The Sociology of Critical Capacity
Luc Boltanski and Laurent Thévenot
ÉCOLE DES HAUTES ÉTUDES EN SCIENCES SOCIALES, PARIS
Abstract
This article argues that many situations in social life can be analyzed by their
requirement for the justification of action. It is in particular in situations of
dispute that a need arises to explicate the grounds on which responsibility
for errors is distributed and on which new agreement can be reached. Since
a plurality of mutually incompatible modes of justification exists, disputes
can be understood as disagreements either about whether the accepted rule
of justification has not been violated or about which mode of justification
to apply at all. The article develops a grammar of such modes of justification,
called orders of worth (grandeur), and argues that the human capacity for
criticism becomes visible in the daily occurrence of disputes over criteria for
justification. At the same time, it is underlined that not all social situations
can be interpreted with the help of such a sense of justice, which resides on
a notion of equivalence. Regimes of love, of violence or of familiarity are
systematically distinct from regimes of justification.
Keywords
s action s coordination s criticism s dispute s justification
The Critical Moment
This text will focus on the analysis of a particular type of moment which plays
an important role in social life.1 To label those kinds of moments, we will use the
phrase moments critiques (critical moments) which makes reference, at the same
time, to the critical activity of the persons and to the unusualness of a moment
of crisis. What is pertinent for the argument is the reflexivity of this critical
moment. The starting situation is something like the following: People, involved
in ordinary relationships, who are doing things together – let us say, in politics,
work, unionism – and who have to coordinate their actions, realize that something
is going wrong; that they cannot get along any more; that something has
to change.
To realize has a twin meaning. The word points at the same time to an inward
European Journal of Social Theory 2(3): 359–377
Copyright © 1999 Sage Publications: London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi
1368-4310[199908]2:3;359–377;009134
EJST
10 Boltanski (jl/d) 2/7/99 1:35 pm Page 359
reflexive move and to a performance in the outward world. In the process of realizing
that something is going wrong one has to take a distance from the present
moment and to turn backwards towards the past. Old things, forgotten words,
accomplished acts, come back to one’s mind, through a selective process which
links them to one another in order to produce a story which makes sense. This
retrospective turn stops the course of action.
But this break in the course of action has also another cause. The person who
realizes that something does not work rarely remains silent. He (or she) does not
keep his feelings to himself. The moment when he realizes that something does
not work is, most of the time, the moment when he realizes that he cannot bear
this state of things any more. The person must, therefore, express discontent to
the other persons with whom he is performing, until then, a joint action.
The demonstration of this discontent might end up in a ‘scene’. The scene
itself takes different shapes. It can easily turn into violence, but we will not
investigate this possibility further.
More frequently, the scene turns into a discussion in which criticisms, blames
and grievances are exchanged.The scene develops into a dispute.The word ‘scene’
suggests domestic quarrels, and the word ‘dispute’ judicial litigation. The first are
seen as informal, whereas the second are managed by the judiciary system. But
there are plenty of intermediate cases, like, for instance, disputes on the shopfloor
or the office, between customers and employees, or disputes in the street,
between drivers. We have investigated the common features of those very different
situations and, thus, tried to outline a general framework for the analysis of
the disputing process in a complex society.
A first characteristic of these situations is that persons involved are subjected
to an imperative of justification. The one who criticizes other persons must
produce justifications in order to support their criticisms just as the person who
is the target of the criticisms must justify his or her actions in order to defend his
or her own cause. These justifications have to follow rules of acceptability. We
cannot say, for instance: ‘I don’t agree with you because I don’t like your face.’
There are no reasons to think that these rules of acceptability would be different
for the one who criticizes and for the one who must respond to criticisms. Thus,
a frame of analysis of the disputing activity must be able to tackle with the same
tools the criticisms of any social or situational order as well as the justification of
the current one.
Moreover, those situations are necessarily transitory because they break the
ordinary course of action. Nobody can live constantly in a state of crisis. One of
the ways to get out of a crisis is to return to an agreement. The frame of analysis
must therefore be able to tackle agreement and disagreement with the same
tools.
Finally, these disputes are not merely a matter of language. Disputes involve
not only human persons but, also, a large number of objects: in the course of a
professional dispute, for example, a computer whose data have been erased; in
the course of a dispute between heirs, a house or a land; or, in the course of a
domestic scene, plates which have to be washed up, and so on. The frame must
European Journal of Social Theory 2(3)3 6 0
10 Boltanski (jl/d) 2/7/99 1:35 pm Page 360
be designed to deal with disputes in the real world, that is, it must be able to
describe the way disputes link together persons and things.
The Establishment of Equivalence
Let us focus on the moment when persons enter into dispute. An important
feature of this moment deals with the establishment of equivalence. In order to
criticize and to explain to somebody else what is going wrong, one has to bring
together different sets of people and objects and to make connections between
them. One has, for instance, to connect stories and details sampled from the past
in order to display the pertinent characteristics they share. The operation of
bringing together different items or different facts must be justified with reference
to a principle of equivalence which clarifies what they have in common.2
But agreement itself is based on the same kind of operations. To make an
agreement possible, particular persons must divest themselves of their singularity
and converge towards a form of generality transcending persons and the situations
in which they interrelate. Persons seeking agreement have therefore to
focus on a convention of equivalence external to themselves.
Let us consider, for example, a dispute between two drivers after a collision.
