original citation: copyright and...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Original citation: Copyright and reusewrap.warwick.ac.uk/88991/7/WRAP-what-its-worth-Stark-2017.pdfthe mid 1980s that gave rise to Luc Boltanski and Laurent Thévenot’s book, On](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042100/5e7c7661b3680c2c8a4e912e/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
warwick.ac.uk/lib-publications
Original citation: Stark, David (2017) For what it's worth. In: Cloutier , Charlotte and Gond , Jean-Pascal and Leca, Bernard , (eds.) Justification, Evaluation and Critique in the Study of Organizations. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 52. Emerald Group Publishing Ltd., pp. 383-397. ISBN 9781787143807 Permanent WRAP URL: http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/88991 Copyright and reuse: The Warwick Research Archive Portal (WRAP) makes this work by researchers of the University of Warwick available open access under the following conditions. Copyright © and all moral rights to the version of the paper presented here belong to the individual author(s) and/or other copyright owners. To the extent reasonable and practicable the material made available in WRAP has been checked for eligibility before being made available. Copies of full items can be used for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge. Provided that the authors, title and full bibliographic details are credited, a hyperlink and/or URL is given for the original metadata page and the content is not changed in any way. Publisher’s statement: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/S0733-558X20170000052011 A note on versions: The version presented here may differ from the published version or, version of record, if you wish to cite this item you are advised to consult the publisher’s version. Please see the ‘permanent WRAP URL’ above for details on accessing the published version and note that access may require a subscription. For more information, please contact the WRAP Team at: [email protected]
![Page 2: Original citation: Copyright and reusewrap.warwick.ac.uk/88991/7/WRAP-what-its-worth-Stark-2017.pdfthe mid 1980s that gave rise to Luc Boltanski and Laurent Thévenot’s book, On](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042100/5e7c7661b3680c2c8a4e912e/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
1
ForWhatIt’sWorth
DavidStark
ColumbiaUniversityand
UniversityofWarwick
Abstract. Thisessaytakesitspointofdeparturefromtheintellectualmilieuinthemid1980sthatgaverisetoLucBoltanskiandLaurentThévenot’sbook,OnJustification:EconomiesofWorth.Itshowshowexposuretoideasandconceptsinthatbookcametotakevariedformsastheywereelaboratedandmodifiedinthe work of an American sociologist across several decades of research indiverseempiricalsettings.
ForthcominginResearchintheSociologyofOrganizations,2017,Volume52.Justification,EvaluationandCritiqueintheStudyofOrganizations:ContributionsfromFrenchPragmatistSociology;Keywords.Ordersofworth,valuation,dissonance,situations,innovation,pragmatism.Acknowledgements.ThisworkwassupportedbytheEuropeanResearchCouncil(ERC)undergrantagreementno.695256.MythankstoSimonBittmann,ElenaEsposito,GeoffFougere,andIstvánGáborfortheircommentsandsuggestions.
![Page 3: Original citation: Copyright and reusewrap.warwick.ac.uk/88991/7/WRAP-what-its-worth-Stark-2017.pdfthe mid 1980s that gave rise to Luc Boltanski and Laurent Thévenot’s book, On](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042100/5e7c7661b3680c2c8a4e912e/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
2
ForWhatIt’sWorth
DavidStark
ColumbiaUniversityandUniversityofWarwickIntroductionLucBoltanskiandLaurentThévenot’sinfluentialbook,DeLaJustification.LesÉconomiesdelaGrandeur(OnJustification.TheEconomiesofWorth)(1991,2006)waspublishedmorethan25yearsago.Buttheideasandconceptsofthatimportantworkwerealreadyhavinganinfluenceevenbeforethebook’spublication,firstthroughthePhDseminarthatBoltanskiandThévenottaughttogetherattheÉcoledesHautesÉtudesenSciencesSociales(EHESS)andlaterasthemanuscriptcirculatedamongtheirParisiancircles,includingeconomistsofthe“Conventions”SchoolandsociologistsintheGroupedeSociologiePolitiqueetMorale(GSPM)whichtheyfoundedin1985.Iwasoneofthosesociologists.And(adoptingaphrasefromthetechnologycommunity)itisasan“earlyadopter”thatIwritethisessay.Beinganearlyuseroftheconceptsof“leséconomiesdelagrandeur”(economiesofworth)doesnotmeanthatIwritefromaprivilegedposition.Myunderstandingsandmisunderstandings(moreonthis,elaboratedbelow)arenomoreworthythantheinitialinsightsofareaderwhohasjustnowbeeninspiredbyreadingOnJustificationforthefirsttime.Theyareneitherbetternorworse.Theyarevaluablebecausetheyaredifferent.Mymisunderstandingscomewithahistory–havingheardtheconceptsbeingworkedoutwhiletakingwrittenform,andhavingusedthemastheoreticalreferencepoints(evenwhiledepartingfromthem)forseveraldecades.Theyarevaluablebecausetheyhaveahistory;andtherearelimitstotheirusefulnessforthesamereason.Perhapssomeonelessfamiliarwiththeirgenesiscouldseetheconnectionsamongtheconceptsmoreclearlyandbelesslikelytomisinterpret.CertainlytheacolyteswillcomplainthatIhavenotbeentruetotheoriginaltext.Itisforthereadertobethejudge.Forme,sciencemeansthatmyfirstandlastfidelitiesaretobefaithfultomyresearchmaterials–notbecauseofsomepositivistbeliefinthe“facts”butbecauseIfindthattheconstraintsposedbydata(whetherethnographic,comparativehistorical,ornetworkanalytic)arelikelytobemoreinteresting,challenging,andpotentiallycreativethanthoseposedbytheory.Forgoodorbad,thatismydisposition.AnditisfromthisdispositionthatIwriteanessayinwhichthereadercanseehowasetofideastowhichIwasexposedinmyformativeyearscametotakevariedformsastheywereelaboratedandmodifiedacrossseveraldecadesofresearchindiverseempiricalsettings.
