Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
warwick.ac.uk/lib-publications
Original citation: Stark, David (2017) For what it's worth. In: Cloutier , Charlotte and Gond , Jean-Pascal and Leca, Bernard , (eds.) Justification, Evaluation and Critique in the Study of Organizations. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 52. Emerald Group Publishing Ltd., pp. 383-397. ISBN 9781787143807 Permanent WRAP URL: http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/88991 Copyright and reuse: The Warwick Research Archive Portal (WRAP) makes this work by researchers of the University of Warwick available open access under the following conditions. Copyright © and all moral rights to the version of the paper presented here belong to the individual author(s) and/or other copyright owners. To the extent reasonable and practicable the material made available in WRAP has been checked for eligibility before being made available. Copies of full items can be used for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge. Provided that the authors, title and full bibliographic details are credited, a hyperlink and/or URL is given for the original metadata page and the content is not changed in any way. Publisher’s statement: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/S0733-558X20170000052011 A note on versions: The version presented here may differ from the published version or, version of record, if you wish to cite this item you are advised to consult the publisher’s version. Please see the ‘permanent WRAP URL’ above for details on accessing the published version and note that access may require a subscription. For more information, please contact the WRAP Team at: [email protected]
1
ForWhatIt’sWorth
DavidStark
ColumbiaUniversityand
UniversityofWarwick
Abstract. Thisessaytakesitspointofdeparturefromtheintellectualmilieuinthemid1980sthatgaverisetoLucBoltanskiandLaurentThévenot’sbook,OnJustification:EconomiesofWorth.Itshowshowexposuretoideasandconceptsinthatbookcametotakevariedformsastheywereelaboratedandmodifiedinthe work of an American sociologist across several decades of research indiverseempiricalsettings.
ForthcominginResearchintheSociologyofOrganizations,2017,Volume52.Justification,EvaluationandCritiqueintheStudyofOrganizations:ContributionsfromFrenchPragmatistSociology;Keywords.Ordersofworth,valuation,dissonance,situations,innovation,pragmatism.Acknowledgements.ThisworkwassupportedbytheEuropeanResearchCouncil(ERC)undergrantagreementno.695256.MythankstoSimonBittmann,ElenaEsposito,GeoffFougere,andIstvánGáborfortheircommentsandsuggestions.
2
ForWhatIt’sWorth
DavidStark
ColumbiaUniversityandUniversityofWarwickIntroductionLucBoltanskiandLaurentThévenot’sinfluentialbook,DeLaJustification.LesÉconomiesdelaGrandeur(OnJustification.TheEconomiesofWorth)(1991,2006)waspublishedmorethan25yearsago.Buttheideasandconceptsofthatimportantworkwerealreadyhavinganinfluenceevenbeforethebook’spublication,firstthroughthePhDseminarthatBoltanskiandThévenottaughttogetherattheÉcoledesHautesÉtudesenSciencesSociales(EHESS)andlaterasthemanuscriptcirculatedamongtheirParisiancircles,includingeconomistsofthe“Conventions”SchoolandsociologistsintheGroupedeSociologiePolitiqueetMorale(GSPM)whichtheyfoundedin1985.Iwasoneofthosesociologists.And(adoptingaphrasefromthetechnologycommunity)itisasan“earlyadopter”thatIwritethisessay.Beinganearlyuseroftheconceptsof“leséconomiesdelagrandeur”(economiesofworth)doesnotmeanthatIwritefromaprivilegedposition.Myunderstandingsandmisunderstandings(moreonthis,elaboratedbelow)arenomoreworthythantheinitialinsightsofareaderwhohasjustnowbeeninspiredbyreadingOnJustificationforthefirsttime.Theyareneitherbetternorworse.Theyarevaluablebecausetheyaredifferent.Mymisunderstandingscomewithahistory–havingheardtheconceptsbeingworkedoutwhiletakingwrittenform,andhavingusedthemastheoreticalreferencepoints(evenwhiledepartingfromthem)forseveraldecades.Theyarevaluablebecausetheyhaveahistory;andtherearelimitstotheirusefulnessforthesamereason.Perhapssomeonelessfamiliarwiththeirgenesiscouldseetheconnectionsamongtheconceptsmoreclearlyandbelesslikelytomisinterpret.CertainlytheacolyteswillcomplainthatIhavenotbeentruetotheoriginaltext.Itisforthereadertobethejudge.Forme,sciencemeansthatmyfirstandlastfidelitiesaretobefaithfultomyresearchmaterials–notbecauseofsomepositivistbeliefinthe“facts”butbecauseIfindthattheconstraintsposedbydata(whetherethnographic,comparativehistorical,ornetworkanalytic)arelikelytobemoreinteresting,challenging,andpotentiallycreativethanthoseposedbytheory.Forgoodorbad,thatismydisposition.AnditisfromthisdispositionthatIwriteanessayinwhichthereadercanseehowasetofideastowhichIwasexposedinmyformativeyearscametotakevariedformsastheywereelaboratedandmodifiedacrossseveraldecadesofresearchindiverseempiricalsettings.