The furious indignation of the first can stem from a series of heterogeneous vexations
he suffered the same day: his wife fell ill; his son had very bad grades at
school; his boss humiliated him; he is anxious about a pain in his throat (maybe
cancer) and, in addition to that, this stupid guy bumps into his new, beautiful
car. That’s too much! But the second driver can also have a series of personal
reasons to complain against a nasty world: his mother just died the day before;
his taxes have increased; his last book has been refused by the publisher and,
moreover, there is this idiot, in the middle of the road. That’s too much! If they
want to escape violence they must be able to eliminate most of these motives of
discontent as ‘private’ and to converge towards a common definition of the relevant
objects in the situations – such as highway codes, state of tires, etc. But in
order to converge in sorting out relevant and irrelevant items they must share a
common capacity to see what fits the situation and under which relation. They
need, hence, a common definition of the form of generality which allows to
connect this situation with other ones identified as similar.
The possibility of making reference to a principle of equivalence is also a prerequisite
for minimal calculation. In order to blame or to criticize in a consistent
way, one must, therefore, be endowed with a certain ability to calculate. If you
want, for example, to say in an angry voice, to the colleague with whom you are
writing a book: ‘It is always me who does the xeroxing and all the chores, while
you read exciting books sitting comfortably in your armchair’, you have to bring
together and put under equivalence a number of quite scattered and heterogeneous
operations. We will say that the necessity of laying stress on equivalence is a main
feature of the mode or the regime which persons will set up when they have to
manage a dispute. And we will call this regime of justification a regime of justice.
Boltanski & Thévenot Sociology of Critical Capacity 3 6 1
10 Boltanski (jl/d) 2/7/99 1:35 pm Page 361
In the ordinary course of common action, in contrast, equivalencies are not
subjected to deliberate reflection. Instead equivalencies which maintain the
coordination of actions may be, for example, encapsulated in objects or by objectified
rules. The most often quoted example probably is the standardization of
time and schedules.
In another mode or regime of coordination, which we will call an affective
regime (régime d’agapè) (Boltanski, 1990), persons actively cooperate in the
process of shoving the equivalencies aside in order to render difficult the cumulating
and calculation operations which are required to blame and criticize. The
emotionally intense scene, in which people connected by an affective link are
involved, is precisely set at the border between a regime of action which aims at
dismissing the measuring of equivalence and, on the other hand, a regime of
action in which people bring back such measures of equivalence and lay stress on
them. This kind of scene has frequently been presented in literary works. But, in
most cases, the writers place this scene in the description of amorous relationships.
But, as fieldwork shows, this kind of scene is also very frequent among
people who are involved in professional relationships. The person who goes on
shifting from one regime to the other looks back over past events in a disillusioned
way: ‘How was it possible to be such a fool: so naïve of me; fancy being
“had” that way! For the last twenty years I have been making the xeroxes or (in
another context) I have been washing the dishes, etc. without receiving anything
in return. Now, I realize . . .’ But this disquieting moment is not, as often claimed
by those who experienced it, a moment of truth. The regime in which one makes
calculations is no more true, no more real, than the regime in which people
inhibit their calculation abilities. It is the reshuffle in the perception of the world
stemming from a quick shift from one regime to another which gives the illusion
of a glaring truth.
The regime of justification, which requires collective conventions of equivalence,
is only needed when more local regimes of coordination based on either
‘personal convenience’ or ‘conventional utilization’ are not sufficient to deal with
the misfortune of the situation and determine what is convenient or appropriate
(Thévenot, 1990b). In the ‘regime of familiarity’ (Thévenot, 1994) a person
is intimately engaged with a familiar surrounding, either at home or at the workplace.
The dynamics of engagement are highly dependent on personal and local
clues that are clearly not available to any unfamiliar observer. All the mannerisms
will appear bizarre to any observer who is lacking the intimate knowledge that
constitutes the personality through the path of a long and partially mutual
accommodation with the entourage. Now imagine that the person has to leave
the place to an unfamiliar newcomer. There is a need to tidy the place up in order
to put it in a condition which is appropriate for a quite different regime of
engagement based on a regular planned action based on plans and functionalities.This
involves destroying a fair amount of the familiar capacity of the complex
web of a habitat. Highly ‘customized’ equipment does not fit the format of regular
anonymous plans with functional artifacts. One needs to anticipate normal plans
and restore to their normal state the things that were heavily used. Ordinary use
European Journal of Social Theory 2(3)3 6 2
10 Boltanski (jl/d) 2/7/99 1:35 pm Page 362
of language, with its loose denomination of actions and objects, is sufficient to
monitor this regime of engagement. This is in marked contrast with both
personal convenience (where language is highly indexical and corporeal) and
collective conventions (where language is strictly conventionalized). Should
things go wrong and a dispute grow, the discussants would go beyond the implicit
assumptions of a normal intention of action, or of an object in good condition.
They now refer to general principles of efficiency, or security, for instance, to
justify their claim. They ground their arguments on broad conventional requirements
that human or non-human entities need to satisfy in order to be qualified.
They put the qualifications to a conventional test.
During the course of a dispute, the reference to a principle of equivalence is
also a basic operation necessarily implemented in order to set up a claim, unveil
an injustice and ask for an atonement. In order to keep violence away from the
situation, the discontented person must display his motives by associating them
with proofs and justifications and in such a way that they can be redressed.
One can make a link between very different stories if one accepts the idea that
justified disputes are always grounded on a disagreement whose object is the relative
size or worth (la grandeur) of the different beings present in the situation.
Let us take up a very common problem: how, in the course of a meal, to
distribute the food among the guests. When the table is large the guests cannot
help themselves, as they do in a buffet meal. During such a meal the question of
the serving order cannot be avoided. And this question must be settled publicly.
One can, of course, try to escape the problem by choosing to model the temporal
order on a spatial one that neutralizes the social meaning of being served first.