![Page 4: Original citation: Copyright and reusewrap.warwick.ac.uk/88991/7/WRAP-what-its-worth-Stark-2017.pdfthe mid 1980s that gave rise to Luc Boltanski and Laurent Thévenot’s book, On](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042100/5e7c7661b3680c2c8a4e912e/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
3
EarlyAdoptionIwasfortunatetomeetLucBoltanskiintheSpringof1982.LucwasvisitingatHarvard’sCenterforEuropeanStudieswhereIwasagraduateresearchassociatecompletingthelastphaseofmydissertation.Webecamefastfriends,solidifiedwhenIsawhimnearlyeverydayforseveralmonthsinthespring/earlysummerof1983,havingbeeninvitedbyPierreBourdieutobeafellowattheCentredeSociologieEuropéenneinParis.Let’sjustsayitwastremendouslyexciting:talkingwithBourdieuandBoltanski;meetingLaurentThévenot,AlainDesrosières,BrunoLatour,andothers;andexperiencingtheenergyaroundActesdelaRechercheenSciencesSociales(probablythelastmomentofrealinnovationinthefieldofnon-digitalsocialscientificjournalpublishing).FromParis,ItooktheOrientExpresstoBudapestwhereIspentthefinalmonthsofthesummerdoingthefieldworkwhich,continuedoverthenextthreeyears,wouldbecomethebasisformypaper,“Work,Worth,andJustice.”1ThatpaperwasdraftedintheFallof1986,whileIwasavisitingfellowatthenewlyfoundedGSPM,2whereBoltanskiandThévenotwerebeginningtowriteLesÉconomiesdelaGrandeur(theworkingtitleofthemanuscriptfirstpublishedin1987).3DuringthosemonthsIwasliterallymovingbackandfortheverycoupleofweeksfromfieldworkin
1ThispaperwasfirstpublishedinFrenchbyBourdieuinActesdelarechercheensciencessocialesin1990(Stark1990a).TheoriginalEnglishversioncirculatedasaWorkingPaperfromHarvard’sCenterforEuropeanStudies(Stark1990b).BecauseVivianaZelizerassignedtheunpublishedpaperformanyyearsinhereconomicsociologyseminaratPrincetonithadareadershiplargerthanthatofsomeotherpublishedpapers.I’mgratefultoherforgivingitanaudienceduringitslonghibernationbeforeiteventuallyappearedasChapter2ofTheSenseofDissonance.Foramoredetailedaccountofthenearly20yeardelayfromdrafttopublicationseethePrefaceinStark(2009,pp.xi-xv). 2 TheformationoftheGSPMwasaninstitutionalmarkerofBoltanski’sseparationfromBourdieu,hismentor,co-author,andfriend.Theresultingconflictwasacrimonious.Duringthistime,IdidwhatanAmericansociologistwassupposedtodo:Italkedtopeopleincampswhoweren’ttalkingtoeachotherand,infact,forbadeeventheirstudentsfromdoingso.Ibreaknoconfidences(theirpersonalaffectionforeachotherfamousforrunningmuchdeeperthantheirtemporaryprofessionalantagonism)whenIreportthatBourdieu’sfirstquestionatlunchwasalways“Tellme.How’sLuc?”andBoltanski’sfirstquestionatdinner“How’sPierre?” 3DelaJustification.LesÉconomiesdelaGrandeuroriginallypublishedin1991isactuallyareeditionofapriorbook,publishedin1987bythePressesUniversitairesdeFranceinits“CahiersduCentred’étudesdel’emploi”seriesandtitledLesÉconomiesdelaGrandeur.The1991versionhadanewpostface,alongertitleincludingtheterm“justification”aswellasaslightlychangedterminology.SomeelementsofthetheoreticalfoundationsofOnJustificationweredevelopedbyLucBoltanskiinparallelinanotherbookpublishedinbetween(1990),L’AmouretlaJusticecommeCompétences.TroisEssaisdeSociologiedel’Action(translatedin2012asLoveandJusticeasCompetences.ThreeEssaysontheSociologyofAction).TheempiricalmaterialusedbyBoltanskiandThévenottodeveloptheirideasbetween1987and1991isaseriesofempiricalstudiesconductedbyvarioussociologistsandgroupedinthecollectivebooktheyeditedin1989andtitled:JustesseetJusticedansleTravail(Paris,PressesUniversitairesdeFrance,notyetpublishedinEnglishtothebestofourknowledge).
![Page 5: Original citation: Copyright and reusewrap.warwick.ac.uk/88991/7/WRAP-what-its-worth-Stark-2017.pdfthe mid 1980s that gave rise to Luc Boltanski and Laurent Thévenot’s book, On](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042100/5e7c7661b3680c2c8a4e912e/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
4
BudapesttoseminarsattheGSPMinParis.ThatethnographicresearchwasconductedinseveralHungarianfactories(thepapereventuallyfocusedonone)wheregroupsofworkersinsidestate-ownedenterpriseshadbeenallowedtoform“intrapreneurial”unitsthatsubcontractedtoproducegoodsorservicesontheoffhoursandonweekends.“From6to2weworkforthem,”sothesayingwent,“from2to6weworkforourselves.”Thesituationwasanorganizationalsociologist’sdream:inthesamesettingwiththesametechnologyandthesameemployees,workersoperatedintwodifferentformsoforganization,shiftingwithinasingledayfromworkthatwasbureaucraticallyorganizedtoworkthattheynon-bureaucraticallyorganizedthemselves(electingtheirownrepresentatives,pricingtheirproducts,anddistributingtheirearnings).TheHungarian“experiment”wasalsotheperfectsettingtoputinplaytheideasthatBoltanskiandThévenotwerehammeringoutinParis.“Yes,they’reright!”youcouldalmosthearmeshout,“There’snotoneeconomy,butmany.AndIcanfindtheminonefactory.”Thesamefortheconceptofworthasinextricablyeconomicandmoral,whichIcouldelaboratebyreunitingthenotionsofvalueandvaluesthathadbeendisciplinarilyseparatedtoeconomicsandsociologyin“Parsons’Pact.”4Orsimilarlywiththeirusefulnotionoftestsor“proofsofworth”whichIcouldseemarkedlyenactedintheBudapestmachinetoolmakerspainful(andneverentirelysuccessful)effortstoconstructinternalpaymentsystemsthatwouldfairlyallocatetheirearningswhileaffirmingtheirself-identities.Iftheseconceptshelpedmetoanalyzetheresearchmaterialsfrommyethnographicfieldwork(withJánosLukács)inHungaryduringthe1980s,theywouldalsoservemewellinNewYorkCityinthe1990sandearly2000s.WithMoniqueGirardIstudiedanewmediastartupinManhattan’sSiliconAlley,analyzinghowitsdailyfunctioninganditsdynamicsovertimecouldbeunderstoodastherepeatedinterchangeamongdistinctordersofworthasprogrammers,interactivedesigners,informationarchitects,merchandisingspecialists,andbusinessstrategistsdisagreedaboutwhatwasvaluable.Similarly,withDanielBeunzaweshowedthatthesearchforvalueinthederivativestradingroomofamajorinternationalinvestmentbankonWallStreetwasorganizedbythediscreteprinciplesofvaluationwithinandacrossthevariousarbitragedesks(mergerarbitrage,statisticalarbitrage,index,convertiblebonds,etc.).Hungarianfactory,newmediastartup,WallStreettradingroom–eachwasasettingwheremultipleeconomiesofworthwereatplay.
