Bruno Frère

Genetic Structuralism, Psychological Sociology and Pragmatic Social Actor Theory Proposals for a Convergence of French Sociologies

This article sets out to show that Wittgenstein and Freud have exerted a considerable - though narrow - influence on Bourdieu’s sociology. But their influence also pervades the theoretical development of two other currents that have emerged in French sociology in the last few years, and that were developed by L. Boltanski and L. Thévenot on the one hand, and B. Lahire on the other. Although they do not make it explicit, the advocates of these two currents have nevertheless been influenced by Wittgenstein and Freud. Thus Boltanski has drawn on Wittgenstein to develop a sociology which gives primacy to the social actor’s interpretation of his or her situation through lay theorizing. Lahire’s work clearly pays a debt to Freud with his psychological sociology. It would therefore be interesting, in the first instance, to tease out how Wittgenstein and Freud, respectively, have influenced these two systems to demonstrate that they can indeed be used to generate new sociological currents, other than Bourdieu’s own. This would then allow us to explore how they could be used to fill any gaps in Bourdieu’s work, thus giving the latter renewed relevance and staunching its stagnating tendencies. Ultimately, this analysis aims to show how Wittgenstein’s and Freud’s theoretical influences can lead the way towards a theoretical synthesis between Bourdieu’s critical sociology, Boltanski’s social actor theory and Lahire’s psychological sociology. Currently, these three currents operate independently of each other, without any kind of dialogue. And yet, far from being incompatible, these sociologies offer opportunities for exploring how they might complement and mutually enrich each other.

Chapter 5 A Libertarian Socialist Response to the ‘Big Society’: The Solidarity Economy

Purpose – The aim of this chapter is to deconstruct the idea of a ‘Big Society’. We do so by underlining the left libertarian tradition in which civil society led economic activity such as the solidarity economy is embedded. Methodology – By analysing the thought of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, a key thinker and activist in the 19th libertarian socialist movement, we identify the principles guiding the solidarity economy. We illustrate our argument by drawing on qualitative research conducted on solidarity economy organisations in France. Findings – The solidarity economy illustrates an alternative to both capitalism and state socialism: libertarian socialism. This chapter demonstrates that this left libertarianism is not a new utopia. It is rooted in the long (but marginal) history of libertarian socialism, which was born in the 19th century. Originality – An economy managed from the left based on libertarian political principles seems to be a novel experiment. We seek to illustrate what this may look like using the example of the present solidarity economy. However, we also emphasise that this would imply a reversal of the political programme of the ‘Big Society’. It would imply the redistribution of economic and political power not only from the state to local communities, but also from company directors and their shareholders in order to realise not a charitable but an economically empowered civil society.

La sociologie de Max Scheler : une ressource phénoménologique pour un régime d’action philia au cœur de l’économie solidaire

This article has a double goal. First, it aims to rediscover a little-used sociological system (Max Scheler’s). Second, it aims to propose a thematic analysis of solidary economy (third-sector) actors’ justifications with a specific action regime (also not much discussed). These attempts merge very fast because this retrospective becomes the limits of this very (particular?) regime. It formalizes the search for social bonds in the third-sector engagement. The latter could be understood as a search for philia - in the vocabulary of the regimes of action sociology - or a sympathy search - in the vocabulary of Max Scheler. This search for social bonds appears as a strong opposition to the “capitalist mindset (kapitalistische Geist)”.

Commentary on Chapter 2

Myers and Cato explore the cooperative sector in the areas of health and social services reforms, and in particular, the rediscovery of mutualism. The authors build on research of 17 case studies, which was undertaken on behalf of the Wales Co-operative Centre, to raise questions and provoke discussion about social enterprise and cooperatives operating as service providers. Myers and Cato call for taking the “mutual moment” as an opportunity to rethink the provision of public services without losing the ethos of public service and to build public value. More than this, their thought-provoking piece also gives us opportunity to critically reflect upon the changing relationship between state, private, and third sectors. The authors first analyze the progressive move from public to private provision and then look at the potential to move from private to mutual. Finally, they ask the question whether co-constructing mutualism and public services is the way forward to reconfiguring public services in a way that is both democratic and desirable.