3
EarlyAdoptionIwasfortunatetomeetLucBoltanskiintheSpringof1982.LucwasvisitingatHarvard’sCenterforEuropeanStudieswhereIwasagraduateresearchassociatecompletingthelastphaseofmydissertation.Webecamefastfriends,solidifiedwhenIsawhimnearlyeverydayforseveralmonthsinthespring/earlysummerof1983,havingbeeninvitedbyPierreBourdieutobeafellowattheCentredeSociologieEuropéenneinParis.Let’sjustsayitwastremendouslyexciting:talkingwithBourdieuandBoltanski;meetingLaurentThévenot,AlainDesrosières,BrunoLatour,andothers;andexperiencingtheenergyaroundActesdelaRechercheenSciencesSociales(probablythelastmomentofrealinnovationinthefieldofnon-digitalsocialscientificjournalpublishing).FromParis,ItooktheOrientExpresstoBudapestwhereIspentthefinalmonthsofthesummerdoingthefieldworkwhich,continuedoverthenextthreeyears,wouldbecomethebasisformypaper,“Work,Worth,andJustice.”1ThatpaperwasdraftedintheFallof1986,whileIwasavisitingfellowatthenewlyfoundedGSPM,2whereBoltanskiandThévenotwerebeginningtowriteLesÉconomiesdelaGrandeur(theworkingtitleofthemanuscriptfirstpublishedin1987).3DuringthosemonthsIwasliterallymovingbackandfortheverycoupleofweeksfromfieldworkin
1ThispaperwasfirstpublishedinFrenchbyBourdieuinActesdelarechercheensciencessocialesin1990(Stark1990a).TheoriginalEnglishversioncirculatedasaWorkingPaperfromHarvard’sCenterforEuropeanStudies(Stark1990b).BecauseVivianaZelizerassignedtheunpublishedpaperformanyyearsinhereconomicsociologyseminaratPrincetonithadareadershiplargerthanthatofsomeotherpublishedpapers.I’mgratefultoherforgivingitanaudienceduringitslonghibernationbeforeiteventuallyappearedasChapter2ofTheSenseofDissonance.Foramoredetailedaccountofthenearly20yeardelayfromdrafttopublicationseethePrefaceinStark(2009,pp.xi-xv). 2 TheformationoftheGSPMwasaninstitutionalmarkerofBoltanski’sseparationfromBourdieu,hismentor,co-author,andfriend.Theresultingconflictwasacrimonious.Duringthistime,IdidwhatanAmericansociologistwassupposedtodo:Italkedtopeopleincampswhoweren’ttalkingtoeachotherand,infact,forbadeeventheirstudentsfromdoingso.Ibreaknoconfidences(theirpersonalaffectionforeachotherfamousforrunningmuchdeeperthantheirtemporaryprofessionalantagonism)whenIreportthatBourdieu’sfirstquestionatlunchwasalways“Tellme.How’sLuc?”andBoltanski’sfirstquestionatdinner“How’sPierre?” 3DelaJustification.LesÉconomiesdelaGrandeuroriginallypublishedin1991isactuallyareeditionofapriorbook,publishedin1987bythePressesUniversitairesdeFranceinits“CahiersduCentred’étudesdel’emploi”seriesandtitledLesÉconomiesdelaGrandeur.The1991versionhadanewpostface,alongertitleincludingtheterm“justification”aswellasaslightlychangedterminology.SomeelementsofthetheoreticalfoundationsofOnJustificationweredevelopedbyLucBoltanskiinparallelinanotherbookpublishedinbetween(1990),L’AmouretlaJusticecommeCompétences.TroisEssaisdeSociologiedel’Action(translatedin2012asLoveandJusticeasCompetences.ThreeEssaysontheSociologyofAction).TheempiricalmaterialusedbyBoltanskiandThévenottodeveloptheirideasbetween1987and1991isaseriesofempiricalstudiesconductedbyvarioussociologistsandgroupedinthecollectivebooktheyeditedin1989andtitled:JustesseetJusticedansleTravail(Paris,PressesUniversitairesdeFrance,notyetpublishedinEnglishtothebestofourknowledge).
4
BudapesttoseminarsattheGSPMinParis.ThatethnographicresearchwasconductedinseveralHungarianfactories(thepapereventuallyfocusedonone)wheregroupsofworkersinsidestate-ownedenterpriseshadbeenallowedtoform“intrapreneurial”unitsthatsubcontractedtoproducegoodsorservicesontheoffhoursandonweekends.“From6to2weworkforthem,”sothesayingwent,“from2to6weworkforourselves.”Thesituationwasanorganizationalsociologist’sdream:inthesamesettingwiththesametechnologyandthesameemployees,workersoperatedintwodifferentformsoforganization,shiftingwithinasingledayfromworkthatwasbureaucraticallyorganizedtoworkthattheynon-bureaucraticallyorganizedthemselves(electingtheirownrepresentatives,pricingtheirproducts,anddistributingtheirearnings).TheHungarian“experiment”wasalsotheperfectsettingtoputinplaytheideasthatBoltanskiandThévenotwerehammeringoutinParis.“Yes,they’reright!”youcouldalmosthearmeshout,“There’snotoneeconomy,butmany.AndIcanfindtheminonefactory.”Thesamefortheconceptofworthasinextricablyeconomicandmoral,whichIcouldelaboratebyreunitingthenotionsofvalueandvaluesthathadbeendisciplinarilyseparatedtoeconomicsandsociologyin“Parsons’Pact.”4Orsimilarlywiththeirusefulnotionoftestsor“proofsofworth”whichIcouldseemarkedlyenactedintheBudapestmachinetoolmakerspainful(andneverentirelysuccessful)effortstoconstructinternalpaymentsystemsthatwouldfairlyallocatetheirearningswhileaffirmingtheirself-identities.Iftheseconceptshelpedmetoanalyzetheresearchmaterialsfrommyethnographicfieldwork(withJánosLukács)inHungaryduringthe1980s,theywouldalsoservemewellinNewYorkCityinthe1990sandearly2000s.WithMoniqueGirardIstudiedanewmediastartupinManhattan’sSiliconAlley,analyzinghowitsdailyfunctioninganditsdynamicsovertimecouldbeunderstoodastherepeatedinterchangeamongdistinctordersofworthasprogrammers,interactivedesigners,informationarchitects,merchandisingspecialists,andbusinessstrategistsdisagreedaboutwhatwasvaluable.Similarly,withDanielBeunzaweshowedthatthesearchforvalueinthederivativestradingroomofamajorinternationalinvestmentbankonWallStreetwasorganizedbythediscreteprinciplesofvaluationwithinandacrossthevariousarbitragedesks(mergerarbitrage,statisticalarbitrage,index,convertiblebonds,etc.).Hungarianfactory,newmediastartup,WallStreettradingroom–eachwasasettingwheremultipleeconomiesofworthwereatplay.