4Withthenotionof“Parsons’Pact”IrefertoTalcottParsons’conversationswithhiscolleaguesinHarvard’sDepartmentofEconomicswhenhelaunchedhisgrandschemetocolonizethesocialsciences–withtheexceptionofeconomics.AsIexpresseditcolloquially:You,theeconomists,studyvalue;wesociologistsstudyvalues.Youstudytheeconomy;westudythesocialrelationsinwhicheconomiesareembedded.(Stark2009,p.7).SimilartothemoveinScienceandTechnologyStudiestoshiftfromtheMertonianproblemofstudyingtheinstitutionsinwhichscienceisembeddedtostudyingtheactualpracticesofscientistsatworkinthelaboratory,Iarguedthateconomicsociologistsshouldshifttostudyingtheactualpracticesofvaluationintheeconomy.Theconceptofworthisinterestingbecauseitconotesvaluesandvalue,esteemandestimation.SeeStark2009,pp.7-10.
![Page 6: Original citation: Copyright and reusewrap.warwick.ac.uk/88991/7/WRAP-what-its-worth-Stark-2017.pdfthe mid 1980s that gave rise to Luc Boltanski and Laurent Thévenot’s book, On](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042100/5e7c7661b3680c2c8a4e912e/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
5
Butasthisbriefaccountingindicates,whileIwasutilizingtheconceptofordersofworth,atnopointdidIoperationalizethemasinstantiationsofthefamoussextet–market,inspiration,civic,industrial,domestic,andfame–elaboratedinOnJustification.MyaccountoftheHungariantoolmakers,forexample,naivelyreferredtothethreeeconomiesinsidethesocialistfactoryusingthePolanyiantriplicate–market,redistribution,reciprocity.ThatwastheformulationIusedwhenIfirstpresented“Work,Worth,andJustice”attheGSPMinDecember1986.Irememberitwell.Myfieldnoteswerehardlydry(nolaptopsinthoseprehistorictimes),mytextwaslitteredwithbrackets“[tobecompleted],”andmyvoicedoubtlessconveyedmyenthusiasmattheopportunitytogivelivingshapetotheideasthatwerebeingdiscussedintheseminar.LaurenttookthefloorimmediatelyasIwastotakequestions.ThemessagetothePhDstudentswasnotsubtle:Ihadnotunderstoodthetheory,myeclecticeffortsweremisleading,andIshouldnotbeemulated.Yes,Iwasanearlyadopter.Butthefirstuser,itseems,wasalsothefirstabuser.CoordinationItwouldbeasafeestimatethatmysubsequentconversationswithLucandLaurentnumberedinthedozens.Nothundreds,butnumerousnonetheless–inParisoratWisconsin,Cornell,andColumbiawhereIwasaffiliated,aswellasatvariousseminars,workshops,andconferenceswherewemetovertheyears.Ihadnotgivensecondthoughttomyabuserstatus;and,besides,therewasworktobedonetomakethebookavailabletotheEnglish-readingaudience.Aftersufferingabotchedtranslation,wefoundanexcellenttranslator(CatherinePorter),andOnJustificationwaspublishedin2006byPrincetonUniversityPressforwhichIwrotethejacketblurb:
"BoltanskiandThévenot'sOnJustificationisoneofthemostimportantcontributionstothefieldofeconomicsociologyinthepastdecade.Itdoesnotfitneatlyintoanyofthemajortheoreticalperspectivesthatcurrentlydominatethefield–institutionalism,organizationalecology,networkanalysis,rationalchoice,ortransaction-costeconomics.Butpreciselybecauseitissooriginal,ithasgreatpotentialtochartnewterritoryandenlivendebates.ThebookhasalreadyhadanenormousimpactinFrance,whereitisoneofthefoundingdocumentsofthe'economicsofconventions'school.ItissuretohaveabigimpactinsociologyintheUnitedStatesandBritaintoo.Icouldlistatleasttwentymajorsociologistswhohaveaskedmewhenthebookwillbetranslated."
Tenyearsisnotreallyenoughtimetomakesomethinganhistoricaldocument,butitisinterestingtolookbackontheseremarksinlightofwhattranspired.Rationalchoiceandtransaction-costeconomicsdidnothaveamajorinfluenceinsociology(fewthesedayswouldconsiderthemperspectivescontendingwiththeotherapproaches),andOnJustificationnolongerlookslikeafoundingdocumentofthe“conventions”school–
![Page 7: Original citation: Copyright and reusewrap.warwick.ac.uk/88991/7/WRAP-what-its-worth-Stark-2017.pdfthe mid 1980s that gave rise to Luc Boltanski and Laurent Thévenot’s book, On](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042100/5e7c7661b3680c2c8a4e912e/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
6
becauseitsimpacthasbeensostrongthatwethinkofitnowasfoundingsomethingofitsown.Asmyremarkscorrectlyanticipated,ithaschartednewterritoryoutsidetheconventionalapproaches,evenwhileresearchersworkingwithintheinstitutionalist,organizationalecology,ornetworkanalyticperspectivesdrawonitsinsights.Mybook,TheSenseofDissonance:AccountsofWorthinEconomicLife,isrightlyregardedasacontributiontothetheoreticalpathoutlinedbyBoltanskiandThévenot.Itsintroductorychapter,forexample,explicitlyacknowledgestheinfluenceofOnJustification.ButThévenotwasrighttowarnhisPhDstudentsthatIwasalessthanfaithfulfollower–butnotbecauseIhadmisunderstoodtheirargumentorbecauseIhadfailedtoconstructmyargumentintermsoftheircanonical“economies.”Instead,asIalsomakeexplicitinTheSenseofDissonance(Stark2009,pp.xiii-xivand10-15),thefindingsfrommyfieldresearchwereleadingmetotakeissuewithpartsofthetheory.ForBoltanskiandThévenot,theprinciplesofjustificationthatcompriseanorderofworthmatterbecausetheymakeitpossibleforactorstocoordinatetheiractions.Inaworldofuncertainty,5weconfrontsituations.What’sgoingonhere?Whenthesituationisnotjustanyoldsettingbutasetup–inwhichtheprinciplesofoneorderofwortharethosemostreadilyavailableforaction–thenuncertaintyisdispelledandwecanact.Nolongeruncertainaboutwhatcounts,Icanactand,mostimportantly,wecancoordinateouractions.Agreementaboutwhichorderofworthisoperative(typicallyunstated,butwiththemeansforjustificationimmediatelytohand)facilitatescoordination.Thatistheargument.Butthefieldresearchthatformsthesubstantivechaptersofmybookandsubsequentnetworkanalyticresearchhavegivenmereasontothinkdifferently.Thereisnotmuchaboutwhicheconomistsandsociologistsagree.Butthereisonenotionthattheyholdincommon:Frictionisbad.Ineconomics,“friction”istheproblemtobeovercomeby“loweredtransactioncosts”(Williamson1981).Insociology,coordinationismadepossiblebywhatissharedbythemembersofagroupororganization–sharedvalues,sharednorms,sharedexpectations,sharedunderstandings.Heretoofrictionisbad.Impedimentstocoordinationcanberesolved,inthepopsociologyvernacular,“ifwealljustgettogetherandironoutourdifferences.”Justaseconomistsemphasizesmoothtransactions,soorganizationaltheoristsofwhateverdisciplinarystripelaudthesmoothtransmissionofinformation(BorgattiandCross2003;Coleman1988).ButasmytiredealerandIknow,frictionisnotalwaysabadthing.Onasnowy,icyroadIdon’twantthingstobesmooth.Widespreadagreementinanorganizationorinamarketcanleadtoconformityandcalamity.Pricebubbles,forexample,arethemarketequivalentofatoosmooth,icyroad.WithSheenLevineandothercolleagues,wedesignedanexperimentalmarkettotesttheeffectofethnicdiversityonpricebubbles.
