What do you think?
Rate this book
O Novo Espírito do Capitalismo
In this major work, the sociologists Eve Chiapello and Luc Boltanski go to the heart of the changes in contemporary business culture.
Via an unprecedented analysis of the latest management texts that have formed the thinking of employers in their organization of business, the authors trace the contours of a new spirit of capitalism. They argue that from the middle of the 1970s onwards, capitalism abandoned the hierarchical Fordist work structure and developed a new network-based form of organization which was founded on employee initiative and autonomy in the workplace – a ‘freedom’ that came at the cost of material and psychological security.
The authors connect this new spirit with the children of the libertarian and romantic currents of the late 1960s (as epitomised by dressed-down. cool capitalists such as Bill Gates and ‘Ben and Jerry’) arguing that they practice a more successful and subtle form of exploitation.
In a work that is already a classic in Europe, Boltanski and Chiapello show how the new spirit triumphed thanks to a remarkable recuperation of the Left’s critique of the alienation of everyday life – a recuperation that simultaneously undermined the power of its social critique.
Via an unprecedented analysis of the latest management texts that have formed the thinking of employers in their organization of business, the authors trace the contours of a new spirit of capitalism. They argue that from the middle of the 1970s onwards, capitalism abandoned the hierarchical Fordist work structure and developed a new network-based form of organization which was founded on employee initiative and autonomy in the workplace – a ‘freedom’ that came at the cost of material and psychological security.
The authors connect this new spirit with the children of the libertarian and romantic currents of the late 1960s (as epitomised by dressed-down. cool capitalists such as Bill Gates and ‘Ben and Jerry’) arguing that they practice a more successful and subtle form of exploitation.
In a work that is already a classic in Europe, Boltanski and Chiapello show how the new spirit triumphed thanks to a remarkable recuperation of the Left’s critique of the alienation of everyday life – a recuperation that simultaneously undermined the power of its social critique.
701 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1999
74 people are currently reading
3246 people want to read
About the author
Luc Boltanski
55 books57 followersLuc Boltanski is a French sociologist, Professor at the School for Advanced Studies in the Social Sciences, Paris, and founder of the Groupe de Sociologie Politique et Morale, known as the leading figure in the new "pragmatic" school of French sociology.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews
October 22, 2011
Every so often I find myself reading something that I regret having put off for so long, and this is one of those cases. It is a vital contribution to the sociology of work, to social and cultural analyses of the 'contemporary condition', and to understandings of the current social order and contemporary politics: a big claim, I admit. Boltanski and Chiapello have not set out to explore the material characteristics of contemporary capitalism – the organisation and concentration of increasingly globalised business, profit margins and corporate organisation, labour force dynamics, concentration and mobility and so forth – although these things are key to their analysis. They have, instead, set out to explore what we might see as a more anthropological concept – the deep structures of the cultures of contemporary capitalism, and looked at both its leading practitioners/functionaries and its critics. This means that they have analysed the ways that the corporate world talks about itself, the language it uses in management education, and therefore the ways that business conceives of its own ways of making sense of its world – that is, of business cultures and practices. It also means that they are interested in change, in how these discourses of culture have varied and as a result what is new or different about the current situation. Both of these things – the question and the methods – in and of themselves make this an extremely important contribution to social, cultural, economic and political understandings of the contemporary world.
Boltanski & Chiapello make two important broader points based on a reading of historical sources, sociology and business related academic literature, and in doing so blend scholarly worlds in ways we seldom see – Boltanski is a big name in French sociology and Chiapello a much younger associate professor of business and management. The first point is that capitalism may be seen to have gone through three stages – the first of dynamic entrepreneurial growth centred on individual actions and family firms (mainly during the 19th and early 20th century), the second one of institutionalised consolidation and collective corporate activity centred on the role of the professional manager and impersonal ownership/shareholding, in part in a response to the inter-war economic crises (from the 1930s through to the 1970s) and the third centred on diversified organisation and ownership associated with new technologies and contemporary forms of globalisation: these eras overlap, of course. These first two forms they see as being able to be classified in different circumstances as centred on tropes – they call them logics of justification – they classify as inspirational, domestic, reputational, civic, commercial or industrial – not that these shorthands mean much in this brief overview of a 650 page book. In their view, however, these systems do not effectively grasp the current social and industrial forms that better seen as projective by which they mean that the ‘logic of justification’ for social and corporate organisation and ‘success’ is based on shorter term organisational and personal connections based around specific activities (projects), which may include several concurrent sets of activity. This, in itself, is a significant contribution to contemporary scholarship and understanding – but they do more.
The second set of analyses to advance is centred on critiques of capitalism that they see as having four principle arguments – it is a source of disenchantment and inauthenticity, it is a source of oppression, it is a source of poverty and inequality, and it is a source of opportunism and egoism. These issues they see as feeding into two types of critique – a ‘social’ critique centred on exploitation and poverty and an ‘artistic’ critique centred on authenticity and freedom/liberation. One of the defining characteristics of current forms of political power, they see, is the appropriation of the ‘artistic’ critique to the current ‘projective’ or ‘connexionist’ spirit of capitalism. But this is getting ahead of myself…..
The other key thing about this analysis is that Boltanski & Chiapello have set out to look at the ways the corporate world ‘trains’ it functionaries – so the engage in a very close reading of a set of management texts from the mid 1960s and mid 1990s to explore how those texts talk about what it is that managers do, and therefore how business (capitalism) operates. In the manner of good scientists, they also include appendices in the book that shows us their data, their classification systems and their principal findings (I do like open scholarship!). They find that there is an increasing deployment of terms and ideas associated with the elements of the ‘artistic’ critique in the 1990s’ texts compared to the 1960s’, although also that many of the ideas associated with the second ‘pre-connexionist’ era remain as well. Alongside this shift, they point to an active dismantling of what they call the defences of the world of work – trade unions and so forth – and a significant shift in the balances of power between workers and employers. However, alongside this dismantling of the ‘social’ critique they also find a significant revival in the ‘artistic’ critique in new social movements, attempts to restrict increasingly pervasive commodification and demands for more secure conditions of life.
Amid all of this – it is not an easy read, this is serious scholarship, not popular or journalistic critique – there is a potent argument for and justification of critique, and Boltanski and Chiapello are refreshingly eclectic in their use of sources. They draw on, amongst others, Marxist critique, radical Durkheimian approaches, those influenced by Weber, and by Neitzsche. In doing so, they also see critique as progressive – not a return to what there was but a building of something new. They do, however, despair over the decline of class as a focus for social critique, and there is a superb critical discussion of the emergence of a concern with ‘social exclusion’ (rather than poverty, oppression and so forth).
In a review in the New Left Review, Sebastian Budgen (see NLR 1, Jan/Feb 2000) described this as “an ideological and cultural analysis, a socio-historical narrative, an essay in political economy and a bold piece of engaged advocacy” while correct I don’t think that quite does this service. Despite its focus on France as a data source and as a place to test in social contexts the shifting balances between social and political sources – this book has a powerful global significance (it is not too difficult to translate the French conditions and forces to other social contexts and ask compelling questions there) and it deserves to be read, used and considered in much wider settings than it seems to have been.
Whereas much of the material I read is often little more than a restatement of previously made arguments into slightly new settings – and as such important contributions to understanding, this is a rare book that amounts to a major analytical shift and points to new frames and modes of analysis. It deserves to be a classic. I expect that I will have to revisit several times, and that each time I will find new things, new ideas and new ways of shaping both questions and answers that deal with work, social life and struggles, and contemporary politics.
Boltanski & Chiapello make two important broader points based on a reading of historical sources, sociology and business related academic literature, and in doing so blend scholarly worlds in ways we seldom see – Boltanski is a big name in French sociology and Chiapello a much younger associate professor of business and management. The first point is that capitalism may be seen to have gone through three stages – the first of dynamic entrepreneurial growth centred on individual actions and family firms (mainly during the 19th and early 20th century), the second one of institutionalised consolidation and collective corporate activity centred on the role of the professional manager and impersonal ownership/shareholding, in part in a response to the inter-war economic crises (from the 1930s through to the 1970s) and the third centred on diversified organisation and ownership associated with new technologies and contemporary forms of globalisation: these eras overlap, of course. These first two forms they see as being able to be classified in different circumstances as centred on tropes – they call them logics of justification – they classify as inspirational, domestic, reputational, civic, commercial or industrial – not that these shorthands mean much in this brief overview of a 650 page book. In their view, however, these systems do not effectively grasp the current social and industrial forms that better seen as projective by which they mean that the ‘logic of justification’ for social and corporate organisation and ‘success’ is based on shorter term organisational and personal connections based around specific activities (projects), which may include several concurrent sets of activity. This, in itself, is a significant contribution to contemporary scholarship and understanding – but they do more.
The second set of analyses to advance is centred on critiques of capitalism that they see as having four principle arguments – it is a source of disenchantment and inauthenticity, it is a source of oppression, it is a source of poverty and inequality, and it is a source of opportunism and egoism. These issues they see as feeding into two types of critique – a ‘social’ critique centred on exploitation and poverty and an ‘artistic’ critique centred on authenticity and freedom/liberation. One of the defining characteristics of current forms of political power, they see, is the appropriation of the ‘artistic’ critique to the current ‘projective’ or ‘connexionist’ spirit of capitalism. But this is getting ahead of myself…..
