in each of these two countries: that they will be more market-oriented in
Great Britain (in the sense that our justificatory regime analysis lends to this term); and more
“connectionist” in France.
Conclusion
20
In “The New Spirit of Capitalism”, a research project that was briefly summarised in
the present article, we tried to offer an interpretation for a movement which started right after
May 1968 (when criticisms of capitalism were rife); which lasted throughout the 1980s (when
the organisational forms underlying capitalism’s functioning were experiencing profound
modifications even as critics maintained their silence); and which ultimately lead, in the latter
half of the 1990s, to many tentative searches for new foundations of criticism. The concept of
a spirit of capitalism is key in this study. It allows us, as we have already seen, to dynamically
articulate the two other central concepts upon which our analyses are based: capitalism; and
criticism.
However, the research carried out so far was not only intended to provide a credible
and novel description of this period. Our intent with the present historical example was also to
propose a more general theoretical framework, thus enabling greater understanding of how the
ideologies that are associated with economic activities can be modified.
Here are the main characteristics of the model of change that we have tried to develop.
a) It stresses actions by people who face uncertainty and often conflict, and it refuses to
explain change by the actions of impersonal and inevitable forces.
b)It focuses on the concept of testing, alternating between two test regimes. The first one
(the categorisation regime) describes acknowledged, established and regulated tests upon
which criticism can act. The second one (the displacement regime) features a series of
deviations from established tests that can modify selection trajectories and profit
strategies, requiring no more than a modicum of reflexivity, categorisation and
disorientating criticism.
c) Finally, this is not a teleological model. There is no time arrow reaching towards some
messianic horizon, be this Development and Progress, Revolution, or of “the end of
history”. Criticism’s work is an unending one. It must constantly be renewed.
We may be criticised for having used a local example (France over the past 30 years)
to exemplify a global change. We certainly do not feel that the French example can in and of
itself recapitulate all of the transformations that capitalism has experienced. However, as we
have been far from convinced by the approximations and imprecise portrayals that are usually
heard in discussions on globalisation, we have tried in the present article to build a model of
change that is based on pragmatic analyses, i.e., on models that are capable of accounting for
the various ways in which people commit themselves to an action, their motivations, and the
meaning that they give to their acts. Now, this sort of initiative remains, essentially for
reasons of time and resources, basically undoable at a global level, or even at a continental
one, given the way in which national traditions and political situations continue to affect the
orientations of economic practices (and the accompanying forms of ideological expression).
In all likelihood, this is the reason why global approaches often end up by attributing a
preponderant role to explanatory factors (usually technological, macro-economic or
demographic in nature) which are dealt with as if they were forces that exist outside of the
human condition, and out of the reach of nations who are subjected to them much as people
are subjected to a storm. In this historical neo-darwinism, “mutations” happen to us much as
they happen to species – and it is up to us to adapt to them or else die. Humanity however
does not only submit to history – it creates it. We have wanted to see how this works.
21
Appendix 1
Exemplifying several comments with the 1990s body of work
The problems that have been identified
The 1990s authors’ rejection of hierarchy is especially noteworthy given that their
readers are essentially comprised of managers from large corporations – professionals who
despite all of their efforts will find it difficult to avoid working within the strictures of a
hierarchical framework. The explanations that are used to highlight this anti-hierarchical bias
are often moral in nature, and should be analysed as part of a more widespread rejection of
domination-driven relationships (see Extract 1). They are also scrutinised in light of another
irresistible societal trend – which is that people not only do not want to take orders anymore,
but they do not even want to give them (2). For other authors, a general raising in the
standard of education explains why hierarchy has become an outdated organisational model
(3). And whilst hierarchy is a favourite target for many critics, others also attack planning
(denounced for its excessive rigidity) as well as all of the categories that are generally
associated with the wielding of authority (bosses, chiefs, superiors, orders, etc.)