This is the case when, abandoning any concept of serving some people before
others, the host sends the dishes around the table without any fuss. But in all the
other cases, the temporal order of service is susceptible to being interpreted as an
order of precedence according to the relative importance or worth of the guests.
But the implementation of this order can be difficult, particularly when the
possibility of a simultaneous existence of different orders of worth arises. Is it
better to present the dishes first to the grandmother or to the host’s boss? The
possibility of protest stems from the presence, in the same situation, of different
possible orders. Tacit agreement among the participants on the kind of qualities
that must be emphasized by the service order is the condition of a harmonious,
smooth-running scene. But the pre-condition of this agreement is a common
recognition of a conventional equivalence that can support a judgment on the
relative size or worth of the persons concerned. Even if the reference to this
convention is not explicit, it must be clear enough to yield a situation which
seems to be grounded on a natural order.
The Possibility of a Legitimate Agreement
One of the main characteristics of the kind of agreement we have in mind is its
exposure to, and confrontation with, actually or potentially, criticism. This is the
Boltanski & Thévenot Sociology of Critical Capacity 3 6 3
10 Boltanski (jl/d) 2/7/99 1:35 pm Page 363
reason why it must be justified in order to be able to oppose a resistance if
attacked. Our object is not, therefore, a mutual and circumstantial agreement
between individuals (which can be called indefensible and, thus, may well be logically
not consistent), but a justified agreement which is aiming at facing criticism,
and whose compatibility with a constraint of generalization can be
perceived.
By emphasizing the justification process, we want to take seriously the question
of the legitimacy of the agreement, rather than set it aside in favor of an
explanation exclusively styled in terms of contingency, deceit or force. We
certainly do not underestimate the importance in social life of domination, force,
interests and even of deceit, delusion and self-deception. But a representation of
the social world which would be completely grounded on deception and delusion
would no longer be able to give an account of the experience of the social
actors themselves.
The main problem of critical sociology is its inability to understand the critical
operations undertaken by the actors. A sociology which wants to study the
critical operations performed by actors – a sociology of criticism taken as a
specific object – must therefore give up (if only temporarily) the critical stance,
in order to recognize the normative principles which underlie the critical activity
of ordinary persons. If we want to take seriously the claims of actors when they
denounce social injustice, criticize power relationships or unveil their foes’ hidden
motives, we must conceive of them as endowed with an ability to differentiate
legitimate and illegitimate ways of rendering criticisms and justifications. It is,
more precisely, this competence which characterizes the ordinary sense of justice
which people implement in their disputes. We will try to outline now the analysis
of this competence. Our aim is to describe the actors’ sense of justice – or,
more precisely, their sense of injustice – and to build models of the competence
with which actors have to be endowed in order to face ordinary critical situations.
This approach thus departs from the task of moral philosophy, which is to
discover some normative rules and procedures leading to justice, although one
can build a normative model of justice on the actor’s sense of justice which we
made explicit.3
It is possible to convey the legitimacy constraint in a very practical statement:
a criticism or a justification can be said to be legitimate in a concrete situation
when the speaker can stand by it whatever the social characteristics of a newcomer
may be. The effect of the legitimacy constraint is, therefore, to set in motion a
process of generalization.
The Modeling of the Sense of Justice
In situations under a constraint of justification, people have to ground their
stances on a legitimate worth. But, such a statement does not imply that all the
forms of behavior must be gathered under a single principle of equivalence. Our
work aims to build a research strategy in the sociological field – as Michael Walzer
European Journal of Social Theory 2(3)3 6 4
10 Boltanski (jl/d) 2/7/99 1:35 pm Page 364
has done in philosophy of justice – that might enable us to escape having to
choose between a formal universalism and the kind of unlimited pluralism which
has often been the response of empirical disciplines like history or sociology to
transcendental stances.
For classical sociology the plurality of values is an outcome of the plurality of
social groups. But in this framework, the question of the agreement between
people belonging to different groups is difficult to answer without having
recourse to an explanation grounded mainly on domination, power or force.
Moral theories devoted to the analysis of the pre-conditions of a just society are,
in contrast, most of the time oriented towards the search of a universal procedure
capable of supporting the foundation of a general convention. The usefulness of
these constructions for sociological work depends mainly on their being systematic
and consistent. But they can be seen as utopias when confronted with the
diversity of the situations in which the members of a complex society are
involved.
We can escape from the alternative between formal universalism and
unlimited pluralism by considering the possibility of a limited plurality of principles
of equivalence which can be used in order to support criticisms and agreements
(Boltanski and Thévenot, 1991). The reference to different kinds of
common good makes it possible to sort out different ways of deciding on a
person’s state of worth. In this model, then, the different forms of equivalence
are not related to different groups – as they are in classical sociology – but to
different situations. It follows that a person must – in order to act in a normal
way – be able to shift, during the space of one day or even one hour, between
situations which are relevant in relation to different forms of equivalence. The
different principles of equivalence are formally incompatible with one another,
since each of them is recognized in the situation in which its validity is established
as universal. It follows that the persons must have the ability to ignore or
to forget, when they are in a given situation, the principles on which they have
grounded their justifications in the other situations in which they have been
involved.
In order to find out the legitimate worth available to the persons in ordinary
situations, when they have to make their grounds explicit and to yield justifications,
our strategy has been as follows. We started from two different places,
apparently very far away from each other, between which we went back and forth.