The other key thing about this analysis is that Boltanski & Chiapello have set out to look at the ways the corporate world ‘trains’ it functionaries – so the engage in a very close reading of a set of management texts from the mid 1960s and mid 1990s to explore how those texts talk about what it is that managers do, and therefore how business (capitalism) operates. In the manner of good scientists, they also include appendices in the book that shows us their data, their classification systems and their principal findings (I do like open scholarship!). They find that there is an increasing deployment of terms and ideas associated with the elements of the ‘artistic’ critique in the 1990s’ texts compared to the 1960s’, although also that many of the ideas associated with the second ‘pre-connexionist’ era remain as well. Alongside this shift, they point to an active dismantling of what they call the defences of the world of work – trade unions and so forth – and a significant shift in the balances of power between workers and employers. However, alongside this dismantling of the ‘social’ critique they also find a significant revival in the ‘artistic’ critique in new social movements, attempts to restrict increasingly pervasive commodification and demands for more secure conditions of life.
Amid all of this – it is not an easy read, this is serious scholarship, not popular or journalistic critique – there is a potent argument for and justification of critique, and Boltanski and Chiapello are refreshingly eclectic in their use of sources. They draw on, amongst others, Marxist critique, radical Durkheimian approaches, those influenced by Weber, and by Neitzsche. In doing so, they also see critique as progressive – not a return to what there was but a building of something new. They do, however, despair over the decline of class as a focus for social critique, and there is a superb critical discussion of the emergence of a concern with ‘social exclusion’ (rather than poverty, oppression and so forth).
In a review in the New Left Review, Sebastian Budgen (see NLR 1, Jan/Feb 2000) described this as “an ideological and cultural analysis, a socio-historical narrative, an essay in political economy and a bold piece of engaged advocacy” while correct I don’t think that quite does this service. Despite its focus on France as a data source and as a place to test in social contexts the shifting balances between social and political sources – this book has a powerful global significance (it is not too difficult to translate the French conditions and forces to other social contexts and ask compelling questions there) and it deserves to be read, used and considered in much wider settings than it seems to have been.
Whereas much of the material I read is often little more than a restatement of previously made arguments into slightly new settings – and as such important contributions to understanding, this is a rare book that amounts to a major analytical shift and points to new frames and modes of analysis. It deserves to be a classic. I expect that I will have to revisit several times, and that each time I will find new things, new ideas and new ways of shaping both questions and answers that deal with work, social life and struggles, and contemporary politics.
November 15, 2010
Ever stood under blinding florescent lights stocking shelves or any other such drudgery while
thinking of how much fun, you an "independent team member" are having in your "flexible, fast paced workplace"?
thinking of how much fun, you an "independent team member" are having in your "flexible, fast paced workplace"?
September 8, 2018
This is a classic modern work of sociology, which sets out to unpick the relationship between society, politics, and the mechanisms of the economy.
The key concept presented by the authors is that in order to survive capitalism needs to be accompanied by both a "spirit" and a "critique".
The "spirit" is a positive expression used to inspire commitment to the continuation of capitalism. Passive non-resistance is not enough, the system needs active commitment from both workers, managers, and leaders to continuing to reproduce that system. The "spirit of capitalism" then is "the ideology that justifies engagement in capitalism" by defining "not only the advantages which participation in the capitalist processes might afford on an individual basis, but also the collective benefits, defined in terms of the common good, which it contributes to producing for everyone." (Boltanski & Chiapello 2018, p.8)
In other words this spirit articulates the shared vision capable of delivering the broad support of society for the continuation of capitalism based on a collective understanding of the common good.
The authors use management literature to develop an analysis of that shared vision, on the (reasonable) basis that the guidance presented to managers is a clear indication of how the system is "supposed" to work, in a way that supports the most efficient running of that system. Using this technique they contend that for much of the twentieth century the spirit of capitalism was built on secure jobs and hierarchical progress with accepted union rights supporting the division of increasing wealth in a way perceived to be fair.
Each spirit is accompanied by "critique" with two emphases. A 'social' critique that addresses the impact of the system on inequality and distribution of wealth, and an 'artistic' critique that addresses the impact on individual human psychology. It is the interaction between the way things are supposed to work (the 'spirit') and critique that drives the stability of the status quo. The system responds to criticism which in turn reacts to new developments in an ongoing dialogue.
With a strong French perspective the authors outline how the critique of post-war capitalism dominated by large monolithic firms with hierarchical bureaucracies and the accompanying "second spirit" of capitalism peaked with the events of 1968. In Britain it is possible to perceive a similar situation in the various crises of the 1970's. Under the impact of critique not only workers but also managers and owners reached the point where they were no longer able to maintain the belief that the system could continue as it then existed, or was capable of maintaining the common good. The prevailing spirit broke down, unable to respond to criticism of the stifling effect of bureaucracy, the inauthenticity of mass produced commodity consumerism, and distributional mechanisms built around (white, straight) male dominated industrial workplaces.
As a result of this breakdown, a new spirit of capitalism has begun to emerge that is able to respond to this criticism. Again, built up from the management literature - this time of the 1990s - it is one based around flexible working in networked environments which deliver more individual control over life and work, but also a more precarious life style Ahead of their time, what the authors are describing is the modern world of the 'gig economy', the zero-hours contract, and the 'precariat'. This third spirit neutralises the critique of the second spirit by allowing more focus on the individual and less on the collective, allowing the subsequent development of 'identity politics', accompanied by the break up of the large monolithic companies into many loosely linked component parts. The move away from inauthentic mass commodity production is exemplified by the creation of new 'artisan' products. This new system they term the "projective city", because it is upon relations built around individuals collaborating in projects rather than working in command-and-control hierarchies.
The authors theorise that after a hiatus when this new third spirit was in the ascendant and the old critique of the 'second spirit' of capitalism was neutralised, new forms of criticism are becoming visible. They highlight the exploitation inherent in a network model of employment where the freedom and flexibility available to the few is built on the requirement for many to work cheaply and without security, to be discarded when it suits the business. Corporations similarly are broken up into flexible and loosely connected parts to avoid both tax and other social obligations. This provides the basis on which criticism might resume, although the authors are clear that modern critical thought has yet to catch up with the changes visible in what might be called the relations of production. Critique is necessary however to keep the system 'honest' and without it, it falls prey to its worst excesses, as can be demonstrated from the experience of the last 10 years. There is also a lesson here for Jeremy Corbyn's revitalised Labour Party who it feels are still refighting the battles of the past, rather than trying to identify the new critique that will drive the changes of the future.
The authors disclaim any direct connection to Marxism or a Marxist analysis of capitalism, and reference a sociological historiography from Weber and Durkheim onward. However what they seem to describe are the detailed mechanics of the 'hegemony' articulated and theorised by Gramsci. What they describe as the "spirit" of capitalism is simply the mechanism through which the dominant class acquires the subservience of the rest of society to the continuation of the existing system.
Especially fascinating is the dialectical tension between the 'spirit of capitalism' and the critique directed at it. The two remain in dialogue throughout and cannot exist without each other. As the last 20 years have demonstrated, capitalism needs effective criticism to prevent it from falling into the self-destructive pattern identified by Marx.
This book is a detailed and fascinating explanation of the interaction between modern society and economy. While not directly Marxist, it is a fascinating accompaniment to Marxist thought and a spur to reflective thinking about how revolutionary change in the modern world might come about.
This review is also available on my blog https://marxadventure.wordpress.com/2...
The key concept presented by the authors is that in order to survive capitalism needs to be accompanied by both a "spirit" and a "critique".
The "spirit" is a positive expression used to inspire commitment to the continuation of capitalism. Passive non-resistance is not enough, the system needs active commitment from both workers, managers, and leaders to continuing to reproduce that system. The "spirit of capitalism" then is "the ideology that justifies engagement in capitalism" by defining "not only the advantages which participation in the capitalist processes might afford on an individual basis, but also the collective benefits, defined in terms of the common good, which it contributes to producing for everyone." (Boltanski & Chiapello 2018, p.8)
In other words this spirit articulates the shared vision capable of delivering the broad support of society for the continuation of capitalism based on a collective understanding of the common good.
The authors use management literature to develop an analysis of that shared vision, on the (reasonable) basis that the guidance presented to managers is a clear indication of how the system is "supposed" to work, in a way that supports the most efficient running of that system. Using this technique they contend that for much of the twentieth century the spirit of capitalism was built on secure jobs and hierarchical progress with accepted union rights supporting the division of increasing wealth in a way perceived to be fair.
Each spirit is accompanied by "critique" with two emphases. A 'social' critique that addresses the impact of the system on inequality and distribution of wealth, and an 'artistic' critique that addresses the impact on individual human psychology. It is the interaction between the way things are supposed to work (the 'spirit') and critique that drives the stability of the status quo. The system responds to criticism which in turn reacts to new developments in an ongoing dialogue.