5ThepreoccupationwithuncertaintystemsfromtheircloseinvolvementwiththeFrenchgroupworkingontheeconomicsofconvention.SeeStark(2009,pp.10-15).FormoreontheConventionsSchoolseeJagd(2007).
![Page 8: Original citation: Copyright and reusewrap.warwick.ac.uk/88991/7/WRAP-what-its-worth-Stark-2017.pdfthe mid 1980s that gave rise to Luc Boltanski and Laurent Thévenot’s book, On](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042100/5e7c7661b3680c2c8a4e912e/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
7
Ourfindingsshowedthatmarketswheretraderswereallofthesameethnicity(whetherinSingaporeorinTexas)exhibitedconsiderablyworsebubblesandmispricing.Ethnicdiversity,weconcluded,disruptsconformityandleadstobetterinformationprocessing(Levineetal2014).Butfrictionisnotonlyimportantforerrordetection.Acrossverydifferentsettings,thefieldresearchforTheSenseofDissonancefoundthataction–and,inparticular,innovativeaction–wasfacilitatednotbyconvergenceoragreementonaprincipleofjustificationbutbythedivergenceofevaluativeprinciples.Infact,morethanthesimplecoexistenceofordersofworth,innovationispromotedbythecollisionofevaluativeprinciples.Itiswhenthingsdonotfittogethercomfortablythatnovelrecombinationsbecomethinkable.Disagreementaboutwhat’svaluablecanmakefornewvaluepropositions.Organizationscreatewealthwhentheysupportdissonantprinciplesofworth.6Thus,whereastheIntroductionofTheSenseofDissonanceopenedwiththeprinciplesofOnJustification,bytheconcludingchapterIwasconsideringtheideathatwecanactinconcertwhenwedonotagreeaboutwhyouractionsarevaluable.Whereasmuchsociologicalthinkingholdsthatcoordinationispossiblebecauseofsharedunderstandings,Iwonderedwhetherakindofinnovativecoordinationwaspossiblebecauseofourmisunderstandings(Stark2009pp.190-5).Canmisunderstandingbeameansofcoordination?Thequestionisdeliberatelyprovocative.WhatIintendtoprovokearefurtherresearchquestions.Whatarethelimitsofdissonance?Candissonancebemanaged?Whatarethesocialstructural(ororganizational)conditionsunderwhichthefrictionofmisunderstandingscanbecomeaproductivetension?ThislastchallengewastheanimatingresearchquestionofaprojectIrecentlyconductedwithmyformerPhDstudentsMathijsdeVaanandBalazsVedres.Asinthethreeethnographiccasestudiesinmybook,here,too,theproblemwastostudythefactorsthatfacilitateinnovationwhentheunitofcreativityisateam.Butforthisstudy,insteadofethnographyweusedthetoolsofhistoricalnetworkanalysis.Ourgoalwastounderstandthesociologicalfactorsthatexplainwhysomecreativeteamsareabletoproduceaculturalproductthatisnotonlyinventivebutalsocritically
6Theorganizationalformthatpromotesthisreflexivityisaheterarchy.ItakethetermfromMcCulloch(1945).Heterarchyisnotsimplytheabsenceorflatteningofhierarchybutinvolves,justasimportantly,theorganizeddissonanceofrivalrousevaluativeprinciples(seeespecially,Stark2009:pp.19-31).Heterachiesarenotnecessarilythemselvesorganizations;and,asasocialform,theycanbequitestable:TheU.S.Constitutionenscribesaheterarchicalformintherelationshipamongthebranchesofthefederalgovernment.Theirmultipleprinciplesofjustificationarenotanorganizationalorconceptualhierarchy(Stark2009,p.31).
![Page 9: Original citation: Copyright and reusewrap.warwick.ac.uk/88991/7/WRAP-what-its-worth-Stark-2017.pdfthe mid 1980s that gave rise to Luc Boltanski and Laurent Thévenot’s book, On](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042100/5e7c7661b3680c2c8a4e912e/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
8
successful.Inculturalfieldswherethedifferencebetween“exciting”and“weird”canberazorthin,aproductcanbeinnovativewithoutbeingsuccessfulandcanbesuccessfulwithoutbeinginnovative.Tobeagamechanger,theteammustmakeaproductthatisnotonlydistinctivebutalsohighlyregarded.Itmuststandoutandbedeemedoutstanding(deVaan,Vedres,andStark2015).Tostudythisproblem,wecollecteddataoneverycommerciallyreleasedvideogameintheglobalvideogameindustryfrom1979to2009.Thedatasetweanalyzedcomprisedapproximately12,500videogamesandthecareerhistoriesofsome140,000videogamedevelopers.Becausewehaddataoneveryvideogamewewereabletoreconstruct,foreachteam,thehistoriesofallofthedeveloperswhoworkedtogetheronit.Twovariableswereofgreatestinterest:onemeasuringcognitivedistance,anothermeasuringgroupstructure.Fortheformer,wecouldreconstructforeverymemberontheteamthecompletesetofcognitive(orstylistic)elementstowhichthatdeveloperhadbeenexposed.Withthiswecouldcomputethecognitivedistanceamongthemembersofeveryteam.Teamswhosemembershadworkedonverysimilargameswouldhavelittledifficultcommunicatingandcouldunderstandeachothereasily;teamswhosemembershadworkedongamesinthepastwithverydifferentelementswouldhavegreaterdifficultyunderstandingeachother.Forthesocialstructuralvariable,wewereinterestedinexploringhowateamisnotjustcomposedofindividualsbutismadeupofgroups,analyzedhereasmemberswhohadworkedtogetherinthepastonapriorvideogame.Oncewehadidentifiedthevariousgroupsinateamonthisbasiswecouldthencomputethecognitivedistanceacrossgroupsaswellasmovetoanalyzethepatternsoftiesconnectingthem(againbasedonpriorco-participation).Inthemorefamiliarnetworkanalyticterms,groupscouldbe“isolates”ortheycouldbrokeredacrossa“structuralhole.”Butwealsoidentifiedathirdtopographicfeatureinwhichgroupscouldbe“structurallyfolded”(VedresandStark2010)wherecohesivegroupsoverlapped.Ourfindingsindicatedthatgamechangingsuccesswasmostlikelywhencognitivelydistantgroupswerestructurallyfolded.Suchteamswereheldintension:cognitivedistancewaspullingthegroupsapartwhilestructuralfoldingwasbindingthemtogether.Thecombinationwasaproductivetensionthathelpedtomitigatethetwogreatestthreatsfacingcreativeteamswithdissonantpatterns.Ontheonesidethereistheprobleminwhichtheinitialmomentofmisunderstandingresultsinquickdismissal.Ontheothersideistheproblemofreachingagreementtooquickly–butatthelevelofthelowestcommondemoninator.Cognitivedistanceimpededthesmoothflowofinformation,andtheresultingeddiesandpoolswereopportunitiesfordeparturesfromexistingroutines.Meanwhile,thepocketsoftrustestablishedbystructuralfoldingcreatedanatmosphereinwhichtheoperativemodewas“holdtight”–bepatient,toleratetheambiguity,lookfornewopenings.Teamswiththesecharacteristicsproducedgamechangingproductsthatwereinnovativeandcriticallyacclaimed.
