Resumo O objetivo deste texto é reconstituir uma trajetória de trabalho conjunto entre mim e Laurent Thévenot, a partir dos interesses independentes que nos uniram no final dos anos 1970 e o começo da década de 1980 e se consubstanciaram na publicação de A justificação em 1991 (a edição brasileira é de 2020). Com isso, explora-se a maneira como Thévenot contribuiu para a sociologia pragmática em específico e à sociologia de maneira geral: sua capacidade de interpretação e reutilização criativa de aportes de várias disciplinas a ele externas (como a filosofia e as ciências cognitivas) e de promover diálogo entre suas áreas de origem, a estatística e a economia - nas quais apresenta contribuições revolucionárias elas próprias, com, na primeira, a discussão sobre suas construções de categorias, e, na outra, com a chamada economia das convenções - e a sociologia (pela qual se encantou e na qual se alistou a partir dali e segue até hoje), além de sua enorme disposição para promoção de encontros entre pessoas, foram fatores essenciais para uma importante renovação das ciências sociais.

Pour analyser la situation de la sociologie, on peut distinguer, à partir du cas français, les attaques externes et les disputes internes à la discipline, en cherchant à comprendre comment celles-ci se combinent. Le rôle d’instance critique de la sociologie peut se comprendre selon quatre modalités d’expression, distribuées d’une part entre critique artiste et critique sociale, d’autre part entre réformisme et contestation. Or ce rôle critique de la sociologie tend, par ailleurs, vers deux modèles de fonctionnement, celui de l’innovation scientifique et celui des avant-gardes artistiques. Lorsque la fonction critique de la sociologie se conjugue avec le modèle d’avant-garde et que crise interne et attaque interne s’articulent l’une avec l’autre, l’intensité du sentiment d’une mise en danger de la discipline est maximale.

lumière des contradictions qui sont au principe d'un trouble collectif.

L’originalité des recherches de Luc Boltanski et Arnaud Esquerre n’est plus à démontrer. Les deux sociologues s’intéressent dans ce nouvel ouvrage à deux processus constitutifs de l’espace public. D’une part, les processus de mise en actualité : se saisissant de ce qui se passe maintenant, ces processus font connaître à nombre de personnes l’existence de faits que ces dernières n’ont pas, pour la plupart, directement vécus et les accompagnent généralement d’une description et d’une interprétation. Et, d’autre part, les processus de politisation : se saisissant de faits mis en actualité, ces processus les problématisent, en sorte que l’actualité concerne chacun, et par conséquent aussi l’État, tout en donnant lieu à des interprétations dont les divergences suscitent des commentaires, des polémiques et des divisions. Boltanski et Esquerre fondent leurs analyses sur les milliers de commentaires mis en ligne par des lecteurs du quotidien Le Monde en septembre et octobre 2019 ; et les milliers de commentaires postés sur deux chaînes de vidéo d’actualité passée mises en ligne en janvier 2021 par l’Institut national de l’audiovisuel. Chemin faisant, ils reconstituent la norme du dicible en comparant les commentaires publiés et les commentaires rejetés par les instances de modération ; ils saisissent des opinions en train de se faire, au lieu de les recueillir sous la forme stabilisée, souvent réflexive et prudente, des réponses à des entretiens ou des sondages. Ils cartographient les processus de politisation à notre époque, tels le féminisme, l’écologie, l’immigration, les religions, le nationalisme, l’Europe, etc. Loin d’être un livre de plus sur la presse, les médias ou les réseaux sociaux, c’est ici un grand livre sur la formation de l’opinion politique en démocratie et la manière dont en sont affectées nos vies quotidiennes.

Luс Boltanski visited Russia in September, 2019, to support the publication of the Russian translation of his book Mysteries and Conspiracies: Detective Stories, Spy Novels and the Making of Modern Societies. It was his second visit to Russia, where he delivered three lectures. The first lecture was dedicated to Mysteries and Conspiracies. The second lecture was dedicated to his last book Enrichment: A Critique of Commodities, which he wrote with Arnaud Esquerre. The third lecture focused on the relationship between the critical sociology of the Pierre Bourdieu school, and the pragmatic sociology of critical capacity promoted by Luc Boltanski together with his long-time collaborator, Laurent Thevenot, within their Group of Political and Moral Sociology. In this review of the two different approaches, he revisited the theme of his 2009 book On Critique: A Sociology of Emancipation which proclaimed the then-new theoretical synthesis. Mysteries and Conspiracies, published three years later, became the first demonstration of the practical implementation of this new model. On September 14, 2019, Luс Boltanski had an extensive talk with Oleg Kharkhordin wherein he clarified some issues of these lectures. The first part of this interview which was devoted to Mysteries and Conspiracies was published by the Russian on-line edition of gorky.media. Here, we publish the second part of this long interview covering the late writings of the famous French sociologist, the issues explored by his book On Critique, and the beginnings of his academic career when he was an active participant of the Pierre Bourdieu school.