With a strong French perspective the authors outline how the critique of post-war capitalism dominated by large monolithic firms with hierarchical bureaucracies and the accompanying "second spirit" of capitalism peaked with the events of 1968. In Britain it is possible to perceive a similar situation in the various crises of the 1970's. Under the impact of critique not only workers but also managers and owners reached the point where they were no longer able to maintain the belief that the system could continue as it then existed, or was capable of maintaining the common good. The prevailing spirit broke down, unable to respond to criticism of the stifling effect of bureaucracy, the inauthenticity of mass produced commodity consumerism, and distributional mechanisms built around (white, straight) male dominated industrial workplaces.
As a result of this breakdown, a new spirit of capitalism has begun to emerge that is able to respond to this criticism. Again, built up from the management literature - this time of the 1990s - it is one based around flexible working in networked environments which deliver more individual control over life and work, but also a more precarious life style Ahead of their time, what the authors are describing is the modern world of the 'gig economy', the zero-hours contract, and the 'precariat'. This third spirit neutralises the critique of the second spirit by allowing more focus on the individual and less on the collective, allowing the subsequent development of 'identity politics', accompanied by the break up of the large monolithic companies into many loosely linked component parts. The move away from inauthentic mass commodity production is exemplified by the creation of new 'artisan' products. This new system they term the "projective city", because it is upon relations built around individuals collaborating in projects rather than working in command-and-control hierarchies.
The authors theorise that after a hiatus when this new third spirit was in the ascendant and the old critique of the 'second spirit' of capitalism was neutralised, new forms of criticism are becoming visible. They highlight the exploitation inherent in a network model of employment where the freedom and flexibility available to the few is built on the requirement for many to work cheaply and without security, to be discarded when it suits the business. Corporations similarly are broken up into flexible and loosely connected parts to avoid both tax and other social obligations. This provides the basis on which criticism might resume, although the authors are clear that modern critical thought has yet to catch up with the changes visible in what might be called the relations of production. Critique is necessary however to keep the system 'honest' and without it, it falls prey to its worst excesses, as can be demonstrated from the experience of the last 10 years. There is also a lesson here for Jeremy Corbyn's revitalised Labour Party who it feels are still refighting the battles of the past, rather than trying to identify the new critique that will drive the changes of the future.
The authors disclaim any direct connection to Marxism or a Marxist analysis of capitalism, and reference a sociological historiography from Weber and Durkheim onward. However what they seem to describe are the detailed mechanics of the 'hegemony' articulated and theorised by Gramsci. What they describe as the "spirit" of capitalism is simply the mechanism through which the dominant class acquires the subservience of the rest of society to the continuation of the existing system.
Especially fascinating is the dialectical tension between the 'spirit of capitalism' and the critique directed at it. The two remain in dialogue throughout and cannot exist without each other. As the last 20 years have demonstrated, capitalism needs effective criticism to prevent it from falling into the self-destructive pattern identified by Marx.
This book is a detailed and fascinating explanation of the interaction between modern society and economy. While not directly Marxist, it is a fascinating accompaniment to Marxist thought and a spur to reflective thinking about how revolutionary change in the modern world might come about.
This review is also available on my blog https://marxadventure.wordpress.com/2...
May 26, 2019
Alors, même si c'était quand même très dense avec pas mal de sciences économiques et près de 1 000 pages de contenu (j'ai vraiment tout lu y compris la méthodologie à la fin) et que j'ai dû prendre plusieurs pause de l'ouvrage pour pouvoir le finir, c'était vraiment une lecture fascinante et très intelligente.
J'avais brièvement entendu parler du livre dans une vidéo sur Internet, je ne me rappelle plus laquelle, j'avais alors décidé de le commander et quelle ne fut pas ma surprise de voir un beau 1000 pages de théorie de science économique sur les transformations du capitalisme des années '60 aux années '90 qui analyse les textes économiques publié en France et en français pour décrire un maximum de changements dans les pratiques managériales et l'entreprise française.
Je crois toutefois que l'essai devrait être lu par absolu tout le monde qui veut critiquer le capitalisme, non seulement je n'ai jamais vu une mine d'or aussi importante de documentation concernant l' "esprit du capitalisme" et le "nouvel esprit du capitalisme" qui a certainement remis beaucoup de chose en question pour moi, mais permet aussi de préciser comment notre propre critique peut être reprise par le capitalisme pour venir gruger les conditions de travail!
Je vais résumer une partie du livre très pauvrement, mais ça vous donne une idée du ton (j'ai lu l'essai sur près de deux mois donc certains détails peuvent avoir été oublié ou légèrement modifié dans ma tête depuis). L'essai décrit comment la critique "artiste" qui a émergé dans les années '68 a été reprise par le capitalisme pour échanger un travail considéré comme aliénant par une plus grande liberté dans les postes (notamment caractérisé par la disparition du travail ouvrier pour le remplacer par celui supposément plus spécialisé de technicien), plus de travailleur autonome et à leur compte qui permet évidemment de moins les payer (et de mettre des travailleurs en concurrence les un·es avec les autres lorsque vient le temps d'embaucher, pardon, de donner un contrat à quelqu'un·e), mais aussi de ne pas avoir à offrir un travail permanent à ces derniers et suivant ainsi les aléas de la production. On parle aussi de comment ces plus grandes souplesses chez les personnes embauchées ont aussi été accordées avec de plus petit salaire (c'est l'un ou l'autre), mais ont aussi donner plus de responsabilité aux employés et décharger les cadres supérieurs (manager).
Le nouvel esprit du capitalisme traite aussi de la question de la compétitivité des différents travailleurs autonome et du réseautage qui n'est qu'une nouvelle manière de restreindre l'accès à des contrats entre les entreprises à des gens plus "réseautés" (bref, qui cumulent souvent des liens familiaux et/ou éducatif et/ou de partage de pouvoir). Comment les entreprises privés font de plus en plus de sous-traitance justement pour se déresponsabiliser de plus en plus et permettre plus de concurrence qui font baisser leur prix (et mondialement, ça a définitivement un effet et des conséquences), etc. etc. etc.
On apprend des tonnes et des tonnes de chose (en tout cas, pour moi ça a été le cas) et beaucoup d'éléments qui je pensais distincts (la transformation de taylorisme en réseautage et octroi de contrat, la disparition des syndicats, les inégalités salariales, l'autonomisation des travailleurs, etc.) restent des éléments qui ne sont pas nécessairement inter-reliés naturellement, mais qui autant de symptôme des changements survenus dans les entreprises et l'esprit du capitalisme.
L'ouvrage s'est basé en grande partie sur l'analyse par logiciels de centaines (milliers?) de textes économiques publiés dans des revues en France et ne concerne que ce pays en théorie, mais reflète, selon leurs auteur·es, l'état du capitalisme, bien qu'à différent degré, dans les autres pays. Autre détail important, l'ouvrage initial a été publié en 1999-2000, donc, je voyais définitivement très bien les changements en 2019, d'ailleurs, une nouvelle post-face de 2010 décrit très bien comment ces changements étaient d'autant plus visible à ce moment et n'ont fait que se cristalliser (et comment la technologie n'a pas tant affecté ce nouvel esprit non plus).
Définitivement un must à lire sur le sujet, ça permet de remettre moi-même en question certaines des attitudes, visions, que je peux avoir à titre de libraire co-propriétaire bien que nous essayons de nous développer en collectif non-hiérarchique dans le milieu du livre. Dans tous les cas, le réseautage, je vais m'en passer le restant du temps et j'ai définitivement de meilleurs outils pour maintenant critiquer le travail autonome, le temps partiel et les supposément meilleures conditions de travail et la liberté dans le travail (et le soi-disant empowerment) qui viennent avec la chute du salaire et plus de responsabilités.
Et dont, évidemment, les fruits de labeur restent, en majeure partie, hors de notre contrôle.
J'avais brièvement entendu parler du livre dans une vidéo sur Internet, je ne me rappelle plus laquelle, j'avais alors décidé de le commander et quelle ne fut pas ma surprise de voir un beau 1000 pages de théorie de science économique sur les transformations du capitalisme des années '60 aux années '90 qui analyse les textes économiques publié en France et en français pour décrire un maximum de changements dans les pratiques managériales et l'entreprise française.
Je crois toutefois que l'essai devrait être lu par absolu tout le monde qui veut critiquer le capitalisme, non seulement je n'ai jamais vu une mine d'or aussi importante de documentation concernant l' "esprit du capitalisme" et le "nouvel esprit du capitalisme" qui a certainement remis beaucoup de chose en question pour moi, mais permet aussi de préciser comment notre propre critique peut être reprise par le capitalisme pour venir gruger les conditions de travail!
Je vais résumer une partie du livre très pauvrement, mais ça vous donne une idée du ton (j'ai lu l'essai sur près de deux mois donc certains détails peuvent avoir été oublié ou légèrement modifié dans ma tête depuis). L'essai décrit comment la critique "artiste" qui a émergé dans les années '68 a été reprise par le capitalisme pour échanger un travail considéré comme aliénant par une plus grande liberté dans les postes (notamment caractérisé par la disparition du travail ouvrier pour le remplacer par celui supposément plus spécialisé de technicien), plus de travailleur autonome et à leur compte qui permet évidemment de moins les payer (et de mettre des travailleurs en concurrence les un·es avec les autres lorsque vient le temps d'embaucher, pardon, de donner un contrat à quelqu'un·e), mais aussi de ne pas avoir à offrir un travail permanent à ces derniers et suivant ainsi les aléas de la production. On parle aussi de comment ces plus grandes souplesses chez les personnes embauchées ont aussi été accordées avec de plus petit salaire (c'est l'un ou l'autre), mais ont aussi donner plus de responsabilité aux employés et décharger les cadres supérieurs (manager).
