487.
Social and capitalist structure
Pierre
Bourdieu (2018) made the distinction between two types of societal structure: A
social one, which arises in less developed. countries, and a capitalist structure
in developed countries.In the first, social positions of authority,prestige,
leadership, delegation, public service are not institutionalised but have to be
earned and constantly maintained with gifts, attention, favours.or intimidation
and violence. Crucially, it is not so much a matter of quid pro.quo between
individuals, but. social. acceptance and sanction.Sometimes these relations are
romanticised. Underneath the apparently humane reciprocation of gifts and
values of community there are more or less hypocritically hidden economic
interests and dependencies The power may
appear soft.but it is there.
In
developed capitalist societies by contrast, social position is documented and established
once and for all, by legal ownership, legally or politically backed
appointments, educational and professional diplomas and associations It all
began with writing, settling issues without the ambiguities and impermanence
and forgetfulness of the spoken word.
The
development made for a great increase of efficiency, in not having to
continually maintain, service the position, and achieving clarity and stabiliy
of position and assignment of roles and. judgement.of validity. It is not a
matter only off efficiency in the sense of lower costs, but also access to
relations outside the clan or tribe, which greatly inceases the variety of contacts
and sources of new.ideas, of novel combinations for innovation and learning.
However,
it entails a loss of social contact and the intrinsic social value of relations,
in ongoing give and take. It is a matter of transactions rather than relations.Also,
contracts can never be complete, and unfamiliar situations can arise by
surprise, and though giving stability. and continuity, institutional fixtures
can be cicumvented and changed.
In
particular, as I have argued in several places, also in this blog, especially
relations of collaboration for innovation suffer from a paradox. On the one hand
the uncertainty of innovation yields a desure for security, but on the other
hand there needs to be room for exploration beyond the current order.
This
requires reversion, to some extent, to social deliberation,to not purely
economic relations of give and take, in ‘voice’, and the exercise of trust.
There, the social is again at play, in the giving of gifts without guaranteed
commensurate return, and the collective, in the operation of reputation next to
bilateral agreements.and formal authority (Nooteboom, 2002). This is a
difficult switch back to social skills, which many, especially economists, find
difficult to accept and muster, due to the ‘inefficiency’ and ambiguity of
social dynamics.
References:
Bourdieu,
Pierre (2018), Outline of a theory of
practice, Cambridge University Press.
Nooteboon,
Bart, (2002), Trust: forms, foundations, functions, failures and figures.
Cheltenham UK: Edward Elgar.
No comments:
Post a Comment