![Page 10: Original citation: Copyright and reusewrap.warwick.ac.uk/88991/7/WRAP-what-its-worth-Stark-2017.pdfthe mid 1980s that gave rise to Luc Boltanski and Laurent Thévenot’s book, On](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042100/5e7c7661b3680c2c8a4e912e/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
9
Returningtothebroaderthemeoftheimportanceofprincipledagreement,therewill,ofcourse,bethosewhosay(asIcaricature):It’sgoodtothinkaboutalternativeviews,butwhenallissaidanddone,foragrouptofunctioneffectivelyitneedsacommonpurpose.Thereneedstobeagreement.Afor-profitcompany,forexample,hastobelookingtothebottomline.Youcan’thavepeopleactinglikeit'sakindergartenoranartschool.Tothis,wecanmaketherejoinderthatcompaniesthatpayexclusivefocustothebottomlinedosoattheirperil.Itneedn’tbeakindergarten,butshouldn’tinspiringitsemployeesandcaringfortheirwellbeingbeimportantobjectives?Similarly,shorttermprofitsthatinterferewithmakingagreatproductorthatscoffatcivicvirtuescanleadtoruin.Moreover,what’sthevalueofagreatproductifnooneispayingattention?Ratherthanagreementwithinamarketmonoculture,theheterarchyofsuchevaluativeprinciplescanbethecoursetolongtermviability.7Notably,wecanre-expressthestatementsintermsofordersofworth–inorderastheyappearinthisparagraph:market,inspiration,domestic,industrial,civic,andfame–preciselythecanonicaleconomiesofOnJustification.ValuationThebrevityofmysummaryofOnJustification(page6above)necessarilydidviolencetothenuancesofitsargument.Butithadthevirtueoffocusingontwoorthreecorepremises.WhendiscussingBoltanskiandThévenot’sviewsoncoordinationIpointedtotheiremphasisonthesituation.AlthoughIturnnowfromcoordinationtovaluation,theemphasiswillremainonanalyzingthesituation.Valuationtakesplaceinsituations.Whatisthesituation?What’sgoingonhere?Thequestionsareinterestingbecausetheyareonesfacingthesocialactors.HowdoIsizeupthesituation?Forthesocialactorthisdoesnotmeanjustacceptingthesituationasagiven;itcanalsomeantheattempttomakethesituationoneinwhichthescalesofvaluationwillmeasureinunitsinwhichmyvalueissizable(Stark1996,pp.1013-14;Stark2009,pp.68-72).Thequestionsarealsointerestingbecausetheyareonesthattheanalystshouldbeasking.Infact,whereastoomuchofthefieldoforganizationstudiesseesamethodologicalinstitutionalismastheonlyalternativetomethodologicalindividualism,infact,thereisalternativetoboth:methodologicalsituationalism(Knorr-Cetina1981;Stark2009,pp9-10,31-33,and185).ThisemphasisonthesituationisthekeythemerunningthroughthechaptersinMomentsofValuation:ExploringSitesofDissonance,avolumeIrecentlyco-editedwithwithArianeBerthoinAntalandMichaelHutter.AsMichaelHutterandIarguedintheintroductoryessay,valuationalwaystakesplaceinsituations–bywhichwemeanthatvaluationis1)spatiallylocalizedand2)temporallymarked(HutterandStark2015).Thus,
7 Thesameargumentappliesnotonlyattheorganizationallevelbutatthesocietallevelaswell(Stark,2009,“Reprise,”pp.204-212).
![Page 11: Original citation: Copyright and reusewrap.warwick.ac.uk/88991/7/WRAP-what-its-worth-Stark-2017.pdfthe mid 1980s that gave rise to Luc Boltanski and Laurent Thévenot’s book, On](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042100/5e7c7661b3680c2c8a4e912e/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
10
studyingvaluationinsiturequires,first,detailedaccountsofhowthesettingissetupasanassemblagewhetherthisbeinthestagings,equipments,andprotocolsofpublicsituationssuchasthecourtroom,theconcerthall,orthewinetastingorinthespecializedtools,devicesandmaterialsofthelesspublicassemblagessuchasthelaboratory,thearchitecturalstudio,ortheperfumecounter.Second,studyingvaluationinsituationsrequiresdetailedanalysisofhowittakesplaceindiscretemomentsoftimewhenevaluativeattentionisparticularlyacute:theattentivemomentwhenadinnerguestfirstsipsaglassofwine(Hennion2015),theinstantwhenaluxuryperfumeissprayedintoaspecialdeviceallowingthecustomerasenseofitssillage(thescentedtrailleftbyafragrancewearer)(Trébuchet-Breitwiller2015),orthemomentwhentheprofessionalartappraiseriscross-examinedinthecourtroomwitnessbox(Brewer2015).Suchattentivemoments,Iwanttostress,arecriticalmoments.Theyarecritical,notonlybecausetheyfrequentlyinvolveacritic(and,ofcourse,manymomentsofvaluationdonothavecritics,judges,juries,andreviewers).Theyarecritical,moreimportantly,becausetheyaremomentswhentheoutcomeisnotfullysetupinadvance.Criticalbecauseoutcomesdependonwhathappens,onwhodoeswhatwheninthecriticalmoment.Theyarecriticalmoments,aboveall,becausetheycanbecontested.Forallitsemphasisonlogicsofaction,methodologicalinstitutionalismhaslotsoflogicsbutseldomhasaction–andevenlessdispute.Aprogramofmethodologicalsituationalism,bycontrast,willpayattentiontothosemomentsthatJohnDeweycalled“troublingandperplexingsituations”(Dewey1998,p.140)–inthevernacular,“Uh,oh,wehaveasituationonourhandshere”–asithighlightsthesitesandcriticalmomentsofdisputeandcontestation.Forthefurtherstudyofvaluation,twointer-relatedresearchproblemsseemparticularlypromising.Let’srefertothefirstquestionaspricingorprizing.Aboutpricingeconomistshavewrittenmuch,andsociologistsandanthropologistsarenowcontributingnewinsights(Beckert,2001;Guyer,2009;Muniesa,2007;andVelthuis2005).ButIturnimmediatelyto“prizing”foritislikelytobemoresurprising.ByprizesonemightthinkfirstoftheNobelPrizes,PulitzerPrizes,andOscarAwards(andmoreonsuchcompetitionsbelow).HereIwanttoexpandthenotionofprizingasanactivityofappraising(comparabletobutdifferentfrompricing)evenwhenitdoesnotliterallytaketheformofanaward.Merchantspriceitemsintheirstores.Reviewersprizeamoviebyawardingit3stars;RobertParkerawardsprizestowineswhenhescoressomehighersomelower;andcollegesareprizedwhenrankedhighlybyUSNewsandWorldReport(SauderandEspeland2009).Pricesmightormightnotcorrelatewithsuchprizings,buttheimportantpointtonoteisthatthemodalityofdenotingvalueisnotthesameinprizingasinpricing.Wearesurroundedbysuchratingsandrankings.Andtheyneednotbeperformedbyinstitutionallyrecognizedactors.Consumersissuevaluejudgementswhentheyrate
![Page 12: Original citation: Copyright and reusewrap.warwick.ac.uk/88991/7/WRAP-what-its-worth-Stark-2017.pdfthe mid 1980s that gave rise to Luc Boltanski and Laurent Thévenot’s book, On](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042100/5e7c7661b3680c2c8a4e912e/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
11
products;studentsevaluatetheirprofessor’slecturesonascaleof1to5;andAirbnbguestsandhostscanpunishtheircounterpartsbywithholdingaprizedrating.Muchprizingisordinal:taketheubiquityofTopTenlists.Butitneednotbe.Wepraise,weappraise,weprizeinformatsassimpleasabinaryupordown–like,dislike.Wedosooften,someofusmanytimesinaday.Andasmillionsandmillionsofusdoitinwaysthatcanbedigitallycapturedandanalyzed,suchprizingsoffernewmeanstoregistervaluejudgementsintheeconomy.Withthegrowthofavastdigitalrepositoryofprizingsandappraisings,muchofittime-stampeddata,itisnowpossibletocharttheseactivitiesofvaluationinrealtime.Whereaseconomistshavelonghadtime-sensitivedataonpricemovements,wenowhavealternative(notseparatebutcomplimentary)databasesonthemovementsofprizingandappraisingthatregisterconsumerattachments.These“valuemeters”willneednewmeasuresandmetrics(LatourandLepinay2009:16).Theycanbequantified,butthesemetricsofpersonalvaluejudgementsneednotbeexpressedintermsofmoney.Infact,wewillneedtoavoidthequicktemptationtoassesshowprizingandappraisingtranslatetopricing.Thatistheworkforcorporate(andstartup)researchdepartments.Thetaskforeconomicsociologywillbetodevelopnewmetricsofwhat’svaluable(theprizingsandappraisingsthatgiveusaccesstovaluejudgement)–valuablepreciselybecausetheyaremetricsthatarealternativestoprices. Ifpricingandprizingisthefirstpromisingareaforfurtherresearchinthefieldofvaluationstudies,Isuggestthatwethinkofthesecondproblemascompetitionandcompetitions.Likepricing,competitioniswell-studiedasameansofdeterminingvalue.Butincreasinglywefindorganizedcompetitionsasanalternativemeansofaddressingthequestion“What’svaluable?”WhereasIstressedthatitwasimportanttostudysituationsaspotentiallycontestedmoments,hereIproposethatwepayattentiontoactualcontests.Thus,alongsidemarketcompetitionasacoordinatingmechanismofvaluationintheeconomywealsofindorganizedcompetitions.8Inthefirsttypewefindactorscompetingonmarkets.Inthesecondtype,wefindcontestswithentryrules,judges,andprizesgrantedtotheannouncedwinners.Ononeside,competitionisanongoing,seamless,andseeminglyendlessprocess;ontheother,competitionsarediscrete,boundedintimeandlocation.Inthislineofthinkingtheoverarchingresearchquestionswouldbe:Whatistheroleofcompetitionsinacompetitivesociety?Doescompetitionneedcompetitions?Aremarket
8SeeespeciallyKreiner’s(2012)studyofarchitecturalcompetitions.Hisfindingthatjudgesfirstselectwinnersandonlythenformulateselectioncriteriaisavaluableinsightapplicabletoanimportantsubsetofcompetitions.Solaroli(2015)studiestheWorldPressPhotoCompetition,showingthatthecompetitiondoesnotsimplyjudgecontestantsaccordingtostablecriteriabutinsteadconsecratesevolvingstandards.McCormick’s(2009)studyofinternationalmusiccompetitionspointstothemixedcharacterascontestsandrituals.