The authors of this book argue that Western capitalism has recently undergone a fundamental transformation that especially apparent in those countries responsible fpr European industrial primacy. There are two significant dimensions of the work: historical and analytical. The first dimension focuses on economic changes that have been observed since the late 20th century and dramatically modified the way value and wealth are created today: on one hand, the transformation characterized by de-industrialization; and, on the other, the increased exploitation of certain resources that, while not entirely new, have taken on an unprecedented importance. The second direction aims to understand how different commodities can generate transactions perceived as normal by buyers and sellers and that fit preliminary expectations to a certain degree. From a theoretical perspective, the authors deliberate pragmatic structuralism that combines social history with the analysis of cognitive competences upon which actors rely. In terms of empirical data, the authors use statistics enriched with a set of various formal and informal interviews, focusing on France as a case where the mentioned transformation is more distinctive. The Journal of Economic Sociology publishes some excerpts from the second chapter "Toward Enrichment" where the authors define the main sources and benefits of the enrichment economy. The enrichment economy is based less on producing new objects and more on enriching existing things and places by connecting them with specific narratives.

In this interview, Juliette Rennes and Simon Susen talk to Luc Boltanski about various aspects of his personal and professional trajectory, notably with regard to his key intellectual contributions, including – in particular – his attempt to explore the sociological implications of his central thesis concerning ‘the fragility of reality’. Originally conducted and published in French in 2010, this thought-provoking interview contains crucial insights into the theoretical and practical ambitions of the ‘later Boltanski’.

Retrouvez plus de détails sur notre site : www.lamanufacturedidees.orgLa Manufacture Aux Barons 71570 Chasselas 03 85 50 98 64 contact@lamanufacturedidees.org mercredi mai Philippe Artières Serge Portelli Objets d’enquêtes : les traces et les preuves Peut-on rapprocher les démarches du juge et de l’historien, leur rapport aux indices et aux preuves ? Comment mettent-ils en récit des archives, des témoignages ? Comment interprètent-ils l’absence de traces ? Serge Portelli et Philippe Artières débattront de ces questions à partir de leurs pratiques respectives. Serge Portelli reviendra sur ses débuts de juge d’instruction confronté à des affaires de mœurs. Philippe Artières, qui a travaillé sur les marges de la société la déviance, le monde carcéral, la matérialité de l’écrit (tatouages, graffitis, banderoles) évoquera son goût pour l’histoire mineure et les archives judiciaires.

RésuméAu cours des dernières décennies se sont développées différentes approches sociologiques se réclamant de conceptions pragmatistes. Ces approches mettent l'accent sur l'agir en situation, sur les capacités réflexives et interprétatives des individus et sur leurs compétences sociales. On a souvent vu dans ces conceptions dites pragmatiques une approche alternative au structuralisme qui avait dominé les décennies précédentes. Sans négliger ce qui éloigne ces deux approches l'une de l'autre, nous cherchons à montrer dans ce texte la façon dont elles peuvent non seulement être mises à profit à propos d'un même objet, mais aussi être articulées dans un même cadre théorique. La démonstration prend appui sur des recherches empiriques récentes portant sur l’échange marchand et sur la relation entre prix et valeur. L’étude pragmatique de situations d’échange permet d'identifier différentes formes de mise en valeur qui sont à la fois incorporées aux compétences cognitives des acteurs et objectivées dans les dispositifs de la marchandise. Envisagées d'un point de vue structural, ces formes de mise en valeur peuvent être analysées comme un groupe de transformation, au sens de Claude Lévi-Strauss. Toutefois, ce structuralisme cognitif est insuffisant pour comprendre le changement historique de ces formes, dont l’étude peut faire appel à un autre genre de structuralisme. Ce dernier, que nous qualifions de « systémique », dispose, en de « grands récits », des causalités visant à relier les processus locaux de marchandisation aux évolutions globales du capitalisme.

Responding to Fraser, Boltanski and Esquerre extend their comparative analysis of capitalist valorization types, adding to their original trio standard fame, asset form, collection four another type, the trend form, and arguing that today's 'integral capitalism' encompasses all four.

Different sociological approaches claiming a close relation to pragmatism have developed over recent decades, emphasizing situated action, the interpretive and reflexive capacities of actors, and their social capabilities. These so-called pragmatic conceptions have often been presented as an alternative to the structuralism that dominated previous decades. Without ignoring the differences between the two approaches, this article seeks to show not only that they can both be usefully applied to the same object, but also that they can be integrated into a unified theoretical framework. The argument is based on recent empirical work devoted to the study of commercial exchange, in particular the relation between price and value. The pragmatic study of exchange situations makes it possible to identify different forms of valuation that are both embedded into the cognitive resources of actors and objectified in arrangements around commodities. From a structural point of view, these forms of valuation can be considered a “transformation group,” in the sense described by Claude Lévi-Strauss. However, this cognitive structuralism cannot help us to understand the changes undergone by these forms over historical time. For this, we must call on another type of structuralism, which might be labeled “systemic” structuralism. This proposes narratives that aim to establish chains of causality between local processes of commodification and the evolutions of capitalism at a global level.

I am not going to offer a technical analysis of one or other of his published works, which others represented in the present volume will do much better than I can, particularly in respect of his contribution to statistics and the history of statistics and their uses. However, I would like to say, in a few words, what in my view was the meaning of his work, what made it of crucial importance to sociology and the social sciences in general. To do this, I will try to place his work in the context of its time, a long period of more than 40 years, from the end of the 1960s to the 2000s. And to place Desrosiere's work in the context of its time is to connect it with both the intellectual and political debates of that time and their evolution.