4Withthenotionof“Parsons’Pact”IrefertoTalcottParsons’conversationswithhiscolleaguesinHarvard’sDepartmentofEconomicswhenhelaunchedhisgrandschemetocolonizethesocialsciences–withtheexceptionofeconomics.AsIexpresseditcolloquially:You,theeconomists,studyvalue;wesociologistsstudyvalues.Youstudytheeconomy;westudythesocialrelationsinwhicheconomiesareembedded.(Stark2009,p.7).SimilartothemoveinScienceandTechnologyStudiestoshiftfromtheMertonianproblemofstudyingtheinstitutionsinwhichscienceisembeddedtostudyingtheactualpracticesofscientistsatworkinthelaboratory,Iarguedthateconomicsociologistsshouldshifttostudyingtheactualpracticesofvaluationintheeconomy.Theconceptofworthisinterestingbecauseitconotesvaluesandvalue,esteemandestimation.SeeStark2009,pp.7-10.
5
Butasthisbriefaccountingindicates,whileIwasutilizingtheconceptofordersofworth,atnopointdidIoperationalizethemasinstantiationsofthefamoussextet–market,inspiration,civic,industrial,domestic,andfame–elaboratedinOnJustification.MyaccountoftheHungariantoolmakers,forexample,naivelyreferredtothethreeeconomiesinsidethesocialistfactoryusingthePolanyiantriplicate–market,redistribution,reciprocity.ThatwastheformulationIusedwhenIfirstpresented“Work,Worth,andJustice”attheGSPMinDecember1986.Irememberitwell.Myfieldnoteswerehardlydry(nolaptopsinthoseprehistorictimes),mytextwaslitteredwithbrackets“[tobecompleted],”andmyvoicedoubtlessconveyedmyenthusiasmattheopportunitytogivelivingshapetotheideasthatwerebeingdiscussedintheseminar.LaurenttookthefloorimmediatelyasIwastotakequestions.ThemessagetothePhDstudentswasnotsubtle:Ihadnotunderstoodthetheory,myeclecticeffortsweremisleading,andIshouldnotbeemulated.Yes,Iwasanearlyadopter.Butthefirstuser,itseems,wasalsothefirstabuser.CoordinationItwouldbeasafeestimatethatmysubsequentconversationswithLucandLaurentnumberedinthedozens.Nothundreds,butnumerousnonetheless–inParisoratWisconsin,Cornell,andColumbiawhereIwasaffiliated,aswellasatvariousseminars,workshops,andconferenceswherewemetovertheyears.Ihadnotgivensecondthoughttomyabuserstatus;and,besides,therewasworktobedonetomakethebookavailabletotheEnglish-readingaudience.Aftersufferingabotchedtranslation,wefoundanexcellenttranslator(CatherinePorter),andOnJustificationwaspublishedin2006byPrincetonUniversityPressforwhichIwrotethejacketblurb:
"BoltanskiandThévenot'sOnJustificationisoneofthemostimportantcontributionstothefieldofeconomicsociologyinthepastdecade.Itdoesnotfitneatlyintoanyofthemajortheoreticalperspectivesthatcurrentlydominatethefield–institutionalism,organizationalecology,networkanalysis,rationalchoice,ortransaction-costeconomics.Butpreciselybecauseitissooriginal,ithasgreatpotentialtochartnewterritoryandenlivendebates.ThebookhasalreadyhadanenormousimpactinFrance,whereitisoneofthefoundingdocumentsofthe'economicsofconventions'school.ItissuretohaveabigimpactinsociologyintheUnitedStatesandBritaintoo.Icouldlistatleasttwentymajorsociologistswhohaveaskedmewhenthebookwillbetranslated."
Tenyearsisnotreallyenoughtimetomakesomethinganhistoricaldocument,butitisinterestingtolookbackontheseremarksinlightofwhattranspired.Rationalchoiceandtransaction-costeconomicsdidnothaveamajorinfluenceinsociology(fewthesedayswouldconsiderthemperspectivescontendingwiththeotherapproaches),andOnJustificationnolongerlookslikeafoundingdocumentofthe“conventions”school–
6
becauseitsimpacthasbeensostrongthatwethinkofitnowasfoundingsomethingofitsown.Asmyremarkscorrectlyanticipated,ithaschartednewterritoryoutsidetheconventionalapproaches,evenwhileresearchersworkingwithintheinstitutionalist,organizationalecology,ornetworkanalyticperspectivesdrawonitsinsights.Mybook,TheSenseofDissonance:AccountsofWorthinEconomicLife,isrightlyregardedasacontributiontothetheoreticalpathoutlinedbyBoltanskiandThévenot.Itsintroductorychapter,forexample,explicitlyacknowledgestheinfluenceofOnJustification.ButThévenotwasrighttowarnhisPhDstudentsthatIwasalessthanfaithfulfollower–butnotbecauseIhadmisunderstoodtheirargumentorbecauseIhadfailedtoconstructmyargumentintermsoftheircanonical“economies.”Instead,asIalsomakeexplicitinTheSenseofDissonance(Stark2009,pp.xiii-xivand10-15),thefindingsfrommyfieldresearchwereleadingmetotakeissuewithpartsofthetheory.ForBoltanskiandThévenot,theprinciplesofjustificationthatcompriseanorderofworthmatterbecausetheymakeitpossibleforactorstocoordinatetheiractions.Inaworldofuncertainty,5weconfrontsituations.What’sgoingonhere?Whenthesituationisnotjustanyoldsettingbutasetup–inwhichtheprinciplesofoneorderofwortharethosemostreadilyavailableforaction–thenuncertaintyisdispelledandwecanact.Nolongeruncertainaboutwhatcounts,Icanactand,mostimportantly,wecancoordinateouractions.Agreementaboutwhichorderofworthisoperative(typicallyunstated,butwiththemeansforjustificationimmediatelytohand)facilitatescoordination.Thatistheargument.Butthefieldresearchthatformsthesubstantivechaptersofmybookandsubsequentnetworkanalyticresearchhavegivenmereasontothinkdifferently.Thereisnotmuchaboutwhicheconomistsandsociologistsagree.Butthereisonenotionthattheyholdincommon:Frictionisbad.Ineconomics,“friction”istheproblemtobeovercomeby“loweredtransactioncosts”(Williamson1981).Insociology,coordinationismadepossiblebywhatissharedbythemembersofagroupororganization–sharedvalues,sharednorms,sharedexpectations,sharedunderstandings.Heretoofrictionisbad.Impedimentstocoordinationcanberesolved,inthepopsociologyvernacular,“ifwealljustgettogetherandironoutourdifferences.”Justaseconomistsemphasizesmoothtransactions,soorganizationaltheoristsofwhateverdisciplinarystripelaudthesmoothtransmissionofinformation(BorgattiandCross2003;Coleman1988).ButasmytiredealerandIknow,frictionisnotalwaysabadthing.Onasnowy,icyroadIdon’twantthingstobesmooth.Widespreadagreementinanorganizationorinamarketcanleadtoconformityandcalamity.Pricebubbles,forexample,arethemarketequivalentofatoosmooth,icyroad.WithSheenLevineandothercolleagues,wedesignedanexperimentalmarkettotesttheeffectofethnicdiversityonpricebubbles.