![Page 13: Original citation: Copyright and reusewrap.warwick.ac.uk/88991/7/WRAP-what-its-worth-Stark-2017.pdfthe mid 1980s that gave rise to Luc Boltanski and Laurent Thévenot’s book, On](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042100/5e7c7661b3680c2c8a4e912e/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
12
competitionandorganizedcompetitionsmutuallyreinforcingordotheyexpressalternative(wemightevensay“competing”)logics?Take,forexample,thenotionofwinning,sofundamentalwithinthelogicofagameorcontest.Iswinningoperativeinthelogicofthemarket?Perhapsso,butlessbecauseonecompetitordefeatstheotherthanbecauseoneoftherivalshaswonthecustomer.Markets,inthisview,arenotsomuchahead-to-headbattleamongcontestantsoradyadicmatchingofbuyerandsellerbutratheratriadicrelationinwhichtwocompeteforvaluationbyathird.AsGeorgSimmelobserved,“Moderncompetition,whichhasbeencalledthestruggleofallagainstall,isafterallthestruggleofalltogaintheattentionofall”(Simmel2008).Thisinsight,inturn,mightpromptustothinkaboutcompetitionsvaryingaccordingtowhethertheyarehead-to-headcontestsorofthetriadicformofwinningthefavorofjudges,jury,oraudience.Wecouldalsoconsiderwhethertheorganizedcompetitioniseconomicornon-economic.Theresulting2x2table–head-to-headvstriadicalongoneaxis,economicvsnon-economicalongtheother–isagoodstartforaresearchagenda.Whereasonemightconventionallymapcompetitiontoeconomicactivityandcompetitionstothenon-economic,researchshouldbeattunedtosocialformsthataremigratingfromonedomainofsociallifetoanother.Whencompetitiontakesplaceintraditionallynon-economicrealms(suchashospitalsanduniversities),doesthisentailtheintroductionofamarketlogic?Ontheotherside,weneedresearchthatexaminesthehistoricalpatternsandthecontemporaryeffectsoftheemergenceoforganizedcompetitions(sustainabilityrankingsor“green”prizes)insidetheeconomy.Forexample,whatisthehistoricalprocesswherebythenotionofascoremovedfromthefieldofsportstothedomainofbusiness?Creditscoresareaninterestingcase,suggestingthatpriceitselfisnotalwaysasufficientindicatorofvalue.Moregenerally,whatisthesocialmeaningofscoresandrankingsinbusinesssettingswherethemarketlogicisovertlydominant?Arerankingssimplyonemoreformofmarketcompetition?Ordotheyintroduceyetanother,perhapsdifferentlyconfigured,socialformasawayofintroducingalternativevaluesintothemarket?Ifrankingsareorderedaccordingtorevenuesormarketshareorcapitalization,perhapsnot.Butwhatifthescoresandrankingsconcernenvironmentalandsocialsustainability?Suchrankingscouldbeconfiguredastheintroductionofalternativeformsofvaluationintotheeconomy(see,e.g.,Déjean,Gond,andLeca2004).WillDaviesaddressessomeoftheseissuesinhisrecentbook,TheLimitsofNeoliberalism:Authority,Sovereignty&theLogicofCompetition(Davies2014).Daviespointsoutthatearlyproponentsofneo-liberalismsuchasvonHayeklookedtocompetitionasthekeyprincipleofjustification,andstronglybelievedthatdecentralizedmarketswerethebestmeansforpromotingafree,competitivesociety.ButDaviesdoesnotequateneo-liberalismwithadvocacyofmarketcompetition.Hesuggeststhatneo-liberalismevolvedasitdevelopedresponsestoachallengingquestion:
![Page 14: Original citation: Copyright and reusewrap.warwick.ac.uk/88991/7/WRAP-what-its-worth-Stark-2017.pdfthe mid 1980s that gave rise to Luc Boltanski and Laurent Thévenot’s book, On](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042100/5e7c7661b3680c2c8a4e912e/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
13
“[I]fthecriticalmarketprincipleiscompetition,mighttherebeother,non-marketinstitutions,policiesandinterventionswhichmightjustaseasilydeliverthespecificvirtuesofcompetitivepractices?Forexample,intheeraofappliedneoliberalism,sportveryoftenservedasabettermanifestationofthemarketethosthanmarketsthemselves,withpoliticiansandbusinessleadersdefendingeconomicinequalitythroughanalogiestosportingcontestsand‘talent.’Leaguetablesareanotherwayofgivingempiricalandtechnicalformtothecompetitivemarketideal.Ismarketcompetitionnecessarytodelivercompetitiveness?(Davies,2014,pp.43-4).
Daviesarguesthatlaterneo-liberalssuchasRonaldCoaseandothersansweredthisquestionbyseparatingmarketsandcompetition.Competitionremainedthelegitimatingprinciple,butitcouldbefoundinsocialandorganizationalformsthatwerenotmarkets.InDavies’view,fortheselatereconomistsandpolicyadvocates,thekeyanalyticconceptwasneithermarketcompetitionnororganizedcompetitionsbutamoregeneralizednotionofcompetitionascompetitiveness.Inwhichdirectionwillsociologymove?Onecoursehasalreadybeentaken.Itfindscompetitionineverydomain.Notasaprincipleofjustification,competitionnonethelessbecomesthekeytoanalyzesocialdynamicsbecauseanyfieldcanbeassumedtobeoneofcompetitivestrugglewhetherthatbetheeconomy,law,science,politics,orthearts.PierreBourdieuwascertainlynotaneo-liberal,butamongsocialtheoristshewentthefurthesttoplaceageneralizednotionofcompetitionatthecenterofhistheory.MysuggestiontoexaminethecomplexrelationshipbetweenmarketcompetitionandorganizedcompetitionsstepsbackfromBourdieu’sapproach.Inplaceofassumingcompetitivenessasapartofthehumanconditionandofcompetitionasoccuringineveryfield,itproposestoexaminethechanginghistoricalrelationshipbetweencompetitionandcompetitionsandtostudyvariationinthespecificanddiscretepracticesofcontestandcontestation.ConclusionThereadernowfacesa“criticalmoment”notunlikethosemomentsofjudgmentIdiscussedearlierinthisessay.Imean,ofcourse,howdoyouassessthevalueofthisessayasacontributiontoavolume,Justification,EvaluationandCritiqueintheStudyofOrganizations?Wasitworthit?Somereadersmightreadtheessayitselfasacriticalmoment,anopportunitytopasscriticaljudgmentaboutOnJustification,thebookfromwhichitstakesitspointofdeparture.Thatwasnotmyintention.ButwhoamI,whoearlierchampionedmisunderstanding,toobjecttothatmisunderstanding?Acceptingthatmisunderstandingforthiscriticalmoment,weshouldreflectontheexplicitorimplicitorderofworththattheauthorwasattemptingtomobilizeinhisassessment.Reflectingontheessay,wecanseethattheproofsofworthwereintheorderofthegenerativeasIpointedtowaysinwhichOnJustification
![Page 15: Original citation: Copyright and reusewrap.warwick.ac.uk/88991/7/WRAP-what-its-worth-Stark-2017.pdfthe mid 1980s that gave rise to Luc Boltanski and Laurent Thévenot’s book, On](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042100/5e7c7661b3680c2c8a4e912e/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
14
stimulatedseveraldecadesofworkandcontinuestoprovokemyresearchpractice.ItisinsuchapragmatistspiritthatIinviteyoutousethesameframeinassessingthisessay.Icanonlyhopethatyourmisunderstandingswillbefruitful.Thatis,theproofofitsvaluewillbeinthequestionsitprovokes.
![Page 16: Original citation: Copyright and reusewrap.warwick.ac.uk/88991/7/WRAP-what-its-worth-Stark-2017.pdfthe mid 1980s that gave rise to Luc Boltanski and Laurent Thévenot’s book, On](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042100/5e7c7661b3680c2c8a4e912e/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
15
ReferencesAntal,A.B.,Hutter,M.,andStark,D.(2015).MomentsofValuation:ExploringSitesof
Dissonance.NewYorkandOxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Beckert,J.(2011).“WhereDoPricesComeFrom?SociologicalApproachestoPriceFormation.”
Cologne:MPIfGDiscussionPaper11/3Beunza,D.andStark,D.(2012).“FromDissonancetoResonance:Cognitive
InterdependenceinQuantitativeFinance.”EconomyandSociety,41(3):1-35.Boltanski,L.andThévenot,L.(2006).OnJustification:EconomiesofWorth.Translatedby
CatherinePorter.PrincetonUniversityPress.Originalpublication:Delajustification:Leséconomiesdelagrandeur.(1991).Paris,Gallimard.