Le nouvel esprit du capitalisme traite aussi de la question de la compétitivité des différents travailleurs autonome et du réseautage qui n'est qu'une nouvelle manière de restreindre l'accès à des contrats entre les entreprises à des gens plus "réseautés" (bref, qui cumulent souvent des liens familiaux et/ou éducatif et/ou de partage de pouvoir). Comment les entreprises privés font de plus en plus de sous-traitance justement pour se déresponsabiliser de plus en plus et permettre plus de concurrence qui font baisser leur prix (et mondialement, ça a définitivement un effet et des conséquences), etc. etc. etc.
On apprend des tonnes et des tonnes de chose (en tout cas, pour moi ça a été le cas) et beaucoup d'éléments qui je pensais distincts (la transformation de taylorisme en réseautage et octroi de contrat, la disparition des syndicats, les inégalités salariales, l'autonomisation des travailleurs, etc.) restent des éléments qui ne sont pas nécessairement inter-reliés naturellement, mais qui autant de symptôme des changements survenus dans les entreprises et l'esprit du capitalisme.
L'ouvrage s'est basé en grande partie sur l'analyse par logiciels de centaines (milliers?) de textes économiques publiés dans des revues en France et ne concerne que ce pays en théorie, mais reflète, selon leurs auteur·es, l'état du capitalisme, bien qu'à différent degré, dans les autres pays. Autre détail important, l'ouvrage initial a été publié en 1999-2000, donc, je voyais définitivement très bien les changements en 2019, d'ailleurs, une nouvelle post-face de 2010 décrit très bien comment ces changements étaient d'autant plus visible à ce moment et n'ont fait que se cristalliser (et comment la technologie n'a pas tant affecté ce nouvel esprit non plus).
Définitivement un must à lire sur le sujet, ça permet de remettre moi-même en question certaines des attitudes, visions, que je peux avoir à titre de libraire co-propriétaire bien que nous essayons de nous développer en collectif non-hiérarchique dans le milieu du livre. Dans tous les cas, le réseautage, je vais m'en passer le restant du temps et j'ai définitivement de meilleurs outils pour maintenant critiquer le travail autonome, le temps partiel et les supposément meilleures conditions de travail et la liberté dans le travail (et le soi-disant empowerment) qui viennent avec la chute du salaire et plus de responsabilités.
Et dont, évidemment, les fruits de labeur restent, en majeure partie, hors de notre contrôle.
July 16, 2022
Een monumentale, kritische verkenning van het hedendaagse kapitalisme
Ik heb deze 'baksteen' (zoals mijn promotor dit imposante oeuvre van 600+ blz. liefkozend noemt) gelezen voor mijn bachelorproef. Het boek is niet altijd even helder, valt vaak in herhaling en lijkt soms vrij ongestructureerd (of juist overgestructureerd; met een overdaad aan ondertitels, onderondertitels, onderonderondertitels, en wel drie voorwoorden en twee nawoorden). Dat zijn echter zaken die men evengoed kan zeggen over Kants drie Kritieken, Hegels Fenomenologie van de Geest en Heideggers Zijn en Tijd - werken waarvan weinigen de waarde (of minstens de invloed) zullen ontkennen.
Ondanks haar bij momenten overdaad aan details en uitweidingen, is Le nouvel esprit du capitalisme inhoudelijk een fantastisch werk. Het biedt een originele analyse van het kapitalistische economische systeem en brengt nauwgezet recente evoluties in kaart, zoals de overdreven neiging naar tijdelijk werk, uitbesteding, het vervagen van het onderscheid werk-privé, toename van de werklast zonder loonstijging, het verzwakken van de vakbonden - en de hiermee gepaard gaande oproep tot het maximaliseren van uw 'employability' door het ontwikkelen van uw persoonlijke competenties. Wat betreft hun analyse van het kapitalisme, onthou ik zeker de volgende zaken uit het boek (deze lijstjes zijn mijn parafrase, staan niet letterlijk in het boek):
Boltanski en Chiapello beschrijven diepgaand de kritieken op het kapitalisme en hun evoluties. Maar, in de marges - tussen de voorwoorden en conclusies in, spreekt ook Boltanski en Chiapello's eigen kritiek op het kapitalisme. Deze is subtiel, maar daarom niet minder krachtig. Dit is wat mij misschien nog het meest zal bij blijven uit Le nouvel esprit du capitalisme. Ik kan ze als volgt samenvatten:
Is dit boek het lezen waard? Ik zal niet beweren dat het vlot leest. Maar wie er de moeite voor neemt, wordt misschien wel beloond. Wat Thomas Piketty's Kapitaal in de 21ste eeuw is voor kapitaal, dat is Le nouvel esprit du capitalisme voor arbeidsorganisatie. Al kan ik zeker ook lectuur van mijn eigen bachelorproef aanraden, waarin ik (in 39 blz.) het bovenstaande uitgebreider behandel. (Let wel: dit is een voorlaatste werkversie, die misschien nog aangepast zal worden in augustus 2022).
Ik heb deze 'baksteen' (zoals mijn promotor dit imposante oeuvre van 600+ blz. liefkozend noemt) gelezen voor mijn bachelorproef. Het boek is niet altijd even helder, valt vaak in herhaling en lijkt soms vrij ongestructureerd (of juist overgestructureerd; met een overdaad aan ondertitels, onderondertitels, onderonderondertitels, en wel drie voorwoorden en twee nawoorden). Dat zijn echter zaken die men evengoed kan zeggen over Kants drie Kritieken, Hegels Fenomenologie van de Geest en Heideggers Zijn en Tijd - werken waarvan weinigen de waarde (of minstens de invloed) zullen ontkennen.
Ondanks haar bij momenten overdaad aan details en uitweidingen, is Le nouvel esprit du capitalisme inhoudelijk een fantastisch werk. Het biedt een originele analyse van het kapitalistische economische systeem en brengt nauwgezet recente evoluties in kaart, zoals de overdreven neiging naar tijdelijk werk, uitbesteding, het vervagen van het onderscheid werk-privé, toename van de werklast zonder loonstijging, het verzwakken van de vakbonden - en de hiermee gepaard gaande oproep tot het maximaliseren van uw 'employability' door het ontwikkelen van uw persoonlijke competenties. Wat betreft hun analyse van het kapitalisme, onthou ik zeker de volgende zaken uit het boek (deze lijstjes zijn mijn parafrase, staan niet letterlijk in het boek):
1. Het kapitalisme is op zich een absurd systeem. Het is niet meteen duidelijk waarom iemand, zelfs de kapitalist (een organisator van de kapitalistische economie) zou willen deelnemen aan deze eindeloze winstmaximalisatie die slechts zichzelf als doel heeft en massale ongelijkheid en onrecht creëert en in stand houdt.
2. Het kapitalisme blijft toch voortbestaan, omdat de kapitalisten erin slagen zichzelf (en hun ondergeschikten) te overtuigen van de zinvolheid ervan. De 'geest van het kapitalisme' is een term, ontleend aan Max Weber, en ze verwijst naar alles dat mensen motiveert tot deelname aan het kapitalisme.
3. Kritiek op het kapitalisme is zo oud als het kapitalisme, en zal ook altijd naast het kapitalisme blijven bestaan. Immers zullen mensen altijd slechte ervaringen met het kapitalisme hebben die tot kritiek leiden - wat overigens niet betekent dat die kritiek altijd even realistisch of zinvol zal zijn.
4. De geest van het kapitalisme evolueert mee met het kapitalisme. Critici van het kapitalisme dienen hiermee rekening te houden!
Boltanski en Chiapello beschrijven diepgaand de kritieken op het kapitalisme en hun evoluties. Maar, in de marges - tussen de voorwoorden en conclusies in, spreekt ook Boltanski en Chiapello's eigen kritiek op het kapitalisme. Deze is subtiel, maar daarom niet minder krachtig. Dit is wat mij misschien nog het meest zal bij blijven uit Le nouvel esprit du capitalisme. Ik kan ze als volgt samenvatten:
1. Sociale wetenschappers kunnen door bepaalde onderzoekskeuzes te maken, indirect kritiek op het kapitalisme uitoefenen. (bijvoorbeeld: in plaats van naar de oorzaken van stress op het werk, onderzoek voeren naar welke jobs er het stresserendst zijn, en waarom juist die jobs dat zijn).
2. De radicaliteit van hervormingen: wat we niet nodig hebben zijn een klein aantal spectaculaire interventies, maar juist een groot aantal kleine hervormingen van het kapitalisme. Elke afzonderlijke hervorming stelt weinig voor, maar het totale effect is wel heel sterk. De wet kan hierbij een sterk middel vormen.
3. Het beperken van de commodificatie: er moet een einde komen aan allerlei vormen van excessieve commidificatie - dat wil zeggen: doorgeslagen commercialisering van diensten en goederen, in die mate dat het negatieve gevolgen heeft voor zij betrokken in de productie (bv. slechte werkomstandigheden zoals slavernij, kinderarbeid, burn-out, lage inkomens, lange werkweken, ... maar ook: dierenleed in de voedingsindustrie, bijvoorbeeld) en/of de gebruikers (bv. ongelijke toegang tot gezondheidszorg, onderwijs of openbaar vervoer door privatisering ervan).