5ThepreoccupationwithuncertaintystemsfromtheircloseinvolvementwiththeFrenchgroupworkingontheeconomicsofconvention.SeeStark(2009,pp.10-15).FormoreontheConventionsSchoolseeJagd(2007).
7
Ourfindingsshowedthatmarketswheretraderswereallofthesameethnicity(whetherinSingaporeorinTexas)exhibitedconsiderablyworsebubblesandmispricing.Ethnicdiversity,weconcluded,disruptsconformityandleadstobetterinformationprocessing(Levineetal2014).Butfrictionisnotonlyimportantforerrordetection.Acrossverydifferentsettings,thefieldresearchforTheSenseofDissonancefoundthataction–and,inparticular,innovativeaction–wasfacilitatednotbyconvergenceoragreementonaprincipleofjustificationbutbythedivergenceofevaluativeprinciples.Infact,morethanthesimplecoexistenceofordersofworth,innovationispromotedbythecollisionofevaluativeprinciples.Itiswhenthingsdonotfittogethercomfortablythatnovelrecombinationsbecomethinkable.Disagreementaboutwhat’svaluablecanmakefornewvaluepropositions.Organizationscreatewealthwhentheysupportdissonantprinciplesofworth.6Thus,whereastheIntroductionofTheSenseofDissonanceopenedwiththeprinciplesofOnJustification,bytheconcludingchapterIwasconsideringtheideathatwecanactinconcertwhenwedonotagreeaboutwhyouractionsarevaluable.Whereasmuchsociologicalthinkingholdsthatcoordinationispossiblebecauseofsharedunderstandings,Iwonderedwhetherakindofinnovativecoordinationwaspossiblebecauseofourmisunderstandings(Stark2009pp.190-5).Canmisunderstandingbeameansofcoordination?Thequestionisdeliberatelyprovocative.WhatIintendtoprovokearefurtherresearchquestions.Whatarethelimitsofdissonance?Candissonancebemanaged?Whatarethesocialstructural(ororganizational)conditionsunderwhichthefrictionofmisunderstandingscanbecomeaproductivetension?ThislastchallengewastheanimatingresearchquestionofaprojectIrecentlyconductedwithmyformerPhDstudentsMathijsdeVaanandBalazsVedres.Asinthethreeethnographiccasestudiesinmybook,here,too,theproblemwastostudythefactorsthatfacilitateinnovationwhentheunitofcreativityisateam.Butforthisstudy,insteadofethnographyweusedthetoolsofhistoricalnetworkanalysis.Ourgoalwastounderstandthesociologicalfactorsthatexplainwhysomecreativeteamsareabletoproduceaculturalproductthatisnotonlyinventivebutalsocritically
6Theorganizationalformthatpromotesthisreflexivityisaheterarchy.ItakethetermfromMcCulloch(1945).Heterarchyisnotsimplytheabsenceorflatteningofhierarchybutinvolves,justasimportantly,theorganizeddissonanceofrivalrousevaluativeprinciples(seeespecially,Stark2009:pp.19-31).Heterachiesarenotnecessarilythemselvesorganizations;and,asasocialform,theycanbequitestable:TheU.S.Constitutionenscribesaheterarchicalformintherelationshipamongthebranchesofthefederalgovernment.Theirmultipleprinciplesofjustificationarenotanorganizationalorconceptualhierarchy(Stark2009,p.31).
8
successful.Inculturalfieldswherethedifferencebetween“exciting”and“weird”canberazorthin,aproductcanbeinnovativewithoutbeingsuccessfulandcanbesuccessfulwithoutbeinginnovative.Tobeagamechanger,theteammustmakeaproductthatisnotonlydistinctivebutalsohighlyregarded.Itmuststandoutandbedeemedoutstanding(deVaan,Vedres,andStark2015).Tostudythisproblem,wecollecteddataoneverycommerciallyreleasedvideogameintheglobalvideogameindustryfrom1979to2009.Thedatasetweanalyzedcomprisedapproximately12,500videogamesandthecareerhistoriesofsome140,000videogamedevelopers.Becausewehaddataoneveryvideogamewewereabletoreconstruct,foreachteam,thehistoriesofallofthedeveloperswhoworkedtogetheronit.Twovariableswereofgreatestinterest:onemeasuringcognitivedistance,anothermeasuringgroupstructure.Fortheformer,wecouldreconstructforeverymemberontheteamthecompletesetofcognitive(orstylistic)elementstowhichthatdeveloperhadbeenexposed.Withthiswecouldcomputethecognitivedistanceamongthemembersofeveryteam.Teamswhosemembershadworkedonverysimilargameswouldhavelittledifficultcommunicatingandcouldunderstandeachothereasily;teamswhosemembershadworkedongamesinthepastwithverydifferentelementswouldhavegreaterdifficultyunderstandingeachother.Forthesocialstructuralvariable,wewereinterestedinexploringhowateamisnotjustcomposedofindividualsbutismadeupofgroups,analyzedhereasmemberswhohadworkedtogetherinthepastonapriorvideogame.Oncewehadidentifiedthevariousgroupsinateamonthisbasiswecouldthencomputethecognitivedistanceacrossgroupsaswellasmovetoanalyzethepatternsoftiesconnectingthem(againbasedonpriorco-participation).Inthemorefamiliarnetworkanalyticterms,groupscouldbe“isolates”ortheycouldbrokeredacrossa“structuralhole.”Butwealsoidentifiedathirdtopographicfeatureinwhichgroupscouldbe“structurallyfolded”(VedresandStark2010)wherecohesivegroupsoverlapped.Ourfindingsindicatedthatgamechangingsuccesswasmostlikelywhencognitivelydistantgroupswerestructurallyfolded.Suchteamswereheldintension:cognitivedistancewaspullingthegroupsapartwhilestructuralfoldingwasbindingthemtogether.Thecombinationwasaproductivetensionthathelpedtomitigatethetwogreatestthreatsfacingcreativeteamswithdissonantpatterns.Ontheonesidethereistheprobleminwhichtheinitialmomentofmisunderstandingresultsinquickdismissal.Ontheothersideistheproblemofreachingagreementtooquickly–butatthelevelofthelowestcommondemoninator.Cognitivedistanceimpededthesmoothflowofinformation,andtheresultingeddiesandpoolswereopportunitiesfordeparturesfromexistingroutines.Meanwhile,thepocketsoftrustestablishedbystructuralfoldingcreatedanatmosphereinwhichtheoperativemodewas“holdtight”–bepatient,toleratetheambiguity,lookfornewopenings.Teamswiththesecharacteristicsproducedgamechangingproductsthatwereinnovativeandcriticallyacclaimed.