More precisely, we used three bodies of data. Empirical data gathered in our fieldwork
on the process of disputation made up the first corpus. This line of research
(carried out with a group of graduate students and coordinated in a seminar)
provided us with a large set of arguments and situational devices from which we
could distil justifications often used in daily life. Let us call to mind a situation
very familiar in our own milieu, for instance, a controversial discussion about the
worth of a book recently published by a colleague. One can argue that this book
is very well known or that it sells very well. But one can counteract these praises
by arguing, for example, that such a book is not the result of really systematic
work or, from another stance, that it is not really creative. The worths or sizes
Boltanski & Thévenot Sociology of Critical Capacity 3 6 5
10 Boltanski (jl/d) 2/7/99 1:35 pm Page 365
attributed to persons or objects become especially salient when the situation turns
into a dispute, so that the study of such situations is a very good occasion to
detect them.
The second corpus we used was made up of a set of classical texts stemming
from the field of political philosophy. This choice was motivated by the fact that,
during the course of empirically observed disputes, people do not necessarily
develop systematic accounts from which the analyst might derive the principles
of equivalence which support the evaluation and qualification process. Such
requirements of systematicity leading up to a clarification of the principles, in
contrast, are at the very core of political philosophies which must, in order to be
convincing, demonstrate that the common good on which they are based is well
founded. Then, comparing different philosophical constructions of a political
nature, we identified different principles of equivalence and built a model of the
way they can support justifiable claims.
We then used this roundabout path through political philosophy to improve
our understanding of the competences which actors implement when they have
to justify their actions or criticisms. The disputing process can be reduced neither
to a direct expression of selfish interests nor to an anarchic and endless confrontation
of heterogeneous world-views. Observing the course of disputes, or, more
precisely, of disputes in which violence is excluded, one cannot fail to observe the
common constraints which shape the behavior of the people involved. For
example, they must base their arguments on strong evidence, expressing in this
way their will to converge towards a resolution of their disagreement. Political
constructions can be used as powerful tools to clarify these constraints and make
explicit the grounds of reasoning, which are most of the time encapsulated in an
implicit form in the arguments exchanged during the course of action. Our use
of these canonical texts has, therefore, been instrumental and, hence, sharply
deviates from the philosophical tradition. We studied these texts neither for
themselves, nor as stemming from a social or historical context, but as general
grammars of the political bond.
We of course do not suggest that the ordinary members of our society have
actually read the works we used in order to outline models of the competence
people implement when they are involved in disputes. But the orders of worth
that are clarified and formalized in these political philosophies are also embodied
in the objectified devices that make up daily situations. They are now encapsulated
in the core of a large number of ordinary institutions and social devices
such as polling stations, shop-floors, media, artistic shows and family ceremonies.
Focusing on the operation of justification and criticism, our interest has been
drawn less towards the political philosophies which lay stress on power or force
than towards those which are devoted to understanding a political and social
equilibrium. These constructions have in common that they imagine a world in
which human beings are sharply separated from other beings and are brought
together by virtue of a fundamental equality. These political philosophies can
hence be characterized by the stress they lay on a common humanity. In the
different constructions we used as resources in order to clarify the ordinary sense
European Journal of Social Theory 2(3)3 6 6
10 Boltanski (jl/d) 2/7/99 1:35 pm Page 366
of justice, persons are equal with regard to their common belonging to humanity.
But as the comparison of texts from different traditions shows, each of these
constructions proposes a specific principle of order or equivalence, which can be
implemented with a view to specifying what the worth or ‘size’ of the ‘great ones’
(les grands) consists in, and, hence, on what to base a justifiable order between
persons.
A person involved in criticism must be endowed with the ability to shift from
one form of justification to another one with those same requirements. The
attempt to make explicit these requirements, common to different orders, led us
to make explicit a common model (modèle de cité) shared by all orders of worth
and which explains the possibility of shifting from one to the other or of building
compromises. The presence, in the core of the model, of two different basic
constraints – first, a constraint of common humanity and, second, a constraint
of order – yields a tension, since persons are equal with regard to their belonging
to humanity while being placed within a hierarchy according to a specific
principle of order. It follows that, in this model, the distinction between persons,
which points to the human beings in their states prior to any form of qualification,
and states of persons, which refers to the qualification process, is crucial.
A conception in which the states of persons – their worth or ‘size’ – are definitive
would, therefore, be at variance with the principle of common humanity.4
The critical moment is precisely the moment when a disagreement about the state
of worth of the persons becomes manifest. Somebody will, for example, make
the following kind of criticism: ‘The best computer has been allocated to a
programmer who is not the best one’. Or, in another situation: ‘The eldest son,
who is the heir to the estate, is not the one who really has the moral qualities
required to manage it’. The manifestation of this disagreement creates an uncertainty
about the relative worth of the beings involved, which yields anxiety. In
order to resolve this uncertainty, a judgment, rooted in the situation, is necessary.
To understand how this judgment is passed, we have to pay attention to the pragmatic
conditions of attribution of worth to a person. We will then meet the question
of the objects and of the relation between human beings and things. In order
to analyze the case of the programmer whose professional competency has been
challenged, or that of the elder son whose moral qualities are denied, we have to
investigate the connections between the persons and a plurality of objects,
material or not, such as machines, computer programs, regulations, credentials,
rules of inheritance, soil qualities, etc. We do not want to deal with these objects
as pure carriers of symbolic meanings, as sociologists often do. We want, on the
contrary, to show the way persons, in order to cope with uncertainty, rely on
things, objects, devices which are used as stable referents, on which reality tests
or trials can be based. These reality tests enable judgments to reach a grounded
and legitimate agreement and, hence, provide the possibility of ending the
disputes.