Competition was another recurring theme during the 1990s – as was the unending and
increasingly rapid change in technology (already a subject of discussion during the 1960s).
This latter topic reached unprecedented levels, with the vast majority of texts giving advice on
how to set up the sort of flexible and inventive organisation that is able to "surf" all "waves",
i.e. adapt to all transformations. In the 1960s, the main goal was the loosening of bureaucratic
restraints, and observers at the time kept well away from aiming their criticism at the
fundamental principles of organisation (i.e. Fayol's often used concept of unique reporting
line etc.). In the 1990s, however, with the subversion of the hierarchical principle, there was
something of a "big bang" – an expression coined by Peter Drucker, the seasoned guru, who
after having been a particularly influential proponent of management by objectives during the
1960s now foresaw the existence of "upside down" organisations. Another major figure in
management literature, Rosabeth Moss Kanter, has also explained that there will necessarily
be a time in the future "when the giants learn to dance" – this having been the title of her bestseller
(Moss Kanter, 1992).
Extracts:
1. The organisational and the pyramidal hierarchies (...) indicate who knows how to manage, who is able to
manage and who has to be the one who is going to manage – as opposed to those who don’t know how to
manage or who are incapable of doing so. Even with the best will in the world, the only kind of
interpersonal relationship that can occur in conditions such as these is the sort of relationship that exists
between a person who expresses scorn and a person who is a target of scorn. This is because "those who do
not know how to manage and/or are incapable of doing so" find themselves from the very beginning in a
position of de facto inferiority - as if they have been turned into children.... (Aktouf, 1989).
2. Along with increased individualism, the irresistible move towards freedom of choice in all areas has
generated greater demands, and opportunities, for personal autonomy. The era of staff sergeants is over.
Not only do subordinates no longer accept authority, but hierarchical superiors are themselves less and less
capable of wielding it - even though more and more discipline is needed to respond to the demands of a
complex environmental (Crozier, 1989).
3. Given that modern organisations are comprised of "erudite" specialists, they have to be an association
between equals, colleagues, associates... No particular type of knowledge dominates Everyone is judged
according to his/her contribution to the common good - and not in light of the allegedly inherent superiority
22
of the function that s/he fulfils. The result is that a modern organisation cannot be an association of bosses
and subordinates - it has to be an organised team. (Drucker, 1993)6
.
The solutions
The systems that the 1990s authors have offered for coping with the issues that they
have identified form a vast potpourri of managerial innovations. Nevertheless, we can try to
organise these ideas around a few key ideas: lean companies that work in networks involving
a wide range of actors; team-based or project-oriented work organisation, geared towards
customer satisfaction; and workers’ overall enthusiasm thanks to the vision of their leaders.
Lean, "light" and "fat-free" firms have got rid of most of their hierarchical echelons.
They only maintain between three and five levels, and have fired entire hierarchical strata.
They have also separated from a large number of functions and tasks, and subcontract
everything that is not part of their core business, sometimes to former employees turned
entrepreneurs (N.T.: in a process called essaimage in the French, literally the workings of a
beehive). Firms’investments are increasingly made in collaboration with other companies via
"alliances" and "joint ventures" - and the stereotype of the modern company has become that
of a slim-lined core which is surrounded by a potpourri of suppliers, subcontractors, service
providers, temporary personnel (this allows staff numbers to adjust to levels of activity),
friendly firms, etc. Such constellations are said to be working in "networks".
We are told that the workers themselves must be organised into small
multidisciplinary teams (deemed to be more competent, flexible, inventive and autonomous
than the specialised departments which had been the hallmark of the 1960s); that the real boss
of these teams is the customer; and that the person who is actually running them is more of a
co-ordinator than a chief (cf. Extract 4). Moreover, such teams are not solely comprised of a
firm's permanent staff members. They can also include suppliers, customers, consultants and
outside experts. Plus the members of the team do not all necessarily have to work in close
physical proximity to one another - improvements in telecommunications having made it
possible to collaborate from remote locations. Once again, this is said to be an example of
working in a "network". The company’s borders blur or fade away, and the organisation itself
seems to be made of little more than an accumulation of more or less durable contractual
relationships. Teams become a forum for self-organisation and self-control.