9
Returningtothebroaderthemeoftheimportanceofprincipledagreement,therewill,ofcourse,bethosewhosay(asIcaricature):It’sgoodtothinkaboutalternativeviews,butwhenallissaidanddone,foragrouptofunctioneffectivelyitneedsacommonpurpose.Thereneedstobeagreement.Afor-profitcompany,forexample,hastobelookingtothebottomline.Youcan’thavepeopleactinglikeit'sakindergartenoranartschool.Tothis,wecanmaketherejoinderthatcompaniesthatpayexclusivefocustothebottomlinedosoattheirperil.Itneedn’tbeakindergarten,butshouldn’tinspiringitsemployeesandcaringfortheirwellbeingbeimportantobjectives?Similarly,shorttermprofitsthatinterferewithmakingagreatproductorthatscoffatcivicvirtuescanleadtoruin.Moreover,what’sthevalueofagreatproductifnooneispayingattention?Ratherthanagreementwithinamarketmonoculture,theheterarchyofsuchevaluativeprinciplescanbethecoursetolongtermviability.7Notably,wecanre-expressthestatementsintermsofordersofworth–inorderastheyappearinthisparagraph:market,inspiration,domestic,industrial,civic,andfame–preciselythecanonicaleconomiesofOnJustification.ValuationThebrevityofmysummaryofOnJustification(page6above)necessarilydidviolencetothenuancesofitsargument.Butithadthevirtueoffocusingontwoorthreecorepremises.WhendiscussingBoltanskiandThévenot’sviewsoncoordinationIpointedtotheiremphasisonthesituation.AlthoughIturnnowfromcoordinationtovaluation,theemphasiswillremainonanalyzingthesituation.Valuationtakesplaceinsituations.Whatisthesituation?What’sgoingonhere?Thequestionsareinterestingbecausetheyareonesfacingthesocialactors.HowdoIsizeupthesituation?Forthesocialactorthisdoesnotmeanjustacceptingthesituationasagiven;itcanalsomeantheattempttomakethesituationoneinwhichthescalesofvaluationwillmeasureinunitsinwhichmyvalueissizable(Stark1996,pp.1013-14;Stark2009,pp.68-72).Thequestionsarealsointerestingbecausetheyareonesthattheanalystshouldbeasking.Infact,whereastoomuchofthefieldoforganizationstudiesseesamethodologicalinstitutionalismastheonlyalternativetomethodologicalindividualism,infact,thereisalternativetoboth:methodologicalsituationalism(Knorr-Cetina1981;Stark2009,pp9-10,31-33,and185).ThisemphasisonthesituationisthekeythemerunningthroughthechaptersinMomentsofValuation:ExploringSitesofDissonance,avolumeIrecentlyco-editedwithwithArianeBerthoinAntalandMichaelHutter.AsMichaelHutterandIarguedintheintroductoryessay,valuationalwaystakesplaceinsituations–bywhichwemeanthatvaluationis1)spatiallylocalizedand2)temporallymarked(HutterandStark2015).Thus,