In order to display the worlds of objects on which the making of a reality test
relies, we have examined a third corpus consisting of some contemporary works
purporting to serve as handbooks or ‘how-to’ guides to correct behavior in
Boltanski & Thévenot Sociology of Critical Capacity 3 6 7
10 Boltanski (jl/d) 2/7/99 1:35 pm Page 367
Table 1 Orders of worth
Inspired Domestic Civic Opinion Market Industrial
Mode of evaluation Grace, Esteem, Collective Renown Price Productivity,
(worth) nonconformity, reputation interest efficiency
creativeness
Format of relevant Emotional Oral,exemplary, Formal,official Semiotic Monetary Measurable:
information anecdotal criteria,
statistics
Elementary relation Passion Trust Solidarity Recognition Exchange Functional
link
Human qualification Creativity, Authority Equality Celebrity Desire, Professional
ingenuity purchasing competency,
power expertise
10Boltanski(jl/d)2/7/991:35pmPage368
Boltanski & Thévenot Sociology of Critical Capacity 3 6 9
modern companies. These guides are written for laypersons and claim a pedagogical
function. Given that they are designed to teach people the right way of
arranging new situations and coping with existing ones, they contain references
to a large number of casual objects which are, of course, absent from the philosophical
treatises on politics. It was important for us to choose different guides,
each one of them devoted to the display of a particular way of defining worth,
but all intended to be used in the same social space which, in this case, is the
space of the modern company. The reason is as follows. As we said before, we
made the hypothesis that the same persons have, on the same day and in the same
social space, to use different devices for assessment, including the reference to
different types of worth, when they shift from one situation to another.
Companies are, nowadays, a very good field to test this hypothesis. The co-presence
in the modern company of heterogeneous resources, leading to different
forms of consistency and based on different principles of justice, is particularly
striking. Situations close to one another in space and time are justified according
to different principles. And the same persons have to move through those situations.
Let us take up the case, for example, of an aeronautical engineer who
during the same day can have to design an experimental laboratory test of a new
prototype, then carry out a discussion with commercial managers about the best
technical arguments which can be used to sell a new machine, then go to a lunch
where a senator is invited (i.e. as a public relations device), and, at the end of the
day, take off his tie and attend the union meeting of the local CFDT executives.
The same individual can later come back home, be taken to task by his wife for
being late and, after that, attend a concert of a newly discovered, inspired, young
pianist.
We chose contemporary guides for everyday practices that could be matched
with classical political texts from which we extracted the principles of order that
are implemented in different daily situations. We then performed this very disrespectful
operation of processing these mundane guides for practical action
together with the immortal works of political philosophers.
The Common Worlds
We shall now give a short description of these common worlds, pointing out for
each of them: first, the diverse underlying principles of order as extracted from
the classical texts; and second, the beings (persons or things) which inhabit these
worlds as they are depicted in the corresponding practical guides. In De la justification
(1991) we focused on six worlds (see Table 1). We suppose that these six
worlds are sufficient to describe justifications performed in the majority of ordinary
situations. But this number is not, of course, a magical one. These worlds
are historical constructions and some of them are less and less able to ground
people’s justifications whereas other ones are emerging. One can wonder, for
example, whether a green worth, or a communicative worth is not being set up
at the moment.
10 Boltanski (jl/d) 2/7/99 1:35 pm Page 369
The World of Inspiration
The construction of this world is based on St Augustine’s City of God and on the
treatise Augustine devoted to the problem of grace. In this world, worth is viewed
as an immediate relationship to an external source from which all possible worth
flows. This worth rests upon the attainment of a state of grace and is, therefore,
completely independent of recognition by others. It arises, particularly, in the
personal body when prepared by asceticism, and especially through emotions. Its
expressions are diverse and many-sided: holiness, creativity, artistic sensibility,
imagination, etc. Reference to this world is made, nonetheless, each time people
attain worth without bothering about opinions of others. It is, for example, the
case of artists. Artists do not necessarily reject public marks of reputation or financial
recognition, but they must, in order to be allowed to accept them, make a
compromise, which is always difficult to reach, with another kind of worth, say,
for example, with that of renown or of the market. Even when they attain recognition,
they never see in their success the very bases of their work’s value or of
their own.
In order to display the objects of the inspired world we used a practical guide
devoted to the development of executives’ creativity written by a ‘creativity
consultant’, whose title is La créativité en pratique. As with the other guides we
shall mention later, one can draw from this work a list of terms referring to
persons, objects, qualities and typical ways of making relations. Without going
into details, one can show that, in the world of inspiration, the relevant beings
are, for example, spirits, crazy people, artists, children. These beings are worthy
and great when they are odd, wonderful, emotional. Their typical way of acting
is to dream, to imagine, to rebel, or to have living experiences.
The Domestic World
The domestic world was extracted from a commentary of Bossuet’s work, La politique
tirée des propres paroles de l’Écriture sainte. In a domestic world, people’s
worth depends on a hierarchy of trust based on a chain of personal dependencies.
The political link between beings is seen as a generalization of kinship and
is based on face-to-face relationships and on the respect for tradition. The person,
cannot, in this world, be separated from his/her belonging to a body, a family, a
lineage, an estate. In Bossuet’s political construction, the king, who is the greatest
being, is comparable with a father, who sacrifices himself for his subjects. In
this model one must, to evaluate someone’s worth, know his place in the network
of dependencies from which this person draws his own authority.
In order to describe the objects of the domestic world of the present, we used
a practical guide teaching good manners and human relations within the
company, intended for socially mobile workers who had been promoted to more
responsible positions (entitled Savoir vivre et promotion). In this book, important
and worthy persons are chiefs, bosses, or even relatives. Their main qualities are
to be distinguished, straightforward, faithful and to have character. The typical
European Journal of Social Theory 2(3)3 7 0
10 Boltanski (jl/d) 2/7/99 1:35 pm Page 370
objects are, for instance, visiting cards, gifts, estates, houses, titles. Among the
relevant ways to make relationships we note the act of recommending somebody,
giving birth, breeding, reproducing or presenting an invitation.