Borgatti,StephenandRobCross(2003).“ARelationalViewofInformationSeekingand
LearninginSocialNetworks.”ManagementScience49(4):432–445.Brewer,J.(2015).“EvaluatingValuation:Connoisseurship,TechnologyandArtAttribution
inanAmericanCourtofLaw.”InA.Antal,M.Hutter,andD.Stark(eds)MomentsofValuation:ExploringSitesofDissonance.OxfordandNewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,pp.89-107.
Coleman,James.(1988).“SocialCapitalintheCreationofHumanCapital.”American
JournalofSociology94:S95–S120.Davies,W.(2014).TheLimitsofNeoliberalism:Authority,Sovereignty&theLogicof
Competition.Sage.Déjean,F.&Gond,J.-P.&Leca,B.(2004).“Measuringtheunmeasured:Aninstitutional
entrepreneurstrategyinanemergingindustry.”HumanRelations,57(6):741-764.deVaan,M.,Vedres,B.,andStark,D.(2015).“GameChanger:TheTopologyof
Creativity.”AmericanJournalofSociologyJanuary,vol120,no4,pp.1144-1194.Guyer,J.(2009).“Composites,fictionsandrisk:towardanethnographyofprice.InC.Hannand
K.Hart(eds.)MarketandSociety,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,pp.203-220.Hennion,A.(2015).“PayingAttention:WhatisTastingWineAbout?”InA.Antal,M.
Hutter,andD.Stark(eds)MomentsofValuation:ExploringSitesofDissonance.OxfordandNewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,pp.37-56.
![Page 17: Original citation: Copyright and reusewrap.warwick.ac.uk/88991/7/WRAP-what-its-worth-Stark-2017.pdfthe mid 1980s that gave rise to Luc Boltanski and Laurent Thévenot’s book, On](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042100/5e7c7661b3680c2c8a4e912e/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
16
Hutter,M.andStark,D.(2015).“PragmatistPerspectivesonValuation:AnIntroduction.”InA.Antal,M.Hutter,andD.Stark(eds)MomentsofValuation:ExploringSitesofDissonance.OxfordandNewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,pp.1-14.
Jagd,S.2007.“EconomicsofConventionandNewEconomicSociology:MutualInspiration
andDialogue.”CurrentSociology55(1):75-91.Knorr-Cetina,K.(1981).“Introduction:TheMicro-SociologicalChallengeofMacro-
Sociology:TowardsaReconstructionofSocialTheoryandMethodology.”InK.Knorr-CetinaandA.V.Cicourel(eds.),AdvancesinSocialTheoryandMethodology:TowardanIntegrationofMicro-andMacro-Sociologies.London:Routledge&KeganPaul,pp.1–47.
Kreiner,K.(2012).“OrganizationalDecisionMechanismsinanArchitecturalCompetition.”InAlessandroLomiandJ.RichardHarrison(ed.)TheGarbageCanModelofOrganizationalChoice:LookingForwardatForty(ResearchintheSociologyofOrganizations,Volume36)EmeraldGroupPublishingLimited,pp.399–429.
Latour,B.andLepinay,V.(2009).TheScienceofPassionateInterests:AnIntroductionto
GabrielTarde’sEconomicAnthropology.Chicago,IL:PricklyParadigmPress.Levine,S.S.,Apfelbaum,E.P.,Bernard,M.,Bartelt,V.L.,Zajac,E.J.,Stark,D.(2014).“Ethnic
DiversityDeflatesPriceBubbles.”ProceedingsoftheNationalAcademyofSciences,111(52):185240-18529,December30,2014.
McCormick,L.(2009).“Higher,faster,louder:Representationsoftheinternationalmusiccompetition.”CulturalSociology,3(1),5-30.
McCulloch,W.(1945).“Aheterarchyofvaluesdeterminedfbythetopologyofneuralnets.”BulletinofMathematicalBiophysics7(2):89-83.
Muniesa,F.(2007).“Markettechnologiesandthepragmaticsofprices.”EconomyandSociety36(3):377-395.
Poon,M.(2009)“REFhere”Accounting,Organizations,andSocietyREFSauder,M.,&Espeland,W.N.(2009).“Thedisciplineofrankings:Tightcouplingand
organizationalchange.”AmericanSociologicalReview,74(1),63-82.Simmel,G.(2008).“SociologyofCompetition.”CanadianJournalofSociology33(4):957-978.Solaroli,M.(2015).“TowardANewVisualCultureOfTheNews:Professional
photojournalism,digitalpost-production,andthesymbolicstrugglefordistinction.”DigitalJournalism,3(4),513-532.
![Page 18: Original citation: Copyright and reusewrap.warwick.ac.uk/88991/7/WRAP-what-its-worth-Stark-2017.pdfthe mid 1980s that gave rise to Luc Boltanski and Laurent Thévenot’s book, On](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042100/5e7c7661b3680c2c8a4e912e/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
17
Stark,D.(1990a).“LavaleurdutravailetsarétributionenHongrie.”Actesdela
RechercheenSciencesSociales(Paris)#85,November1990,pp.3-19. --. (1990b)."Work,Worth,andJusticeinaSocialistMixedEconomy."Harvard
University,CenterforEuropeanStudies,ProgramonCentralandEastEuropeWorkingPaperSeries,#5,1990.
--. (2006).“ForaSociologyofWorth.”PublishedinItalianas“Appelloperuna
sociologiadellagrandezza.”Specialissueon“TheConventionsSchool”SociologiadelLavoro,no.104,2006,pp.200-223.
--. (2009).TheSenseofDissonance:AccountsofWorthinEconomicLife.NewYork
andLondon:PrincetonUniversityPress.2009.--.(2011).“What’sValuable?”InP.AspersandJ.Beckert(eds.),TheWorthofGoods:
ValuationandPricinginMarkets.OxfordUniversityPress:pp.319-338.Trébuchet-Breitwiller,A.S.(2015).“MakingThingsPrecious:APragmatistInquiryintothe
ValuationofLuxury.”InA.Antal,M.Hutter,andD.Stark(eds)MomentsofValuation:ExploringSitesofDissonance.OxfordandNewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,pp.168-188.
Vedres,B.andStark,D.(2010).“StructuralFolds:GenerativeDisruptioninOverlapping
Groups.”AmericanJournalofSociologyJanuary115(4):1150-90.Velthuis,O.(2005)TalkingPrices:SymbolicMeaningsofPricesontheMarketforContemporary
ArtPrinceton,NJ.:PrincetonUniversityPress.Williamson,OliverE.1981.“TheEconomicsofOrganization:TheTransactionCost
Approach.”TheAmericanJournalofSociology87(3):548–577.