7 Thesameargumentappliesnotonlyattheorganizationallevelbutatthesocietallevelaswell(Stark,2009,“Reprise,”pp.204-212).
10
studyingvaluationinsiturequires,first,detailedaccountsofhowthesettingissetupasanassemblagewhetherthisbeinthestagings,equipments,andprotocolsofpublicsituationssuchasthecourtroom,theconcerthall,orthewinetastingorinthespecializedtools,devicesandmaterialsofthelesspublicassemblagessuchasthelaboratory,thearchitecturalstudio,ortheperfumecounter.Second,studyingvaluationinsituationsrequiresdetailedanalysisofhowittakesplaceindiscretemomentsoftimewhenevaluativeattentionisparticularlyacute:theattentivemomentwhenadinnerguestfirstsipsaglassofwine(Hennion2015),theinstantwhenaluxuryperfumeissprayedintoaspecialdeviceallowingthecustomerasenseofitssillage(thescentedtrailleftbyafragrancewearer)(Trébuchet-Breitwiller2015),orthemomentwhentheprofessionalartappraiseriscross-examinedinthecourtroomwitnessbox(Brewer2015).Suchattentivemoments,Iwanttostress,arecriticalmoments.Theyarecritical,notonlybecausetheyfrequentlyinvolveacritic(and,ofcourse,manymomentsofvaluationdonothavecritics,judges,juries,andreviewers).Theyarecritical,moreimportantly,becausetheyaremomentswhentheoutcomeisnotfullysetupinadvance.Criticalbecauseoutcomesdependonwhathappens,onwhodoeswhatwheninthecriticalmoment.Theyarecriticalmoments,aboveall,becausetheycanbecontested.Forallitsemphasisonlogicsofaction,methodologicalinstitutionalismhaslotsoflogicsbutseldomhasaction–andevenlessdispute.Aprogramofmethodologicalsituationalism,bycontrast,willpayattentiontothosemomentsthatJohnDeweycalled“troublingandperplexingsituations”(Dewey1998,p.140)–inthevernacular,“Uh,oh,wehaveasituationonourhandshere”–asithighlightsthesitesandcriticalmomentsofdisputeandcontestation.Forthefurtherstudyofvaluation,twointer-relatedresearchproblemsseemparticularlypromising.Let’srefertothefirstquestionaspricingorprizing.Aboutpricingeconomistshavewrittenmuch,andsociologistsandanthropologistsarenowcontributingnewinsights(Beckert,2001;Guyer,2009;Muniesa,2007;andVelthuis2005).ButIturnimmediatelyto“prizing”foritislikelytobemoresurprising.ByprizesonemightthinkfirstoftheNobelPrizes,PulitzerPrizes,andOscarAwards(andmoreonsuchcompetitionsbelow).HereIwanttoexpandthenotionofprizingasanactivityofappraising(comparabletobutdifferentfrompricing)evenwhenitdoesnotliterallytaketheformofanaward.Merchantspriceitemsintheirstores.Reviewersprizeamoviebyawardingit3stars;RobertParkerawardsprizestowineswhenhescoressomehighersomelower;andcollegesareprizedwhenrankedhighlybyUSNewsandWorldReport(SauderandEspeland2009).Pricesmightormightnotcorrelatewithsuchprizings,buttheimportantpointtonoteisthatthemodalityofdenotingvalueisnotthesameinprizingasinpricing.Wearesurroundedbysuchratingsandrankings.Andtheyneednotbeperformedbyinstitutionallyrecognizedactors.Consumersissuevaluejudgementswhentheyrate
11
products;studentsevaluatetheirprofessor’slecturesonascaleof1to5;andAirbnbguestsandhostscanpunishtheircounterpartsbywithholdingaprizedrating.Muchprizingisordinal:taketheubiquityofTopTenlists.Butitneednotbe.Wepraise,weappraise,weprizeinformatsassimpleasabinaryupordown–like,dislike.Wedosooften,someofusmanytimesinaday.Andasmillionsandmillionsofusdoitinwaysthatcanbedigitallycapturedandanalyzed,suchprizingsoffernewmeanstoregistervaluejudgementsintheeconomy.Withthegrowthofavastdigitalrepositoryofprizingsandappraisings,muchofittime-stampeddata,itisnowpossibletocharttheseactivitiesofvaluationinrealtime.Whereaseconomistshavelonghadtime-sensitivedataonpricemovements,wenowhavealternative(notseparatebutcomplimentary)databasesonthemovementsofprizingandappraisingthatregisterconsumerattachments.These“valuemeters”willneednewmeasuresandmetrics(LatourandLepinay2009:16).Theycanbequantified,butthesemetricsofpersonalvaluejudgementsneednotbeexpressedintermsofmoney.Infact,wewillneedtoavoidthequicktemptationtoassesshowprizingandappraisingtranslatetopricing.Thatistheworkforcorporate(andstartup)researchdepartments.Thetaskforeconomicsociologywillbetodevelopnewmetricsofwhat’svaluable(theprizingsandappraisingsthatgiveusaccesstovaluejudgement)–valuablepreciselybecausetheyaremetricsthatarealternativestoprices. Ifpricingandprizingisthefirstpromisingareaforfurtherresearchinthefieldofvaluationstudies,Isuggestthatwethinkofthesecondproblemascompetitionandcompetitions.Likepricing,competitioniswell-studiedasameansofdeterminingvalue.Butincreasinglywefindorganizedcompetitionsasanalternativemeansofaddressingthequestion“What’svaluable?”WhereasIstressedthatitwasimportanttostudysituationsaspotentiallycontestedmoments,hereIproposethatwepayattentiontoactualcontests.Thus,alongsidemarketcompetitionasacoordinatingmechanismofvaluationintheeconomywealsofindorganizedcompetitions.8Inthefirsttypewefindactorscompetingonmarkets.Inthesecondtype,wefindcontestswithentryrules,judges,andprizesgrantedtotheannouncedwinners.Ononeside,competitionisanongoing,seamless,andseeminglyendlessprocess;ontheother,competitionsarediscrete,boundedintimeandlocation.Inthislineofthinkingtheoverarchingresearchquestionswouldbe:Whatistheroleofcompetitionsinacompetitivesociety?Doescompetitionneedcompetitions?Aremarket
8SeeespeciallyKreiner’s(2012)studyofarchitecturalcompetitions.Hisfindingthatjudgesfirstselectwinnersandonlythenformulateselectioncriteriaisavaluableinsightapplicabletoanimportantsubsetofcompetitions.Solaroli(2015)studiestheWorldPressPhotoCompetition,showingthatthecompetitiondoesnotsimplyjudgecontestantsaccordingtostablecriteriabutinsteadconsecratesevolvingstandards.McCormick’s(2009)studyofinternationalmusiccompetitionspointstothemixedcharacterascontestsandrituals.