The World of Renown
The world of renown was drawn from Hobbes’s Leviathan, particularly the
chapter devoted to honor. If, in a domestic world, worth has value only in a hierarchical
chain of beings, worth is nothing but the result of other people’s opinion
in the world of renown. The measurement of people’s worth depends on
conventional signs of public esteem. This kind of worth is based on nothing other
than the number of individuals who grant their recognition. It is hence entirely
unrelated to the realm of personal dependencies and it is not linked to the person’s
self-esteem. For this reason, disputes may arise when a gap between self-esteem
and recognition by others comes to light: in this world, other people’s recognition
is reality.
As a guide we used a training book in public relations, Principes et techniques
des relations publiques. In this world, relevant persons are well-known personalities,
stars, opinion leaders, journalists.They are worthy and great when they are famous,
recognized, successful, or convincing. The current objects in this world are trademarks,
badges, message transmitters and receivers, press releases and booklets. The
right way of making relations is, then, to influence, to identify oneself to somebody,
to appeal to or to speak about somebody, or to gossip and spread rumors.
The Civic World
Probably no work presents a better account of what a civic world, at least in its
French version, must be, than Rousseau’s Contrat social. In the civic polity, as in
the domestic polity according to Bossuet, civil peace depends on the authority of
a sovereign whose position, above the selfish lusts of individuals, secures the
common good. But Rousseau’s sovereign is disembodied. In the civic world, a
sovereign is formed by the convergence of human wills, as citizens give up their
particular interests and direct themselves exclusively towards the common good.
This civic worth counteracts the personal dependencies on which domestic worth
is based, as well as the opinions of others which constitute the worth of renown.
In the civic world, persons are small if seen as particulars, following the dictates
of a selfish will, and, in contrast, relevant and worthy if seen as members of the
disembodied sovereign, exclusively concerned with the general interest. In order
to list the main objects, persons and devices of a civic world, and to describe
companies’ situations set up according to this logic, we used two union guides,
published by the CFDT, which complement each other, Pour élire ou désigner les
délégués (How to elect or designate the delegates) and La section syndicale (The
union section). The way the labor force is organized in the field of work is regulated
by social laws which are themselves the outcome of the nineteenth-century
effort to implement a civic principle of equivalence.
Boltanski & Thévenot Sociology of Critical Capacity 3 7 1
10 Boltanski (jl/d) 2/7/99 1:35 pm Page 371
The peculiarity of the civic world is to lay stress on beings who are not individual
beings but collective ones. Individual human beings can be seen as relevant
and worthy only as they belong to a group or as they are the representatives
of a collective person. In this world, important persons are, therefore, federations,
public communities, representatives or delegates. Their qualities are to be official
or statutory. The relevant objects are either immaterial as, for example, rules,
codes, procedures, or material, as union premises or ballot boxes. Praiseworthy
relationships are those which involve or mobilize people for a collective action.
The Market World
Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations (primarily the first chapters describing how a
market works) yields arguments basing a harmonious polity on the market. The
market link coordinates individuals through the mediation of scarce goods, the
acquisition of which is pursued by everyone. This competition among the individuals’
lusts subordinates to the desires of others the price attached to the possession
of a commodity. ‘The calm desire for wealth’, as Albert Hirschman writes in
The Passions and the Interest (Hirschman, 1981), quoting Francis Hutcheson,
allows the construction of a harmonious order which transcends the confusion
of individual interests.
The market world must not be mixed up with the sphere of economic
relations. We try to show, on the contrary, that economic actions are based on,
at least, two main forms of coordination, one by the market, the other by an
industrial order, each of them being the support of a different reality test.
We did not succeed in finding a contemporary French guide that could be
used to describe the objects which are relevant in the mercantile world of today.
We therefore resorted to a French translation of an American book teaching the
art of business to a large audience, What they don’t teach you at Harvard Business
School. For our purpose, this book is of particular interest because it bases business
success on an experience which is conspicuously unconnected to industrial
production: the author made a fortune selling the names of famous people to
advertising agencies.
In a market world, important persons are buyers and sellers. They are worthy
when they are rich. Their main qualities are to be opportunistic in spotting and
seizing the opportunities of the market, to be unhampered by any personal link
and to be emotionally under control. They connect with one another through
competitive relationships.
The Industrial World
The industrial principle of equivalence was distilled from the work of Saint
Simon, founder of French sociology. In this world, worth is based on efficiency.
It can be measured on a scale of professional capabilities. Connected to the
production of material goods, industrial worth is upheld by way of organizational
devices directed towards future planning and investment.
European Journal of Social Theory 2(3)3 7 2
10 Boltanski (jl/d) 2/7/99 1:35 pm Page 372
To describe the objects of the industrial world we used a productivity guide,
Productivité et conditions de travail. In an industrial world the great persons are
the experts. The words used to describe their personal qualities can also be used
to qualify things. They are said to be worthy when they are efficient, productive,
operational. They implement tools, methods, criteria, plans, figures, graphs, etc.
Their relationships can be said to be harmonious when organized, measurable,
functional, standardized.
