The Sociology of Critical Capacity (Boltanski and Thévenot, 1999) II

Bruno Magalhaes says

Notes from discussion on Boltanski and Thevenot (1999) ‘The Sociology of Critical Capacity’

Bruno, Stephan, Helen and Andras

Questions/topics:
What is the text good for?
Do they try to reappropriate the stance of critique?
How do ideas of methodological individualism connect to the autonomy of agent?

A. Like the difference btw critical sociology and sociology of critique. Comparison with economic theory of agency. Here they do not over explain the subject, refer to external circumstances but focus is on what the actor does. When doing critical sociology, one argues for what the text is good for. Here it is more focus on the critical moment. It is an innovative practical critique. Compare with ‘New Spirit of Capitalism’. They are students of Bourdieu, practical theorists, practicalists. They characterize two types of critique; what kind of critique you can use; social and artistic/cultural. In different time, different types of critique dominate. 1968 was typical of cultural critique. Management discourse then appropriated this critique.

S. Notion of autonomy relates to labour movement in 1970; how one can initiate protest without formal representation. Workers have autonomy from party/union, and from capitalism. Autonomous Marxism: workers have autonomy/control of capital, can control their work, hence control capital production.

B. Focus on action of workers but also dependent on structural explanation. B&T take this further, this action cannot be structured in grand theory, but in how processes of negotiation work.

A. They still have a theory of capitalism. But they do not really make explicitly what we should do with their work. Good starting point to look at data differently.

S. They draw attention to each situation and how they differ, that we constantly shift between these logics/situations. I can relate to this in my everyday life, but still, their arguments still draw on a lot of assumptions. Compare with James Scott’s ‘Weapons of the weak’, hidden and public transcripts.

A. Describe it as a practical handbook, but seems unrealistic and too much focus on rational actors. Must transcend generalizations. How? More incremental change, small changes by actors rather than large transformative processes. They do not do revolutionary politics, but focus on negotiation.

B. Do they try to develop an ideal type of positive negotiation?

S. If I compare to the situation of applying for visa at a consulate, what then is the logic, because it is a clash of many different relations.

H. Do they not completely lack an analysis of power relations? Compare with how the ‘weaker’ part always need to give up the most in a situation of compromise.

B. They try to answer that, negotiations do happen although there are unequal power relations. They try to show this, look at p 364. Do not deny power relations but there is also success of negotiations. They are really pragmatic.

A. This text can be used to justify particular argument and used as a toolkit.

1 February 2011, 20:25