12
competitionandorganizedcompetitionsmutuallyreinforcingordotheyexpressalternative(wemightevensay“competing”)logics?Take,forexample,thenotionofwinning,sofundamentalwithinthelogicofagameorcontest.Iswinningoperativeinthelogicofthemarket?Perhapsso,butlessbecauseonecompetitordefeatstheotherthanbecauseoneoftherivalshaswonthecustomer.Markets,inthisview,arenotsomuchahead-to-headbattleamongcontestantsoradyadicmatchingofbuyerandsellerbutratheratriadicrelationinwhichtwocompeteforvaluationbyathird.AsGeorgSimmelobserved,“Moderncompetition,whichhasbeencalledthestruggleofallagainstall,isafterallthestruggleofalltogaintheattentionofall”(Simmel2008).Thisinsight,inturn,mightpromptustothinkaboutcompetitionsvaryingaccordingtowhethertheyarehead-to-headcontestsorofthetriadicformofwinningthefavorofjudges,jury,oraudience.Wecouldalsoconsiderwhethertheorganizedcompetitioniseconomicornon-economic.Theresulting2x2table–head-to-headvstriadicalongoneaxis,economicvsnon-economicalongtheother–isagoodstartforaresearchagenda.Whereasonemightconventionallymapcompetitiontoeconomicactivityandcompetitionstothenon-economic,researchshouldbeattunedtosocialformsthataremigratingfromonedomainofsociallifetoanother.Whencompetitiontakesplaceintraditionallynon-economicrealms(suchashospitalsanduniversities),doesthisentailtheintroductionofamarketlogic?Ontheotherside,weneedresearchthatexaminesthehistoricalpatternsandthecontemporaryeffectsoftheemergenceoforganizedcompetitions(sustainabilityrankingsor“green”prizes)insidetheeconomy.Forexample,whatisthehistoricalprocesswherebythenotionofascoremovedfromthefieldofsportstothedomainofbusiness?Creditscoresareaninterestingcase,suggestingthatpriceitselfisnotalwaysasufficientindicatorofvalue.Moregenerally,whatisthesocialmeaningofscoresandrankingsinbusinesssettingswherethemarketlogicisovertlydominant?Arerankingssimplyonemoreformofmarketcompetition?Ordotheyintroduceyetanother,perhapsdifferentlyconfigured,socialformasawayofintroducingalternativevaluesintothemarket?Ifrankingsareorderedaccordingtorevenuesormarketshareorcapitalization,perhapsnot.Butwhatifthescoresandrankingsconcernenvironmentalandsocialsustainability?Suchrankingscouldbeconfiguredastheintroductionofalternativeformsofvaluationintotheeconomy(see,e.g.,Déjean,Gond,andLeca2004).WillDaviesaddressessomeoftheseissuesinhisrecentbook,TheLimitsofNeoliberalism:Authority,Sovereignty&theLogicofCompetition(Davies2014).Daviespointsoutthatearlyproponentsofneo-liberalismsuchasvonHayeklookedtocompetitionasthekeyprincipleofjustification,andstronglybelievedthatdecentralizedmarketswerethebestmeansforpromotingafree,competitivesociety.ButDaviesdoesnotequateneo-liberalismwithadvocacyofmarketcompetition.Hesuggeststhatneo-liberalismevolvedasitdevelopedresponsestoachallengingquestion:
13
“[I]fthecriticalmarketprincipleiscompetition,mighttherebeother,non-marketinstitutions,policiesandinterventionswhichmightjustaseasilydeliverthespecificvirtuesofcompetitivepractices?Forexample,intheeraofappliedneoliberalism,sportveryoftenservedasabettermanifestationofthemarketethosthanmarketsthemselves,withpoliticiansandbusinessleadersdefendingeconomicinequalitythroughanalogiestosportingcontestsand‘talent.’Leaguetablesareanotherwayofgivingempiricalandtechnicalformtothecompetitivemarketideal.Ismarketcompetitionnecessarytodelivercompetitiveness?(Davies,2014,pp.43-4).
Daviesarguesthatlaterneo-liberalssuchasRonaldCoaseandothersansweredthisquestionbyseparatingmarketsandcompetition.Competitionremainedthelegitimatingprinciple,butitcouldbefoundinsocialandorganizationalformsthatwerenotmarkets.InDavies’view,fortheselatereconomistsandpolicyadvocates,thekeyanalyticconceptwasneithermarketcompetitionnororganizedcompetitionsbutamoregeneralizednotionofcompetitionascompetitiveness.Inwhichdirectionwillsociologymove?Onecoursehasalreadybeentaken.Itfindscompetitionineverydomain.Notasaprincipleofjustification,competitionnonethelessbecomesthekeytoanalyzesocialdynamicsbecauseanyfieldcanbeassumedtobeoneofcompetitivestrugglewhetherthatbetheeconomy,law,science,politics,orthearts.PierreBourdieuwascertainlynotaneo-liberal,butamongsocialtheoristshewentthefurthesttoplaceageneralizednotionofcompetitionatthecenterofhistheory.MysuggestiontoexaminethecomplexrelationshipbetweenmarketcompetitionandorganizedcompetitionsstepsbackfromBourdieu’sapproach.Inplaceofassumingcompetitivenessasapartofthehumanconditionandofcompetitionasoccuringineveryfield,itproposestoexaminethechanginghistoricalrelationshipbetweencompetitionandcompetitionsandtostudyvariationinthespecificanddiscretepracticesofcontestandcontestation.ConclusionThereadernowfacesa“criticalmoment”notunlikethosemomentsofjudgmentIdiscussedearlierinthisessay.Imean,ofcourse,howdoyouassessthevalueofthisessayasacontributiontoavolume,Justification,EvaluationandCritiqueintheStudyofOrganizations?Wasitworthit?Somereadersmightreadtheessayitselfasacriticalmoment,anopportunitytopasscriticaljudgmentaboutOnJustification,thebookfromwhichitstakesitspointofdeparture.Thatwasnotmyintention.ButwhoamI,whoearlierchampionedmisunderstanding,toobjecttothatmisunderstanding?Acceptingthatmisunderstandingforthiscriticalmoment,weshouldreflectontheexplicitorimplicitorderofworththattheauthorwasattemptingtomobilizeinhisassessment.Reflectingontheessay,wecanseethattheproofsofworthwereintheorderofthegenerativeasIpointedtowaysinwhichOnJustification
14
stimulatedseveraldecadesofworkandcontinuestoprovokemyresearchpractice.ItisinsuchapragmatistspiritthatIinviteyoutousethesameframeinassessingthisessay.Icanonlyhopethatyourmisunderstandingswillbefruitful.Thatis,theproofofitsvaluewillbeinthequestionsitprovokes.
15
ReferencesAntal,A.B.,Hutter,M.,andStark,D.(2015).MomentsofValuation:ExploringSitesof
Dissonance.NewYorkandOxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Beckert,J.(2011).“WhereDoPricesComeFrom?SociologicalApproachestoPriceFormation.”
Cologne:MPIfGDiscussionPaper11/3Beunza,D.andStark,D.(2012).“FromDissonancetoResonance:Cognitive
InterdependenceinQuantitativeFinance.”EconomyandSociety,41(3):1-35.Boltanski,L.andThévenot,L.(2006).OnJustification:EconomiesofWorth.Translatedby
CatherinePorter.PrincetonUniversityPress.Originalpublication:Delajustification:Leséconomiesdelagrandeur.(1991).Paris,Gallimard.