Criticisms and Compromises
Criticism can be internal to a world when flaws or faults are noticed, and beings
are re-qualified or discovered as relevant. Or criticism can be more radical and
based on an exteriority. Then, the critique stands outside and relies on an alternative
world. It is precisely because persons, unlike things, can exist in a plurality
of worlds that they always have the possibility of denouncing a situation as unjust
(even if criticism is unequally easy according to the current constraints they have
to deal with). In the model we outlined, a critical capability can then be seen as
a characteristically anthropological stance.
One can demonstrate empirically that most of what are today ordinary criticisms
are made possible by connecting two (or more) of the different worlds we
have schematically described. But the aim of the criticism can be more or less
radical. We can therefore make a distinction between two forms of criticism based
on an exteriority.
A first form of criticism consists in denouncing a reality test that is relevant
in a certain world by unveiling the presence inside the testing device itself of
extraneous beings (or outsiders), relevant in another world. Let us think, for
example, of a school examination aimed at measuring a pupil’s capabilities, and
which therefore can be said to be mainly industrial. One can denounce the pupil
for having displayed, during the test, his family’s status and wealth, through his
clothes, manners, distinguished accent, elegant jacket, and so on. One can, at the
same time, denounce the teacher by accusing him or her of having, consciously
or unconsciously, taken into account in the judgment these signs of opulence
which should not be relevant in the school evaluation. The situation is then criticized
as unfair because a kind of worth relevant inside one world has been carried
into another. We will call this figure a shift of worth. The underlying principle
on which the test is based is not challenged. In this case, the denunciation is
exclusively focused on unveiling the worth belonging to another world that
persons are accused of having introduced into the test situation. The reparation
process would then consist in carrying out a new and purer test.
But criticism can be much more radical. We shall outline now a second figure
in which the target of the criticism is the very principle of equivalence on which
the reality test is based. In this case, the aim of the criticism is to substitute for
the current test another one relevant in another world. Then the dispute is no
longer turned towards the way the test must be designed so as to be fair, but
Boltanski & Thévenot Sociology of Critical Capacity 3 7 3
10 Boltanski (jl/d) 2/7/99 1:35 pm Page 373
towards the question of knowing what kind of test, relevant in a certain world,
would really fit the situation. Let us again imagine a school examination situation.
But this time the test takes place on a day when students are protesting
outside for civil rights. The police have been brought in. There is shouting in the
street outside the windows. A teacher might denounce the way his colleagues are
continuing to administer the test while, outside, students are being beaten up by
the police. He can say something like: ‘What really matters just now is not that
the examination goes on, but that we demonstrate our solidarity with the
students.’
As this last example suggests, the less pure a situation is (in the sense that it
contains objects relevant in different worlds), the easier it is to denounce it. That
is to say, in this story, on one side, teachers, blackboards, schedules, etc., and on
the other side, protest, rights, posters with political slogans, solidarity claims, etc.
We will call such situations ambiguous situations (situations troubles).These kinds
of situations, which contain objects from several worlds, are particularly amenable
to criticism. It is probably the reason why the situations in which important
reality tests are performed are usually contrived so as to be as pure as possible.
The objects from other worlds are removed in order to discourage criticism and
to make the challenging of the test difficult. By intercrossing the six worlds
mentioned above, we have drawn up a matrix from which we have charted the
most frequent legitimate criticisms in our society. Thus, for instance, one can rely
on a civic principle of equivalence to denounce the personal links of the domestic
world. It is the case, for example, when unionists denounce paternalism in the
workshop. But one can also, inversely, criticize from the point of view of the
domestic world the civic way of linking people and, say, denounce the totalitarian
effect of the juridical relationships, which wreck genuine, humane, and warm
relationships among individuals.
The empirical exploration of this matrix can also reveal which cells are the
most overloaded. In France, for instance, the unveiling, from a civic point of view,
of hidden domestic links is extremely frequent. This figure upholds, for example,
the numerous denunciations of scandals. It is the case, for instance, when somebody
unveils the kinship or friendship link which secretly connects the mayor,
wearing the insignia of his office, to the property developer to whom the town
council allocated the construction of the new playground.
When a radical criticism challenges the very principle on which the situation
is based, the dispute transforms itself into a competition between two different
reality tests. If they want to close it, the people involved must try to come back
to one and only one test.
But one can consider another way of ending a dispute and reaching an agreement;
this is to set up a compromise between two worlds. In a compromise,
people maintain an intentional proclivity towards the common good by cooperating
to keep present beings relevant in different worlds, without trying to clarify
the principle upon which their agreement is grounded.5
But compromises are easy to denounce. When people compromise they act as
if they could rely upon a higher-level principle on which equivalence between
European Journal of Social Theory 2(3)3 7 4
10 Boltanski (jl/d) 2/7/99 1:35 pm Page 374
objects from different worlds could be based. The reference, for example, to
workers’ rights is a compromise between the civic world (where citizens have
rights) and the industrial one (where the workers are relevant and worthy as
opposed to the idle ones). The rights of persons as citizens in a civic world are
specified in relation to their participation in the industrial one. These weak argumentative
constructions (since their putting together will not survive a consistency
test) can be strengthened by their objectification into objects or institutions
which are made up of things relevant within the different worlds that are associated
through the compromise (as in France, for instance, the Conseil économique
et social, which links together in an objectified institution elements from the civic,
the industrial and, even, the domestic worlds).