These new systems have lead to the weakening of the hierarchical principle.
Organisations have become flexible, innovative and highly competent. Network organisations
have made it possible to get rid of costly hierarchies - structures whose only purpose had been
to serve as a "relay" for senior management, and which had therefore provided no "added
value" for the customer.
Extracts:
4. Process teams, whether comprised of one or several individuals, don’t need bosses. Instead, they need
coaches (...) Traditional bosses define and distribute the workload. Now teams take care of this themselves.
Traditional bosses supervise, oversee, control and verify the workflow as it progresses from one workstation
to the next. Now teams take care of this themselves. There is little room for traditional bosses in a
reconfigured environment. (Hammer, Champy, 1993).
6
N.T. : Some of the extracts cited have been translated back into English from their French translation. The
wording may therefore differ slightly from the original text, and as such these extracts should be considered as a
paraphrasing rather than as a quotation.
23
Remains the thorny problem of how a firm's overall direction is to be managed - an
issue with which the authors in our sample are still grappling. The existence of networks does
not mean that firms no longer exist as separate entities (i.e., that they have been diluted by the
network(s) within which they work). A firm’s senior managers will still devise the
competition strategies that allow it to do battle with other multinationals (on those markets
where they do not collaborate). Moreover, the self-organised and creative individuals who
are henceforth responsible for a firm's performance still need to be directed. This direction
will be the work of few persons – managers who in any event should be distinguished from
earlier, "hierarchical chiefs" Now we have leaders with vision (c.f., Extracts 5,6). Thanks to
a shared sense-making in which all participate (the aforementioned "vision"), everyone knows
what s/he has to do without being ordered to do so. A strong management direction is clearly
felt without there being any need to issue orders, and personnel can continue to be self-
organising.
The 1990s authors write in terms of "managers" as opposed to "cadres", highlighting
those human qualities that have adapted best to capitalism's current requirements, and to the
environment of "uncertainty" and "complexity" that firms have been plunged into. Managers
are neither seeking to command, nor to order people around - and employees are not waiting
for orders before acting. Everyone has understood that such roles are out of date. Managers
have become "team leaders", "catalysts", "visionaries", "coaches", and "drivers". The "driver"
(N.T., "donneur de souffle"in the French, literally “the person who provides the breath”) is a
character that was invented by Hervé Sérieyx. Like other 1990s authors who lacked the
appropriate vocabulary to describe the new corporate hero, Sérieyx was forced to make up his
own expressions. Rosabeth Moss Kanter talks about "corporate athletes", Meryem Le Saget
about "intuitive managers" and Lionel Bellenger about "pros" (7). Other terms such as coach,
team leader or "midwife" are used by several different authors.
Extracts:
5. Vision, a commodity that creates enthusiasm, is not just a mission - it is also a powerful magnet. Like all
great challenges, vision awakens collective capacities. (Crozier, Sérieyx, eds., 1994).
6. The leader is a person who has been given this role by the group - the person with whom each individual in
the group consciously or subconsciously identifies. Thanks to his/her influence, visionary artistry and
orientations, the leader creates a current that spurs people into transcending themselves; into trusting others;
and into showing initiative (Cruellas, 1993).
7. We don't even possess an appropriate vocabulary for discussing these new types of relationships. The terms
"superiors" and "subordinates" hardly seem precise enough. Even words like "boss" and "employees" imply
concepts of control and/or rights which managers do not always actually have. (Moss Kanter, 1991)
With the decline in nearby hierarchical control, there have been increasing references
in management (and indeed in micro-economic) literature to the idea of trust. Trust is that
which unites team members amongst themselves; a firm with its leader; a coach with the
person s/he is helping; or partners within an alliance. Trust presupposes self-control – it
focuses on the existence of secure relationships in situations that are otherwise based on
nothing more concrete than words and/or moral contracts. Indeed, trust possesses a moral
dimension, whereas control by a third party is little more than the expression of a relationship
that is based on the domination of one party by another (8).