4. Een specifieke instantie van een negatief gevolg voor de arbeiders, waar we kritisch voor moeten zijn, is de explosieve toename van tijdelijke arbeid (kijk maar - op elke hoek van de straat vindt men een interimkantoor!). Boltanski en Chiapello draaien dit om: werkzekerheid is juist emanciperend! Immers: wie niet constant moet zoeken naar en/of zich aanpassen aan een nieuwe job, moet minder met werk bezig zijn. Die persoon heeft dan meer tijd voor wat er echt toe doet in het leven: vrienden, familie, cultuur, natuur, enzovoort. Niet onbelangrijk is ook dat deze persoon meer kans heeft om kritiek op het kapitalisme te formuleren en realiseren.
Is dit boek het lezen waard? Ik zal niet beweren dat het vlot leest. Maar wie er de moeite voor neemt, wordt misschien wel beloond. Wat Thomas Piketty's Kapitaal in de 21ste eeuw is voor kapitaal, dat is Le nouvel esprit du capitalisme voor arbeidsorganisatie. Al kan ik zeker ook lectuur van mijn eigen bachelorproef aanraden, waarin ik (in 39 blz.) het bovenstaande uitgebreider behandel. (Let wel: dit is een voorlaatste werkversie, die misschien nog aangepast zal worden in augustus 2022).
December 25, 2020
I bought this book on a whim thinking it was more leftist political/economic thought. I was pleasantly surprised to find it was instead textbook sociology looking into the phases, or "spirits," of capitalism in the 20th Century through the eyes of management texts. This kind of book is well suited to those who stick more towards political/philosophical thought to see exactly the reasoning (at least according to management experts) behind the transformations of capitalism. It's also hilarious to see descriptions of what the 2nd spirit gave up to move into the 3rd spirit, compared to what modern work looks like for the vast majority of individuals.
October 28, 2022
The fundamental idea here--that the artistic critique of capitalism vitiated the social critique--is one of those kinds of ideas that I think about with some explanatory force every, oh, forty-five seconds or so.
Read
November 12, 2023Pure dynamite.
March 19, 2021
Wow. Like others have commented here, this is one of those books I've been meaning to read but finally only now just got around to it. I don't feel well or have much time, so literally a few bullet points, or thoughts really.
* Many excellent observations, criticisms, suggestions, thoughts, many of which I think have been more than simply proven by now;
* Really comprehensive, yet potentially more appealing to a younger US crowd than some of the old "devils" pulled out whenever anyone dares complain about the oppressive and repressive tactics of the 1% (actually 3%+). This could, and probably has, actually scare the power brokers, thus inciting them to further class demolition, which we've certainly seen.
* Over the years, while living in a family full of accounts, businessmen, real estate developers, inventors, entrepreneurs, etc., and as one who started out a finance major, only to change to a humanities track after three years, and while I have had times when I've done well and benefited in many stereotypical ways, I've become increasingly weary and less tolerant of all the total bullshit shoved down our throats, with the sheeple expected to swallow it and repeat on command -- which they've done in this country -- and to use more recent and notorious examples, how about Reagan's infamous "trickle down economics," which even when thought up by jaded, shady, greedy, unethical "capitalists" (the only acceptable, workable and [Christian] God-endorsed system), back then most people with a brain could see through the propaganda, shady pr, the empty promises, the BAD DAMN MATH, the stupid and naive assumption -- not on the part of those creating this system, but their counting on the non-millionaires/billionaires to totally buy it -- because we've been BF Skinnered to (or look up Tavistock for an alternative possibility): we're EXPECTED to drink the kool aide, like it, live it, teach it (in MBA programs), etc. Which we have done. And to be very simplistic, what do the majority of people have in this country to show for it? To sound like a political ad, the mega-rich have gotten a trillion times richer on the backs of the suckers who have been brainwashed and forced into believing and living this ideology, because the Soviets and their system were total failures (which was largely true, but for more complex reasons than are generally given, and as the point is being made, the only "perfect" system in the world don't seem so damn perfect anymore!).
* It comes down to this. As we know, average American workers have not seen any compensation increase since the 1960s, statistically, while the fat cats who own are asses and tell us what to think have seen their incomes, profits, revenues, etc., increase by, god I haven't looked it up in awhile, but simply that hedge fund managers are billionaires is just one point to look at. The gist is, how has trickle down economics worked out for you? The American capitalist system? If you have seriously benefited, congrats, you're one of a very few group of lucky people. The rest of us? We don't matter anymore, we're as good as dead, we don't count. The jobs are gone and not coming back. Moving from a manufacturing country to a service industry country was one of several death knells for many positives the American worker once took for granted. The well known and written too much about disappearance (destruction) of the US Middle Class appears getting close to complete. We've allowed the rich to cut taxes and cut taxes, and ones that benefit them, their families and companies while screwing the poor and near-poor (inheritance taxes anyone?), and we've had a president who boasted he didn't fucking PAY taxes cause only "suckers" and "losers" did and the bastard STILL got elected!
What has American's capitalist system done for you? For most I know, nothing remotely fucking positive. 80% of average Americans don't even have $500 to pay for an emergency expense, such as car repairs, home repairs, anything. We don't save, and are criticized for it, because there's nothing TOO save! I do know plenty of former middle class people who have had their homes repossessed despite never having missed or been late on payments, the unions have been actively wiped out, entire industries changed their hiring practices, and are being followed by most others in a couple of obvious examples: "at will" work states, where they try to sucker you into thinking it's a GOOD think for the worker because they have the "same rights" as the company -- jesus christ, the bullshit is deep! -- and two, since I once was a professor, indeed taught at three different universities -- I know this one very well because academia was one of the first to lead the way for the rest in dumping FTEs and the cost of benefits, paid holidays, blah, blah. How? "Adjunct" professors! Awesome! More opportunities for more people with terminal degrees, right? Suckas! Why did I spent over 14 years in college, getting over three degrees, including a terminal degree, only to find that IF one could even find any tenure track jobs, they were only at community colleges in New Mexico desert or deserted Wyoming, etc. Where was my sweet UC Berkely, tenured for life gig? A thing of the past. And now many colleges sport faculties where fewer than 20% are FTE and the rest are adjunct. I've been in tenure track professorships and an adjunct, and I can tell you how much I made at the latter. About $150 per unit taught in the CLASS, NOT each day or week -- per month. Or about $500 a month. I had to wait tables. When I was getting my second degree, one of my professors was a well known scholar with several degrees from Oxford, and he could not ever land a permanent teaching gig in California. He taught adjunct only, not by choice -- 2 classes at Long Beach State, 2 classes at USC and 2 classes at Cal State LA -- per week -- just to stay alive and not have to live in his car. And the point? WTF do you think companies are doing to the average non-academic American worker? The same damn thing! Different terminology, but companies discovered just how much damn money they save, and profit they give to their shareholders, by eliminating permanent jobs with salaries and benefits and pensions, etc., and going largely PRN and not FTE, meaning a fraction of the wages, pure luck for any benefits, virtually all of which pale in comparison to what one once had, and a heck of a lot of worse job security. And it's going full speed in that direction until nothing's left.
* So this great American dream built on the tenants of capitalism has worked out just fucking great, right? I'd say about as well as communism, another massive failure. Democratic socialism actually provides some hope and has been successful to varying degrees in many European countries. That said, while I can pick holes in anything, find flaws, blow up cases, I'm not necessarily the answer man. I don't have the solution, I don't know how to fix things. All I know is I can spot cancer when I see it, and this country is covered in it. So if there are any brains left in this brain dead country (a topic for another day) who want to save this country, if even possible, and make radical changes to help the citizens and the country, and not just buy greedy, criminal billionaires more mansions and islands, please do something soon! Brainstorm, come up with ideas, form other experimental systems, cause this one has fucked virtually all of us, and while this book doesn't say everything or provide answers to everything, it's not a bad place to start before moving on to some more recent and current books discussing the state of neoliberalism, postmodern capitalism, anticapitalism, etc. Frankly, things are so screwed up in this country, it's impossible to ponder all of the problems and issues, but this one has impacted nearly everyone, certainly in the west, and should be one of the issues at the forefront for everyone because it's reaching a life or death dynamic now and the question really is, is it too late?
* Many excellent observations, criticisms, suggestions, thoughts, many of which I think have been more than simply proven by now;
* Really comprehensive, yet potentially more appealing to a younger US crowd than some of the old "devils" pulled out whenever anyone dares complain about the oppressive and repressive tactics of the 1% (actually 3%+). This could, and probably has, actually scare the power brokers, thus inciting them to further class demolition, which we've certainly seen.