Borgatti,StephenandRobCross(2003).“ARelationalViewofInformationSeekingand
LearninginSocialNetworks.”ManagementScience49(4):432–445.Brewer,J.(2015).“EvaluatingValuation:Connoisseurship,TechnologyandArtAttribution
inanAmericanCourtofLaw.”InA.Antal,M.Hutter,andD.Stark(eds)MomentsofValuation:ExploringSitesofDissonance.OxfordandNewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,pp.89-107.
Coleman,James.(1988).“SocialCapitalintheCreationofHumanCapital.”American
JournalofSociology94:S95–S120.Davies,W.(2014).TheLimitsofNeoliberalism:Authority,Sovereignty&theLogicof
Competition.Sage.Déjean,F.&Gond,J.-P.&Leca,B.(2004).“Measuringtheunmeasured:Aninstitutional
entrepreneurstrategyinanemergingindustry.”HumanRelations,57(6):741-764.deVaan,M.,Vedres,B.,andStark,D.(2015).“GameChanger:TheTopologyof
Creativity.”AmericanJournalofSociologyJanuary,vol120,no4,pp.1144-1194.Guyer,J.(2009).“Composites,fictionsandrisk:towardanethnographyofprice.InC.Hannand
K.Hart(eds.)MarketandSociety,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,pp.203-220.Hennion,A.(2015).“PayingAttention:WhatisTastingWineAbout?”InA.Antal,M.
Hutter,andD.Stark(eds)MomentsofValuation:ExploringSitesofDissonance.OxfordandNewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,pp.37-56.
16
Hutter,M.andStark,D.(2015).“PragmatistPerspectivesonValuation:AnIntroduction.”InA.Antal,M.Hutter,andD.Stark(eds)MomentsofValuation:ExploringSitesofDissonance.OxfordandNewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,pp.1-14.
Jagd,S.2007.“EconomicsofConventionandNewEconomicSociology:MutualInspiration
andDialogue.”CurrentSociology55(1):75-91.Knorr-Cetina,K.(1981).“Introduction:TheMicro-SociologicalChallengeofMacro-
Sociology:TowardsaReconstructionofSocialTheoryandMethodology.”InK.Knorr-CetinaandA.V.Cicourel(eds.),AdvancesinSocialTheoryandMethodology:TowardanIntegrationofMicro-andMacro-Sociologies.London:Routledge&KeganPaul,pp.1–47.
Kreiner,K.(2012).“OrganizationalDecisionMechanismsinanArchitecturalCompetition.”InAlessandroLomiandJ.RichardHarrison(ed.)TheGarbageCanModelofOrganizationalChoice:LookingForwardatForty(ResearchintheSociologyofOrganizations,Volume36)EmeraldGroupPublishingLimited,pp.399–429.
Latour,B.andLepinay,V.(2009).TheScienceofPassionateInterests:AnIntroductionto
GabrielTarde’sEconomicAnthropology.Chicago,IL:PricklyParadigmPress.Levine,S.S.,Apfelbaum,E.P.,Bernard,M.,Bartelt,V.L.,Zajac,E.J.,Stark,D.(2014).“Ethnic
DiversityDeflatesPriceBubbles.”ProceedingsoftheNationalAcademyofSciences,111(52):185240-18529,December30,2014.
McCormick,L.(2009).“Higher,faster,louder:Representationsoftheinternationalmusiccompetition.”CulturalSociology,3(1),5-30.
McCulloch,W.(1945).“Aheterarchyofvaluesdeterminedfbythetopologyofneuralnets.”BulletinofMathematicalBiophysics7(2):89-83.
Muniesa,F.(2007).“Markettechnologiesandthepragmaticsofprices.”EconomyandSociety36(3):377-395.
Poon,M.(2009)“REFhere”Accounting,Organizations,andSocietyREFSauder,M.,&Espeland,W.N.(2009).“Thedisciplineofrankings:Tightcouplingand
organizationalchange.”AmericanSociologicalReview,74(1),63-82.Simmel,G.(2008).“SociologyofCompetition.”CanadianJournalofSociology33(4):957-978.Solaroli,M.(2015).“TowardANewVisualCultureOfTheNews:Professional
photojournalism,digitalpost-production,andthesymbolicstrugglefordistinction.”DigitalJournalism,3(4),513-532.
17
Stark,D.(1990a).“LavaleurdutravailetsarétributionenHongrie.”Actesdela
RechercheenSciencesSociales(Paris)#85,November1990,pp.3-19. --. (1990b)."Work,Worth,andJusticeinaSocialistMixedEconomy."Harvard
University,CenterforEuropeanStudies,ProgramonCentralandEastEuropeWorkingPaperSeries,#5,1990.
--. (2006).“ForaSociologyofWorth.”PublishedinItalianas“Appelloperuna
sociologiadellagrandezza.”Specialissueon“TheConventionsSchool”SociologiadelLavoro,no.104,2006,pp.200-223.
--. (2009).TheSenseofDissonance:AccountsofWorthinEconomicLife.NewYork
andLondon:PrincetonUniversityPress.2009.--.(2011).“What’sValuable?”InP.AspersandJ.Beckert(eds.),TheWorthofGoods:
ValuationandPricinginMarkets.OxfordUniversityPress:pp.319-338.Trébuchet-Breitwiller,A.S.(2015).“MakingThingsPrecious:APragmatistInquiryintothe
ValuationofLuxury.”InA.Antal,M.Hutter,andD.Stark(eds)MomentsofValuation:ExploringSitesofDissonance.OxfordandNewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,pp.168-188.
Vedres,B.andStark,D.(2010).“StructuralFolds:GenerativeDisruptioninOverlapping
Groups.”AmericanJournalofSociologyJanuary115(4):1150-90.Velthuis,O.(2005)TalkingPrices:SymbolicMeaningsofPricesontheMarketforContemporary
ArtPrinceton,NJ.:PrincetonUniversityPress.Williamson,OliverE.1981.“TheEconomicsofOrganization:TheTransactionCost
Approach.”TheAmericanJournalofSociology87(3):548–577.