Extract:
8. The balance of power is no longer a salient issue when the main objective is the creation of a sense of
belonging, a feeling of satisfaction with and trust in one another (Aktouf, 1989).
24
What is being rejected
To promote these new organisational forms, the 1990s authors (like their 1960s
predecessors) also criticised and delegitimised those contemporary aspects of organisations
that they deemed to be obsolete in efficiency terms, and outdated from a human relations
perspective. However, this time around, criticisms no longer target arrangements that could
once have been accused of transposing the domestic world in the work world. Instead, they
target a type of organisation that had been praised during the previous era for its clearcut
separation between private family life or personal relationships, on one hand, and professional
and/or work relationships, on the other. During the 1960s, this separation was supposed to
ensure that competency was the only criterion for professional success, and certain authors
worried about the breakdown between the amount of time that people spent resting and/or
with their family against the amount of time they spent working. During the 1990s,
management authors rebelled against this separation, considering it to have a mutilating effect
insofar as it separates aspects of a person's life that should not be dissociated from one
another; inhuman because it leaves no room for a person’s emotional makeup; and inefficient
because it hampers flexibility and inhibits the multiple competencies that need to be
implemented in order to learn to "live in a network" (9), (10).
To describe the large impersonal organisations that had been inherited from the
preceding period, 1990s managers appropriated a term of Weberian sociology that had been
particularly popular between 1940 and 1960 due to that era’s Trotskyist criticisms of State
apparatuses in totalitarian regimes: bureaucracy, with its connotations of authoritarianism and
arbitrariness, the blind and impersonal violence of cold-hearted monsters, inefficiency and
resource wasting. Not only were bureaucrats inhuman, but they were also unprofitable. The
goal of the battle that was waged during the 1990s became the wholesale elimination of a
business model that had been forged during the preceding era. This involved both the
delegitimisation of hierarchy, planning, formal authority, Taylorism, "managerial [cadre]"
status, lifelong careers with one and the same firm, etc., as well as the reintroduction of
criteria such as individual personality and personal contacts - factors that had fallen by the
wayside over time. This was not an attempt to return to the initial spirit of capitalism: firms
are bigger than ever; managers are professionals and not small owners; and the work world
nowadays involves a network approach rather than a domestic framework.
Extracts:
9. Professional life is the perfect embodiment of rationality. It is very different from people’s private lives, this
being an area of subjectivity, of search for meaning and expression of personal values. These two existences
are hermetically sealed from one another (…) Whenever personal elements are incorporated into businessrelated
judgements, there is the feeling that one’s private life is running the risk of being infringed upon by
the firm. Yet nowadays it is clear that this sort of outlook (…) has become totally obsolete. Developing a
vision of a company’s future, devising strategies, motivating work groups, creating networks of
relationships – all of these actions call upon qualities that go well beyond simple technical competency.
They mobilise a person’s complete personality (Landier, 1991).
10. The demands that are being made of us require that we abandon this split between our professional and our
private beings, between our rational and intuitive selves, between that which is natural and that which is
manmade, between the brain and the heart (Sérieyx, 1993).
(Job) security through employability
Simply asking which (job) security assurances feature in modern management texts
creates an initial difficulty for us. Security was not a dominant value during the 1990s. At the
time, this factor was associated with commonly denounced evils such as status, hierarchy and
25
bureaucracy. This was very different from that which had been observed during the preceding
era.
