Review: The New Spirit of Capitalism

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.

Boltanski, Luc and Chiapello, Eve The New Spirit of Capitalism (Verso, London, 2018)

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Review: The New Spirit of Capitalism

  1. Bernard Bratu

    Great post! I’ve heard of Boltanski and Chiapello and read their chapter on the new “management” spirit in one of my sociology classes.

    What I’m especially curious about are two kind of inter-related things. First, do B&C give a precise account as to “how” the critique peaked in ’68 in France and in Britain in the 70’s? I mean, why then? Why not ten years before or after? I’m really curious if they do give an account for this and, if they do, how they do it.

    I ask because, second, I find that materialistic accounts (Thomas Shannon’s World-System Theory, Ellen Meiksins Wood’s books) are much more compelling than Weberian “idea” analysis (which I find breaks down in the final analysis) and so I wanted to ask you if you also had this impression as I’ve seen in your reviews that you have also read some books with a more materialistic perspective.

    Reply
    1. 4harrisons Post author

      Thanks!

      It’s an interesting question, and I think the answer is probably (unhelpfully) that “it’s more complicated than that”. Boltanski and Chiapello do not give a detailed chronological description of events leading to the events of 1968 or the irruption of Thatcherism in the UK. Their focus is very much on the development of the various strands of critique, which they separate into ‘artistic’ and ‘social’ segments, and the shifts in policy response. What underpins their description is the extent to which the initial response based on the (postwar) ‘second spirit’ of capitalism fail to address the critique, leading to a rising tide of dissatisfaction, eventual (near) revolution, and the development of a new ‘third spirit’ of capitalism. In this sense then it is based on ‘ideas’ rather than economics.

      On first pass, Boltanski & Chiapello write against the mechanistic Marxist tradition:

      “The history of the years after 1968 offers further evidence that the relations between the economic and the social – to adopt the established categories – are not reducible to the domination of the second by the first. On the contrary, capitalism is obliged to offer forms of engagement that are compatible with the state of the social world it is integrated into, and with the aspirations of those of its members who are able to express themselves most forcefully.”

      (Boltanski & Chiapello 2018, p168-169)

      Changes to the structure of the economy are important, but are not a mechanically determining factor.

      But what I think this is what is fascinating about Boltanski & Chiapello’s analysis is that they acknowledge that this is not a simple mechanical relationship, no simple base-superstructure (or vice versa) determination. The two things are rather linked dialectically. They interact and play off each other. As I said in my review, to me what they seem to be describing in specific detail is the hegemony described by Gramsci. I think this is entirely consistent with some the specific detailed analysis by Ellen Meiksins Wood for example. While they consciously reference Weber, it is the linking of this to a materialism that certainly makes it interesting – and convincing – to me.

      I hope that makes sense.

      Reply
      1. Bernard Bratu

        Perfectly clear, exactly what I was looking for, thanks!

        I guess I remain a bit skeptical about B&C’s analysis because I am looking for the indicators and conditions that enable some to be the “members who are able to express themselves most forcefully”; while I totally agree with the dialectical process of “base-superstructure” determination, B&C still seem to position themselves in a sociological tradition that interprets ideas as having power “in themselves”, for lack of a better expression (ontological?), and not as vectors simultaneously conditioned by and occluding the material conditions ((non)ownership of capital and its many consequences).

        It feels to me that the Marxian concept of ideology can do more than to explain the mechanisms by which the mode of production is made legitimate, precisely because in this explanation there is an epistemological premise leading to the notion of praxis as Marx expounds it in the Theses on Feuerbach.

  2. Pingback: Totality and pluralism | A Very Marx Adventure

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s