Ending the Dispute
The two possibilities we have just mentioned – the reality test and the compromise
– are not the only paths which can be followed in order to leave the critical
moment and come back to the ordinary course of action. Frequently, people
just drop the dispute without making a new agreement confirmed by a reality
test. If we want to understand these puzzling endings, we probably must leave
the realm of justice, which depends on a principle of equivalence, in order to shift
towards other logics of action which, as in the case of affective relations, put aside
the reference to an equivalence. It is on such logics that forgiving is based (Boltanski,
1990). To mention forgetting and forgiveness is not to escape from the social
sciences. The kinds of relationship which are woven without any reference to
equivalence can also, for sure, be clarified through a sociological analysis and even
an empirical one, for lack of criticism is not merely negative, not merely the result
of domination and alienation. It often requires an active participation of the
persons and a special capacity so as not to see or, at least not to unveil, what is
going wrong. Without this capacity ordinary human relationships would simply
be impossible.
Notes
1 A first version of this text was a lecture given by Luc Boltanski at the Institute for
Advanced Study, Princeton, and benefited from Terry Nardin’s attentive reading,
comments and assistance. The argument presented here in a summarized form has been
developed in Boltanski and Thévenot (1987; 1991) and Boltanski (1990).
2 On this establishment of equivalence, see in English Boltanski (1987), Boltanski and
Thévenot (1983), Thévenot (1984).
3 For a comparison of this sense of justice with John Rawls’s and Michael Walzer’s
theories of justice, see Thévenot (1992) and the article ‘Justification et Compromis’ in
the Dictionnaire d’éthique et de philosophie morale (Canto-Sperber, 1996, pp. 789–94).
Paul Ricoeur compared Walzer’s and our models of justice in relation to the place
provided for politics (Ricoeur, 1995).
Boltanski & Thévenot Sociology of Critical Capacity 3 7 5
10 Boltanski (jl/d) 2/7/99 1:35 pm Page 375
4 See, in this perspective, Alexis Carrel’s attempt to build a ‘cité eugénique’ and its consequences
in the history of demography and statistics (Thévenot, 1990a).
5 In this perspective, we can view organizations as organizing relatively durable compromises
between different worlds. Organizations differ with respect to the kind of worlds
they mostly rely on, and the kind of compromises which support them.
References
Boltanski, Luc (1987) The Making of a Class. Cadres in French Society. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press/Paris: Éditions de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme.
–––– (1990) L’amour et la justice comme compétences. Paris: Éd. Métailié.
–––– (1993) La souffrance à distance. Morale humanitaire, médias et politique. Paris: Éd.
Métailié.
Boltanski, Luc and Thévenot, Laurent (1983) ‘Finding one’s way in social space: a study
based on games’, Social Science Information 22 (4/5): 631–79.
–––– (1987) Les économies de la grandeur. Paris: PUF (Cahiers du Centre d’Études de
l’Emploi).
–––– (1991) De la justification. Les économies de la grandeur. Paris: Gallimard.
Canto-Sperber, Monique, ed. (1996) Dictionnaire d’éthique et de philosophie morale. Paris:
PUF.
Hirschman, Albert (1981) The Passions and the Interests. Political Arguments for Capitalism
before its Triumph. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Ricoeur, Paul (1995) ‘La place du politique dans une conception pluraliste des principes
de justice,’ in Joëlle Affichard and Jean-Baptiste de Foucauld (eds) Pluralisme et équité:
penser la justice dans la démocratie. Paris: Éd. Esprit.
Thévenot, Laurent (1984) ‘Rules and Implements: Investment in Forms’, Social Science
Information 23(1): 1–45.
–––– (1990a) ‘La politique des statistiques: les origines sociales des enquêtes de mobilité
sociale’, Annales Économie Société Culture No. 6: 1275–300.
–––– (1990b) ‘L’action qui convient’, in Patrick Pharo and Louis Quéré (eds) Les formes
de l’action, pp. 39–69. Paris: Éditions de l’EHESS (Raisons pratiques 1).
–––– (1992) ‘Un pluralisme sans relativisme? Théories et pratiques du sens de la justice’,
in Joëlle Affichard and Jean-Baptiste de Foucauld (eds) Justice sociale et inégalités, pp.
221–53. Paris: Éd. Esprit.
–––– (1994) ‘Le regime de familiarité: des choses en personnes’, Genèses No. 17: 72–101.
–––– (1995) ‘L’action en plan’, Sociologie du Travail 27(3): 411–34.
–––– (1999), ‘Which road to follow? The moral complexity of an “equipped” humanity’
in John Law and Annemarie Mol Complexities in Science, Technology and Medicine
(forthcoming).
s Luc Boltanski is Professor at the Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales
and Director of the Groupe de Sociologie Politique et Morale, Paris. His recent
publications include L’Amour et la justice comme compétence (1990) and La souffrance
à distance (1993). He is currently completing a book co-authored with Eve
Chiapello on changing forms of justification in the recent transformations of
European Journal of Social Theory 2(3)3 7 6
10 Boltanski (jl/d) 2/7/99 1:35 pm Page 376
capitalism. Address: EHESS, Groupe de sociologie politique et morale, 54, bd
Raspail, F-75006 Paris. [email: boltanski@ehess.fr]
s Laurent Thévenot is Professor at the Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences
Sociales, Director of the Groupe de Sociologie Politique et Morale, and senior
researcher at the Centre d’Etudes de l’Emploi, Paris. His recent publications include
Les objets dans l’action (with Bernard Conein and Nicolas Dodier); Cognition et
information en société (with Bernard Conein). A co-edited book with Michèle
Lamont presenting the results of four years’ comparative research is forthcoming
with Cambridge University Press: Comparing Cultures and Polities: Repertoires of
Evaluation in France and the United States. Address: EHESS, Groupe de sociologie
politique et morale, 54, bd Raspail, F-75006 Paris. [email: thevenot@ehess.fr]
Boltanski & Thévenot Sociology of Critical Capacity 3 7 7
10 Boltanski (jl/d) 2/7/99 1:35 pm Page 377