The most pugnacious author on this topic has turned out to be Bob Aubrey, who likes
to remind his readers that Maslow’s pyramid is a false scientific law (11). Notwithstanding
this allegation, management authors also know that few people will feel attracted by their
proposals if they don’t offer any new forms of security. They are aware of the need to propose
something that can replace the hierarchical careers that had been such an integral part of the
second spirit of capitalism. One suggestion has been that this format should be replaced by the
idea of a succession of projects. In this conception, people no longer develop careers, rather
they move from one project to another, with their success on a given project being that which
enables them to accede to another, more interesting one. Each project is an opportunity to
make many new acquaintances, and it therefore offers people the chance to earn a solid
reputation and to be co-opted into a new activity. Moreover, given that each project, by
definition, is different, new and innovative in nature, it can be presented as an opportunity for
learning and for adding to one’s own competencies – this being an advantage in finding other
engagements (12) (13).
The key concept in this view of working life is employability. This notion is supposed
to describe the ability that people must possess if they want to be asked to participate in a
given project. The transition from one project to another is an opportunity to enhance one’s
employability. This is a personal capital that each individual has to manage in his/her own
way. It is the sum total of a person’s usable competencies. A firm will be seen as offering a
certain form of security when it develops rather than destroys its employees’ employability at
those times that it is unable to avoid either dismissing people or else when it cannot offer
them a promotion (14). As such, the 1990s authors do offer several solutions for job securityrelated
problems, even though their proposals lack an instrumentation that is comparable to
that which had been on offer in 1960s writings on managing executive workforces - literature
that had provided many details on the best ways to recruit and evaluate people, or on how to
help them to develop. In the texts we read, there were hardly any systems for assessing
employability, for verifying whether it is on the rise or else deteriorating, etc. One optimistic
explanation for this would be that the texts from the 1960s involve a relatively late
formulation of the second spirit of capitalism. This was an era during which the then current
spirit had already been in place for quite some time. The 1990s texts on the other hand are
associated with a brand new spirit of capitalism, one that is just emerging, and which has not
yet reached the height of its motivational powers.
Extracts:
11. Organisations nowadays have to assimilate a new reality, and treat each employee as if s/he were a firm.
This change means that some of the suppositions that had dominated industrial society have to be
abandoned, first and foremost the idea that people are looking for job security. This is a 1950s concept born
out of Abraham Maslow’s famous “pyramid of needs”, with its postulate that fundamental needs must be
satisfied before we can even begin to consider other types of fulfilment. Now, not only is this thesis
problematic from a theoretical perspective (how does it explain the fact that some people risk their
[material] security to become artists or to start a new career?), but there is little justification for the way in
which it has been interpreted in management circles (i.e., the firm’s first responsibility is to create a secure
environment, with fulfilment only coming at a later stage). (Aubrey, 1994).
12. The post-industrial career is an unending sprint from one project to the next. The measure of success of a
given project is the value that it adds (...) Each person depends much more on his/her own resources rather
that on the destiny of whatever company happens to be the titular employer at the time. Those who are not
conversant in the art of climbing the hierarchical ladder tend to fall by the wayside (...) Everyone has to
26
create a personal portfolio of aptitudes, as firms no longer guarantee job security. And there is every chance
that entire populations will learn new competencies during this process. (Moss Kanter, 1992)
13. If the organisation of the future only features a few hierarchical levels (i.e., three or four instead of a dozen),
there will be fewer echelons that candidates will have to succeed at before reaching a relatively senior
position. Career development will entail more lateral and less vertical movement. With people accepting
new areas of activity or other types of responsibilities, the focus will be more on learning and on broadening
one’s own experience than on acceding to a higher rank. In addition, this type of development will not
automatically lead to increased remuneration. The times have changed, and so have the rules of the game.
The career paths that people will be following are no longer clearly signposted. As a result, successful
career management in this brave new world infers the people become actors in their own development,
taking charge of their own future. No one else is going to be doing it for them. (Le Saget, 1994)
14. Job security cannot be guaranteed. On the other hand, firms can guarantee “employability”, that is, a level of
competency and flexibility that will enable each individual to find a new job within his/her firm – or outside
of it (Aubrey, 1993).