* Over the years, while living in a family full of accounts, businessmen, real estate developers, inventors, entrepreneurs, etc., and as one who started out a finance major, only to change to a humanities track after three years, and while I have had times when I've done well and benefited in many stereotypical ways, I've become increasingly weary and less tolerant of all the total bullshit shoved down our throats, with the sheeple expected to swallow it and repeat on command -- which they've done in this country -- and to use more recent and notorious examples, how about Reagan's infamous "trickle down economics," which even when thought up by jaded, shady, greedy, unethical "capitalists" (the only acceptable, workable and [Christian] God-endorsed system), back then most people with a brain could see through the propaganda, shady pr, the empty promises, the BAD DAMN MATH, the stupid and naive assumption -- not on the part of those creating this system, but their counting on the non-millionaires/billionaires to totally buy it -- because we've been BF Skinnered to (or look up Tavistock for an alternative possibility): we're EXPECTED to drink the kool aide, like it, live it, teach it (in MBA programs), etc. Which we have done. And to be very simplistic, what do the majority of people have in this country to show for it? To sound like a political ad, the mega-rich have gotten a trillion times richer on the backs of the suckers who have been brainwashed and forced into believing and living this ideology, because the Soviets and their system were total failures (which was largely true, but for more complex reasons than are generally given, and as the point is being made, the only "perfect" system in the world don't seem so damn perfect anymore!).
* It comes down to this. As we know, average American workers have not seen any compensation increase since the 1960s, statistically, while the fat cats who own are asses and tell us what to think have seen their incomes, profits, revenues, etc., increase by, god I haven't looked it up in awhile, but simply that hedge fund managers are billionaires is just one point to look at. The gist is, how has trickle down economics worked out for you? The American capitalist system? If you have seriously benefited, congrats, you're one of a very few group of lucky people. The rest of us? We don't matter anymore, we're as good as dead, we don't count. The jobs are gone and not coming back. Moving from a manufacturing country to a service industry country was one of several death knells for many positives the American worker once took for granted. The well known and written too much about disappearance (destruction) of the US Middle Class appears getting close to complete. We've allowed the rich to cut taxes and cut taxes, and ones that benefit them, their families and companies while screwing the poor and near-poor (inheritance taxes anyone?), and we've had a president who boasted he didn't fucking PAY taxes cause only "suckers" and "losers" did and the bastard STILL got elected!
What has American's capitalist system done for you? For most I know, nothing remotely fucking positive. 80% of average Americans don't even have $500 to pay for an emergency expense, such as car repairs, home repairs, anything. We don't save, and are criticized for it, because there's nothing TOO save! I do know plenty of former middle class people who have had their homes repossessed despite never having missed or been late on payments, the unions have been actively wiped out, entire industries changed their hiring practices, and are being followed by most others in a couple of obvious examples: "at will" work states, where they try to sucker you into thinking it's a GOOD think for the worker because they have the "same rights" as the company -- jesus christ, the bullshit is deep! -- and two, since I once was a professor, indeed taught at three different universities -- I know this one very well because academia was one of the first to lead the way for the rest in dumping FTEs and the cost of benefits, paid holidays, blah, blah. How? "Adjunct" professors! Awesome! More opportunities for more people with terminal degrees, right? Suckas! Why did I spent over 14 years in college, getting over three degrees, including a terminal degree, only to find that IF one could even find any tenure track jobs, they were only at community colleges in New Mexico desert or deserted Wyoming, etc. Where was my sweet UC Berkely, tenured for life gig? A thing of the past. And now many colleges sport faculties where fewer than 20% are FTE and the rest are adjunct. I've been in tenure track professorships and an adjunct, and I can tell you how much I made at the latter. About $150 per unit taught in the CLASS, NOT each day or week -- per month. Or about $500 a month. I had to wait tables. When I was getting my second degree, one of my professors was a well known scholar with several degrees from Oxford, and he could not ever land a permanent teaching gig in California. He taught adjunct only, not by choice -- 2 classes at Long Beach State, 2 classes at USC and 2 classes at Cal State LA -- per week -- just to stay alive and not have to live in his car. And the point? WTF do you think companies are doing to the average non-academic American worker? The same damn thing! Different terminology, but companies discovered just how much damn money they save, and profit they give to their shareholders, by eliminating permanent jobs with salaries and benefits and pensions, etc., and going largely PRN and not FTE, meaning a fraction of the wages, pure luck for any benefits, virtually all of which pale in comparison to what one once had, and a heck of a lot of worse job security. And it's going full speed in that direction until nothing's left.
* So this great American dream built on the tenants of capitalism has worked out just fucking great, right? I'd say about as well as communism, another massive failure. Democratic socialism actually provides some hope and has been successful to varying degrees in many European countries. That said, while I can pick holes in anything, find flaws, blow up cases, I'm not necessarily the answer man. I don't have the solution, I don't know how to fix things. All I know is I can spot cancer when I see it, and this country is covered in it. So if there are any brains left in this brain dead country (a topic for another day) who want to save this country, if even possible, and make radical changes to help the citizens and the country, and not just buy greedy, criminal billionaires more mansions and islands, please do something soon! Brainstorm, come up with ideas, form other experimental systems, cause this one has fucked virtually all of us, and while this book doesn't say everything or provide answers to everything, it's not a bad place to start before moving on to some more recent and current books discussing the state of neoliberalism, postmodern capitalism, anticapitalism, etc. Frankly, things are so screwed up in this country, it's impossible to ponder all of the problems and issues, but this one has impacted nearly everyone, certainly in the west, and should be one of the issues at the forefront for everyone because it's reaching a life or death dynamic now and the question really is, is it too late?
May 8, 2013
As the authors mention in the book that the critique of capitalism needs to account for the facts of the transforming world of work, in order to keep up with the displacements of capitalism and develop its critique, this book is an ambitious endeavor to develop a systematic account for understanding capitalism in its entirety and history. What we have seen of the critical tradition on capitalism have been often reactionary fleeting remarks on the certain aspects of the current economic arrangement of the world that interested their authors and looked unjust to them, and made them to raise their voices, rather than expounding on how it came to be so and what the just arrangement should look like. This way, we have had critiques reflecting certain resentments against the destructions of globalism or wars, which would be easily buried in the oblivion by the powerful machinery of the capitalist justification, so to speak.
This itself, as the book shows, is a sign of the decline of critique in the last decades of the 20th century. The dramatic displacements that capitalism has gone through during this period have been bigger than what the journalistic critique is capable of catching up with. Also, the authors show that, the artistic critique of liberation and authenticity, which has been prevalent even to this time has proved to be an easy ground for capitalism to neutralize it and turn it to a justification fot it's own enterprise. One reason may be that this critique did not feel the need to understand capitalism in its entirety, which is inalienable from socioeconomic injustices, and propose elaborate suggestions. So it is not a surprise that the force of this type of critique at times can easily be targeted at the state rather than particularly capitalism.
Making sense of capitalism in its historical transformation would require a serious critical account that accounts,for all relevant aspects and reveal its subtle displacements in their historical continuities. This book sets a good example for this.
This itself, as the book shows, is a sign of the decline of critique in the last decades of the 20th century. The dramatic displacements that capitalism has gone through during this period have been bigger than what the journalistic critique is capable of catching up with. Also, the authors show that, the artistic critique of liberation and authenticity, which has been prevalent even to this time has proved to be an easy ground for capitalism to neutralize it and turn it to a justification fot it's own enterprise. One reason may be that this critique did not feel the need to understand capitalism in its entirety, which is inalienable from socioeconomic injustices, and propose elaborate suggestions. So it is not a surprise that the force of this type of critique at times can easily be targeted at the state rather than particularly capitalism.
Making sense of capitalism in its historical transformation would require a serious critical account that accounts,for all relevant aspects and reveal its subtle displacements in their historical continuities. This book sets a good example for this.
January 29, 2025
Boltanski e Chiapello analisam como o capitalismo evoluiu para se manter dominante, absorvendo críticas e ajustando sua ideologia. Em vez de entrar em colapso diante das crises, ele se reconfigura, mantendo a exploração sob novas justificativas. O "novo espírito" do capitalismo se estrutura em torno da flexibilidade, criatividade e autonomia, incorporando valores antes usados para contestá-lo.
Os autores identificam três "espíritos" do capitalismo: o do século XIX, ligado à industrialização; o do século XX, sustentado pelo Estado de bem-estar; e o contemporâneo, que valoriza a inovação e a mobilidade, dissolvendo as fronteiras entre vida e trabalho. A precarização se disfarça sob discursos de liberdade e empreendedorismo. Contemporaneamente, as redes sociais reforçam essa dinâmica, com a ideologia dominante delegando que cada indivíduo seja responsável por seu próprio sucesso ou fracasso.
A obra destaca que o capitalismo não apenas responde às críticas, mas as usa para se fortalecer. A meritocracia e a lógica de projetos dão a impressão de inclusão, enquanto a exploração persiste de forma mais difusa. O livro, embora publicado em 1999, continua extremamente atual, especialmente no contexto brasileiro e latino-americano.
Os autores identificam três "espíritos" do capitalismo: o do século XIX, ligado à industrialização; o do século XX, sustentado pelo Estado de bem-estar; e o contemporâneo, que valoriza a inovação e a mobilidade, dissolvendo as fronteiras entre vida e trabalho. A precarização se disfarça sob discursos de liberdade e empreendedorismo. Contemporaneamente, as redes sociais reforçam essa dinâmica, com a ideologia dominante delegando que cada indivíduo seja responsável por seu próprio sucesso ou fracasso.