27
Appendix 2
Articles and books which have provided the extracts
of the 1990s body of work
Texts which original language is French
Articles
ADAM Edmond, 1993, "Le coaching ou le retour vers la personne", Management France, n° 86 ,
Nov, pp. 12-14
ARPIN Roland, 1994, “Diriger sans s'excuser ”, Revue internationale de gestion, vol. 19, mai, n°2,
pp. 55-61
AUBREY Bob, 1993, "Repensons le travail du cadre", Harvard-l'Expansion, Août, pp.56-64
AUBREY Bob, 1994, “La métamorphose du travail conduit à l'entreprise de soi”, (présentation de
son livre "Le travail après la crise"), Management France, Fev, n° 87 pp. 22-23
BARON Xavier, 1993, "Les enjeux de gestion des salariés travaillant dans les structures par projets",
Gestion 2000, n°2, pp. 201-213
DESCLÉE DE MAREDSOUS Xavier, 1992, “L'exercice du leadership ou la gestion de sa carrière au
jour le jour ”, Gestion 2000, vol. 7 numéro spécial: "gérer votre carrière", pp. 105-126
GASTALDI Dino, 1990, “ Le métier de cadre : évolution et prise en compte du management ”,
Direction et Gestion, n° 126-127, pp.57-62
GIRARD Bernard, 1994, “ Vers un nouveau pacte social”, Revue française de gestion, n° 100, sept,
pp.78-88
LEMAIRE Bruno, 1994, “ Des entreprises sans hiérarchie? ”, L'Expansion Management Review ,
automne, pp.74-82,
MIDLER Christophe, 1993, “ La révolution de la twingo ”, Gérer et comprendre, Juin, pp. 28-36 Mai
MORIN Pierre, 1994, “ La fin du management romantique ”, Management France, n°88, pp 14-17,
RAUX Jean-François, 1994, “ Management et mutations ”, Futuribles, n°187, Mai, pp. 9-26
SERIEYX Hervé, 1993, “A propos du big bang des organisations ”, Management France, n°85, pp
29-30
STREBEL Paul, 1994, “ Comment faire évoluer les règles du jeu ”, L'Expansion Management Review,
Eté, pp 17-21
WEISS Dimitri,1994, “Nouvelles formes d'entreprise et relations de travail ”, Revue Française de
Gestion, n°98, Mars-Avril-Mai, pp. 95-103
Books
AKTOUF Omar, 1989, Le management, entre tradition et renouvellement, Montréal, Gaëtan Morin
ARCHIER Georges, ELISSALT Olivier, SETTON Alain, 1989, Mobiliser pour réussir, Paris, Seuil
AUBREY Bob, 1990, Savoir faire savoir (Prix Dauphine 1990), Paris, InterEditions
AUBREY Bob, 1994, Le travail après la crise, Paris, InterEditions
BELLENGER Lionel, 1992, Etre pro, Paris, ESF
BONIS Jean, 1990, Le management comme direction d'acteurs : maîtriser la dynamique humaine de
l'entreprise, Paris, CLET
CROZIER Michel, 1989, L'entreprise à l'écoute. Apprendre le management post-industriel, Paris,
InterEditions
CROZIER Michel et SÉRIEYX Hervé Eds, 1994, Du management panique à l'entreprise du XXIème
siècle, Paris, Maxima
CRUELLAS Philippe, 1993, Coaching : un nouveau style de management, Paris, ESF
DOYON Christian, 1991, L'intrapreneurship : la nouvelle génération de managers, Montréal, Agence
d'Arc
ETTIGHOFFER Denis, 1992, L'entreprise virtuelle ou les nouveaux modes de travail, Paris, Odile
Jacob
GENELOT Dominique, 1992, Manager dans la complexité, Paris, INSEP
HEC (Les professeurs du Groupe), 1994, "Management et ressources humaines: quelles stratégies de
formation", L'école des managers de demain, Paris, Economica pp. 245-268
28
LANDIER Hubert,1991, Vers l'entreprise intelligente, Paris, Calmann Lévy
LENHARDT Vincent, 1992, Les responsables porteurs de sens: culture et pratique du coaching et du
team building, Paris, INSEP
LE SAGET Meryem, 1992, Le manager intuitif, Paris, Dunod (Prix dauphine 1993)
LE SAGET Meryem, 1994, 10 conseils pour le manager de demain, Brochure du cabinet de conseil
Erasme international, 28 pages
MINGOTAUD F., 1993, La fonction d'encadrement, Paris, Editions d'Organisation
MORAN R., XARDEL, D., 1994, Au-delà des cultures : les enjeux du management international,
Paris, InterEditions.
ORGOGOZO Isabelle,1991, Les paradoxes du management, du château fort aux cloisons mobiles,
Paris, Editions d'Organisation
ORGOGOZO Isabelle, SERIEYX Hervé, 1989, Changer le changement, on peut abolir les
bureaucraties, Paris, Seuil
RAMOND Philippe, 1993, Le management opérationnel, Paris, Maxima
RENAUD-COULON Annick, 1994, L'entreprise sur mesure, Paris, L'Harmattan
SERIEYX Hervé, 1993, Le Big-Bang des organisations, Paris, Calmann Lévy
SICARD Claude, 1994, Le manager stratège, Paris, Dunod
TARDIEU Michel, 1994, Patrons-cadres: la crise de confiance, Cahiers de l'institut de l'entreprise,
Avril, pp.20-26
VERMOT GAUD Claude, 1993, Mobiliser pour gagner, Paris, Editions Liaisons
VINCENT Claude-Pierre, 1990, Des systèmes et des hommes, Paris, Editions d'Organisation
Translated from english (US)
Articles
DRUCKER Peter, 1993, “Le big-bang des organisations ”, Harvard-L'Expansion, n° 69, Eté, pp. 35-
42
MOSS KANTER Rosabeth,1991, “ Les habits neufs du manager ”, Harvard-l'Expansion, n°60,
printemps, pp.30-39
Books
HAMMER Michael, CHAMPY James, 1993, Le reengineering, Paris, Dunod.
MOSS KANTER Rosabeth, 1992, L'entreprise en éveil, Paris, InterEditions
PETERS Tom, 1993, L'entreprise libérée, Paris, Dunod
QUINN MILLS D., 1994, L'entreprise post-hiérarchique, Paris, InterEditions
TAPSCOTT Don, CASTON Art, 1994, L'entreprise de la deuxième ère. La révolution des
technologies de l'information, Paris, Dunod
TOFFLER Alvin, 1991, Les nouveaux pouvoirs, Paris, Livre de Poche
WATERMAN Robert, 1990, Les champions du renouveau, Paris, InterEditions
29
References
L. Boltanski, E. Chiapello (1999) Le nouvel esprit du capitalisme, Paris : Gallimard.
L. Boltanski, L. Thevenot (1991)De la justification, Paris :Gallimard
E. Chiapello (1998), Artistes versus Managers, Paris : A.M. Métailié
H. Fayol (1918), Administration industrielle et générale. Paris : Dunod
J. K. Galbraith (1968), Le nouvel état industriel. Essai sur le système économique américain.
3ème édition. (première édition française: 1968; première édition américaine: 1967),
traduit de l'américain "The new industrial state". Paris: Gallimard, 473 p.
C. Graña (1964), Bohemian Versus Bourgeois. French society and the French man of letters
in the nineteeth century. New- York : Basic books, 220 p.
W. Sombart (1966), Le bourgeois, Paris, Payot (traduction de S. Jankélévitch, première
édition allemande, 1913 ; première édition française, 1928).
M. Weber (1964), L’éthique protestante et l'esprit du capitalisme, Paris, Plon (première
édition, 1920)