A obra destaca que o capitalismo não apenas responde às críticas, mas as usa para se fortalecer. A meritocracia e a lógica de projetos dão a impressão de inclusão, enquanto a exploração persiste de forma mais difusa. O livro, embora publicado em 1999, continua extremamente atual, especialmente no contexto brasileiro e latino-americano.
July 25, 2020
"Le nouvel esprit du capitalisme" de Luc Boltanski et Eve Chiapello, sociologues, est devenu depuis sa publication en 1999 un classique des sciences sociales et est abondamment cité dans cette littérature.
La quatrième de couverture nous dit : "Luc Boltanski et Eve Chiapello tracent les contours du nouvel esprit du capitalisme à partir d'une analyse inédite des textes de management qui ont nourri la pensée du patronat, irrigué les nouveaux modes d'organisation des entreprises : à partir du milieu des années 70, le capitalisme renonce au principe fordiste de l'organisation hiérarchique du travail pour développer une nouvelle organisation en réseau, fondée sur l'initiative des acteurs et l'autonomie relative de leur travail, mais au prix de leur sécurité matérielle et psychologique."
Cette analyse des textes de management se veut donc l'innovation méthodologique principale dans l'approche conceptuelle des deux sociologues. La critique que je formule ici est que le choix des textes dans le corpus analysé (une soixantaine de textes pour les années 60 et 90 chacun) n'est pas du tout représentatif de la pensée managériale contemporaine et qu'il existe par conséquent un sérieux - et grossier - problème méthodologique dans cet ouvrage pourtant de référence.
On notera avec intérêt - et il me semble aussi, étonnement - dans le propos introductif que "Pour la préparation de cet ouvrage (les auteurs ont) bénéficié du soutien financier du groupe HEC et de la fondation HEC, de l'appui de Gilles Laurent, alors directeur de la recherche, et de Bernard Ramanantsoa, directeur général du groupe HEC." Etonnement, car on voit mal comment HEC aurait financé un projet de recherche qui remettrait profondément en question l'enseignement dispensé en business school et l'endoctrinement idéologique des étudiants et futurs cadres. A supposer une extraordinaire ouverture d'esprit d'HEC, un tel financement aurait dû donner l'accès aux auteurs à la pensée managériale telle que dispensée par HEC au travers de ses cours : cette opportunité d'examen critique, au coeur même du système, n'a manifestement pas été saisie.
L'ouvrage a été écrit entre 1991 et 1994 et correspond exactement à mon séjour à HEC en tant qu'étudiant. A mon grand étonnement encore une fois, aucun des textes fondamentaux de l'enseignement d'HEC - notamment en finance, stratégie et marketing - ne figure dans le corpus analysé. Pourquoi ? Par manque de compétences pour les suivre dans leur logique ? Parce que ce n'était pas politiquement correct au vu du financeur de la recherche de mettre le nez de manière trop critique dans le coeur de la doxa managériale ? Toujours est-il qu'omettre de l'analyse les textes fondamentaux de l'enseignement managérial contemporain est une faute méthodologique lourde.
Les auteurs disent prendre comme sources d'information sur l'esprit du capitalisme "la littérature de management destinée aux cadres" : "cette littérature, dont l'objectif principal est d'informer les cadres des dernières innovations en matière de gestion des entreprises et de directions des hommes, se présente comme un des lieux d'inscription principaux de l'esprit du capitalisme. En tant qu'idéologie dominante, l'esprit du capitalisme a en principe la capacité de pénétrer l'ensemble des représentations mentales propres à une époque donnée, d'infiltrer les discours politiques et syndicaux, de fournir des représentations légitimes et des schèmes de pensée aux journalistes et aux chercheurs, si bien que sa présence est à la fois diffuse et générale. Parmi toutes ses manifestations possibles, nous avons choisi la littérature de management en tant que support offrant l'accès le plus direct aux représentations associées à l'esprit du capitalisme d'une époque." Ambitieux programme assigné à cette analyse textuelle.
Or les auteurs font le choix fort et largement contestable de se limiter à des écrits non-techniques : "nous avons écarté la littérature spécialisée traitant seulement par exemple du marketing, de la gestion de production, ou de la comptabilité, pour nous intéresser à ce que l'on pourrait appeler le "management général" ". Largement contestable car c'est précisément autour d'outils de gestion se présentant comme purement techniques et neutres idéologiquement que s'articule une certaine vision du monde, une certaine philosophie managériale.
Parmi les 60 textes retenus dans le corpus des années 90 on ne trouve aucun texte financier - un comble dans le contexte d'un capitalisme que tout le monde s'accorde à qualifier de financier - ou stratégique : aucune trace de "corporate strategy", le paradigme dominant dans la direction des affaires depuis les années 80, d'auteurs aussi influents que le guru de la stratégie Michael Porter, ou de concepts aussi fondamentaux et dévastateur que "la création de valeur actionnariale".
Les auteurs se posent (à juste titre) la question du réalisme de cette littérature et de son influence réelle. Pour se donner une idée de précisément son manque de réalisme le thème du rejet de la hiérarchie traditionnelle est perçu comme récurrent dans cette littérature, ce qui est aux antipodes de la pratique et de la philosophie managériale contemporaine qui restent toujours éminemment hiérarchiques. Quant à son influence réelle, les auteurs s'interrogent en l'absence de statistiques de diffusion mais, au vu des titres particulièrement "pipeau", la littérature sélectionnée vise manifestement un public essentiellement de Ressources Humaines : autrement dit, elle est tout aussi marginale dans le système qu'inoffensive.
En définitive cet ouvrage, un impressionnant volume de 1000 pages, repose sur du vent le plus complet au plan méthodologique. Du vent généreusement financé par HEC, pour produire une pensée prétendument critique qui s'avère aussi insignifiante qu'inoffensive et qui s'illustre surtout comme un parfait et caricatural exemple de littérature sociologique jargonneuse. Un ouvrage bien peu aidant en somme pour décrypter la pensée managériale contemporaine dominante.
La quatrième de couverture nous dit : "Luc Boltanski et Eve Chiapello tracent les contours du nouvel esprit du capitalisme à partir d'une analyse inédite des textes de management qui ont nourri la pensée du patronat, irrigué les nouveaux modes d'organisation des entreprises : à partir du milieu des années 70, le capitalisme renonce au principe fordiste de l'organisation hiérarchique du travail pour développer une nouvelle organisation en réseau, fondée sur l'initiative des acteurs et l'autonomie relative de leur travail, mais au prix de leur sécurité matérielle et psychologique."
Cette analyse des textes de management se veut donc l'innovation méthodologique principale dans l'approche conceptuelle des deux sociologues. La critique que je formule ici est que le choix des textes dans le corpus analysé (une soixantaine de textes pour les années 60 et 90 chacun) n'est pas du tout représentatif de la pensée managériale contemporaine et qu'il existe par conséquent un sérieux - et grossier - problème méthodologique dans cet ouvrage pourtant de référence.
On notera avec intérêt - et il me semble aussi, étonnement - dans le propos introductif que "Pour la préparation de cet ouvrage (les auteurs ont) bénéficié du soutien financier du groupe HEC et de la fondation HEC, de l'appui de Gilles Laurent, alors directeur de la recherche, et de Bernard Ramanantsoa, directeur général du groupe HEC." Etonnement, car on voit mal comment HEC aurait financé un projet de recherche qui remettrait profondément en question l'enseignement dispensé en business school et l'endoctrinement idéologique des étudiants et futurs cadres. A supposer une extraordinaire ouverture d'esprit d'HEC, un tel financement aurait dû donner l'accès aux auteurs à la pensée managériale telle que dispensée par HEC au travers de ses cours : cette opportunité d'examen critique, au coeur même du système, n'a manifestement pas été saisie.
L'ouvrage a été écrit entre 1991 et 1994 et correspond exactement à mon séjour à HEC en tant qu'étudiant. A mon grand étonnement encore une fois, aucun des textes fondamentaux de l'enseignement d'HEC - notamment en finance, stratégie et marketing - ne figure dans le corpus analysé. Pourquoi ? Par manque de compétences pour les suivre dans leur logique ? Parce que ce n'était pas politiquement correct au vu du financeur de la recherche de mettre le nez de manière trop critique dans le coeur de la doxa managériale ? Toujours est-il qu'omettre de l'analyse les textes fondamentaux de l'enseignement managérial contemporain est une faute méthodologique lourde.
Les auteurs disent prendre comme sources d'information sur l'esprit du capitalisme "la littérature de management destinée aux cadres" : "cette littérature, dont l'objectif principal est d'informer les cadres des dernières innovations en matière de gestion des entreprises et de directions des hommes, se présente comme un des lieux d'inscription principaux de l'esprit du capitalisme. En tant qu'idéologie dominante, l'esprit du capitalisme a en principe la capacité de pénétrer l'ensemble des représentations mentales propres à une époque donnée, d'infiltrer les discours politiques et syndicaux, de fournir des représentations légitimes et des schèmes de pensée aux journalistes et aux chercheurs, si bien que sa présence est à la fois diffuse et générale. Parmi toutes ses manifestations possibles, nous avons choisi la littérature de management en tant que support offrant l'accès le plus direct aux représentations associées à l'esprit du capitalisme d'une époque." Ambitieux programme assigné à cette analyse textuelle.
Or les auteurs font le choix fort et largement contestable de se limiter à des écrits non-techniques : "nous avons écarté la littérature spécialisée traitant seulement par exemple du marketing, de la gestion de production, ou de la comptabilité, pour nous intéresser à ce que l'on pourrait appeler le "management général" ". Largement contestable car c'est précisément autour d'outils de gestion se présentant comme purement techniques et neutres idéologiquement que s'articule une certaine vision du monde, une certaine philosophie managériale.
Parmi les 60 textes retenus dans le corpus des années 90 on ne trouve aucun texte financier - un comble dans le contexte d'un capitalisme que tout le monde s'accorde à qualifier de financier - ou stratégique : aucune trace de "corporate strategy", le paradigme dominant dans la direction des affaires depuis les années 80, d'auteurs aussi influents que le guru de la stratégie Michael Porter, ou de concepts aussi fondamentaux et dévastateur que "la création de valeur actionnariale".
Les auteurs se posent (à juste titre) la question du réalisme de cette littérature et de son influence réelle. Pour se donner une idée de précisément son manque de réalisme le thème du rejet de la hiérarchie traditionnelle est perçu comme récurrent dans cette littérature, ce qui est aux antipodes de la pratique et de la philosophie managériale contemporaine qui restent toujours éminemment hiérarchiques. Quant à son influence réelle, les auteurs s'interrogent en l'absence de statistiques de diffusion mais, au vu des titres particulièrement "pipeau", la littérature sélectionnée vise manifestement un public essentiellement de Ressources Humaines : autrement dit, elle est tout aussi marginale dans le système qu'inoffensive.
En définitive cet ouvrage, un impressionnant volume de 1000 pages, repose sur du vent le plus complet au plan méthodologique. Du vent généreusement financé par HEC, pour produire une pensée prétendument critique qui s'avère aussi insignifiante qu'inoffensive et qui s'illustre surtout comme un parfait et caricatural exemple de littérature sociologique jargonneuse. Un ouvrage bien peu aidant en somme pour décrypter la pensée managériale contemporaine dominante.
March 29, 2020
highly tractable and productive cultural analysis for those that are interested in formulating their own cultural hypotheses or periodisations of capital. unfortunately, the focus on 90s French management literature here seems to culminate in a movement away from capitalism's actuality towards its appearances, where you might actually become convinced that capitalism is a two-way system to a degree that is significant, or that it periodically vets itself in response to audience criticism. it might depend on where you stand, but i think the coercive way in which capitalism has crushed its opposition concentrates more of its energy than securing 'buy-in'
on a pettier note, way, way, way too long. chapter 1 begins on page one hundred and something, there's no need
on a pettier note, way, way, way too long. chapter 1 begins on page one hundred and something, there's no need
May 29, 2017
Pretty much hits the nail on the head in terms of modern work ethics/patterns/general morality through a combination of empirical cases, exploring the political, social and emotional impacts. Essential reading for anyone who has ever felt disillusioned by the current work mentality.
June 11, 2007
great work, but i don't like the translation... i wish they had kept their terminology consistent with their other articles and presentations in english
March 1, 2013
Many pages too long, but great.
March 10, 2019
Wirklich interessant, hätte aber auch in deutlich kürzerer Form wiedergegeben werden können. Kernaussage: Der Kapitalismus verschiebt sich, was man am Managementstudium sieht. Oder anders herum?
June 23, 2025
The title is, of course, a reference to Max Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, the thesis of which Boltanski and Chiapello periodize, identifying three stages which each correspond to its attendant spirit. But what Boltanski and Chiapello mean by "spirit" is necessarily inflected by their specific version of what one could call their "post-Marxism," their belief that capitalism must provide moral justifications for itself in order for its actors to accede to it. And while I agree with their critique of "ideology as mystification," I am less enamored with their insistence that capitalism must respond to its critiques, since it doesn't seem to account for power, since hegemonic systems can propagate themselves even if actors don't fully believe in them - not even those in power. They scour the management literature of the 1960s and 1990s, focusing on developments in France, their methodology skewing somewhere between literary analysis and empirical research, true to their specific blend of sociology and theoretical program. They posit the "projective city" as the seventh "orientation towards justice," where value is derived from project development. While I think the framework is fair enough, very reminiscent of Plato's Republic, basically designating various spheres of life and the different value systems that each functions under the heading of, I think the original six categories developed by Boltanski are a bit clunky, arbitrary - one could think of alternative categorizations that seem just as legitimate. It almost seems like they are tracking a certain "post-Taylorism," and focusing on pressures facing the management class instead of the worker one, and in this sense their work presages that of Fisher. Their ontology is decidedly network-oriented, which makes sense given the object of their research, but their mobilizations of figures such as Deleuze are a bit ambiguous. They also track developments within the French Left, and split critiques of capitalism into the social and the artistic, which works well enough even if it is a bit reductive, as perhaps all categorizations are. Their work is decidedly sociologist, whose methodology I don't always hew to, and Boltanski's break with Bourdieu is a bit frustrating (despite the work remaining very reminiscent of his), while their references to French theory can skew esoteric (to the average non-French reader), which makes it a bit more difficult to appraise their work. Overall, I understand why this made the splash that it did, even if its uptake in the Anglosphere has been a bit less prolific, and even if I still quibble a bit with their supposed belief in democratic liberalism.
March 1, 2025
OK, this is a tome. I do not remember exactly why I started reading it, I guess I will have come across it in the context of sociology of organizations.
The premise of the book is that capitalism always needs a spirit, a justification for its existence, and that spirit changes: The protestant work ethic is different from the managerialist careers in large organizations which is different from the networked mobility of the new, third spirit. This new spirit and what it means is discussed extensively.
The empirical data are texts for managers, »between five and twenty-five pages long approximately«, analyzed for mentioning different concepts.
I guess I would need to read it twice to make sense of all of its rich concepts and work. It did not help that some terms are rather unusual, for example the ways society is ordered is referred to as »cities«. It makes sense via »civitas« and societal order, but it takes some time to guess that (I assume the concept is from another book by the authors or the like)
Nevertheless, it was useful to contextualize a lot of management advice, in particular in the IT industry, where a lot of the »new spirit« concepts are rather obvious.
The premise of the book is that capitalism always needs a spirit, a justification for its existence, and that spirit changes: The protestant work ethic is different from the managerialist careers in large organizations which is different from the networked mobility of the new, third spirit. This new spirit and what it means is discussed extensively.
The empirical data are texts for managers, »between five and twenty-five pages long approximately«, analyzed for mentioning different concepts.
I guess I would need to read it twice to make sense of all of its rich concepts and work. It did not help that some terms are rather unusual, for example the ways society is ordered is referred to as »cities«. It makes sense via »civitas« and societal order, but it takes some time to guess that (I assume the concept is from another book by the authors or the like)
Nevertheless, it was useful to contextualize a lot of management advice, in particular in the IT industry, where a lot of the »new spirit« concepts are rather obvious.
July 2, 2022
Read this at the end of December 2021 with Drew. An outstanding sociological work on contemporary capitalism. Helps chart the changes from Fordism to Taylorism and beyond. The massive shift being from security and a welfare state to neoliberalism, networks, on time production, and flexibility. Convincingly argues that Capitalism was able to subsume leftist critiques for authenticity and freedom (think the 60's) and craft it for its own ends and transformation into "cool capitalism," and in reality making all of our lives materially worse. Interesting sociological work here on the displacements capitalism effects and the way that leftist theory is always late to respond.
April 27, 2023
C'est un livre de 1999 il ne présente donc pas vraiment le "nouvel" esprit du capitalisme. Néanmoins, il retrace avec précision et détail les transformations des sociétés capitalistes de la seconde guerre mondiale à 1990 environ, expliquant les problématiques associées aux notions de "manager", "coach", "RH" et toute la panoplie de métiers tournant autour du capitalisme.
C'est cependant un gros livre assez technique (mais pas si difficile à lire) que j'ai beaucoup apprécié.
Offrez-le à noël à votre oncle qui passe trop de temps sur LinkedIn, ça lui fera les pieds.
C'est cependant un gros livre assez technique (mais pas si difficile à lire) que j'ai beaucoup apprécié.
Offrez-le à noël à votre oncle qui passe trop de temps sur LinkedIn, ça lui fera les pieds.
November 21, 2023
This was definitely a binge read. I wish it had gone further into a lot of the illegality of powerful market forces. CARTEL, not just mob contexts of commodity-labor violence. This is 20 years old, but countless of the theoretical and ideological groundwork done here does not miss a beat. I especially loved the whole articulation of principles of displacement! Very very interesting.
I would’ve also liked a more concise definition of what the second spirit of capitalism was, a lot of the allusions to it were massively vague.
I would’ve also liked a more concise definition of what the second spirit of capitalism was, a lot of the allusions to it were massively vague.
October 16, 2018
Not an easy read, great theory. blew my mind.
May 20, 2025
accelerazionismo unica via? pensiamoci pensiamoci
Read
December 17, 2007I've read the prologue and this looks amazing albeit enormous. I will try, and perhaps fail, but learn a lot in whatever I get through.
May 30, 2013
Who gives a shit about this.
Want to read
March 13, 2017Recommended by Kevin via Sascha
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews