Networks and Commons: Bureaucracy, Collegiality and Organizational Morphogenesis in the Struggles to Shape Collective Responsibility in New Sharing Institutions

Chapter
Part of the Social Morphogenesis book series (SOCMOR)

Abstract

This chapter identifies collegiality as the organizational form underlying commons in all their manifestations, especially by using personalized relationships as tools for self-management among peers. It then examines an empirical example of articulation of collegiality with the default organizational form characterizing contemporary societies, i.e. technocratic bureaucracy. The setting is a Catholic Diocese in which priests think of themselves as autonomous and professional peers able to self-manage and self-discipline, but in which the bishop is nevertheless the absolute master of his institution. This articulation reveals the forms taken by the political negotiation of a balance between ‘bottom up collegiality’ and ‘top down collegiality’, the latter being shaped by bureaucracy to co-opt collegial and participative forces. This negotiation shows how collegiality and bureaucracy drive each other’s evolution in morphogenetic dynamics that have long helped institutions such as the Catholic Church manage the diversity of its religious orientations, thus saving it from disintegration. In highly bureaucratized, unequal, threatened and digitalized societies, however, this morphogenesis of organizational forms and political negotiation can transform the self-discipline that peers recognize as legitimate into exogenous forms of collective responsibility, first through unobtrusive parametrization of new and emergent commons, and then –once the latter have become transparent for ruthless elites– as violent forms of social control.

Keywords

Commons Bureaucracy Collegiality Digitalization Social networks Social network platforms Roman Catholic church Priests Organizational morphogenesis 

References

  1. Al-Amoudi, I. (2014). Morphogenesis and normativity: Problems the former creates for the latter. In M. S. Archer (Ed.), Late modernity: Trajectories towards morphogenic society (pp. 193–220). London: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Al-Amoudi, I., & Latsis, J. (2014). The arbitrariness and normativity of social conventions. British Journal of Sociology, 65(2), 358–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Archer, M. S. (1995). Realist social theory: The morphogenetic approach. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Archer, M. S. (2013). Introduction. In Social morphogenesis. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Archer, M. S. (2015). Introduction: Other conceptions of generative mechanisms and ours. In M. S. Archer (Ed.), Generative mechanisms transforming social order. Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Archer, M. S. (2016). Anormative regulation in the morphogenic society. In M. S. Archer (Ed.), Morphogenesis and the crisis of normativity. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baylis, T. A. (1989). Governing by committee: Collegial leadership in advanced societies. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  8. Béraud, C. (2006). Le Métier de prêtre. Approche sociologique. Paris: Les Editions de l’Atelier.Google Scholar
  9. Bosk, C. (1979). Forgive and remember: Managing medical failure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bourdieu, P., & Saint Martin de, M. (1982). La sainte famille. L’épiscopat français dans le champ du pouvoir. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, 44, 2–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Charles, F. (1986). La génération défroquée. Paris: Cerf.Google Scholar
  12. Coriat, B. (Ed.). (2015). Le retour des communs et la crise de l’idéologie propriétaire. Paris: Les Liens qui libèrent.Google Scholar
  13. Courcy, R. (1999). La paroisse et la modernité – lieu fondateur et arguments actualisés. Archives de sciences sociales des religions, 107, 21–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Donégani, J. M. (1993). La liberté de choisir: pluralisme religieux et pluralisme politique dans le catholicisme français contemporain. Paris: Presse de la fondation nationale des sciences politiques.Google Scholar
  15. Donégani, J. M. (2000). Identités religieuses et pluralité des rapports au monde. In P. Bréchon, B. Duriez, & J. et Ion (Eds.), Religion et action dans l’espace public (pp. 211–224). Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
  16. Freidson, E. (1986). Professional powers. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  17. Gannon, T. M. (1971). Priest/minister: Profession or not profession? Review of Religious Research, 12(2), 66–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gannon, T. M. (1979a). The impact of structural differences on the catholic clergy. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 18(4), 350–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gannon, T. M. (1979b). The effect of segmentation in the religious clergy. Sociological Analysis, 40(3), 183–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gellard, J. (1977). Pouvoirs et stratégies dans l’administration d’un diocèse. Recherches en sciences religieuses, 65(4), 505–542.Google Scholar
  21. Goudet, B. (1997). Qui parle ? Approche phénoménologique et analyse des formes et statuts de parole dans une assemblée synodale interdoyennés. In J. Palard (sous la dir.), Le gouvernement de l’Église catholique – Synodes et exercice du pouvoir (pp. 207–228). Paris: Cerf.Google Scholar
  22. Granfield, P. (1988). Légitimation et bureaucratisation du pouvoir dans l’Église. Concilium, 217, 109–117.Google Scholar
  23. Hess, C., & Ostrom, E. (Eds.). (2007). Understanding knowledge as a commons: From theory to practice. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Hervieu-Léger, D. (2003). Catholicisme, la fin d’un monde. Paris: Bayard.Google Scholar
  25. Lazega, E. (1992). Micropolitics of knowledge. New York: Aldine-de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  26. Lazega, E. (1993). Collégialité et bureaucratie dans les firmes américaines d’avocats d’affaires. Droit et Société, 23(24), 15–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lazega, E. (1994). Analyse de réseaux et sociologie des organisations. Revue Française de Sociologie, 35, 293–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lazega, E. (2001). The Collegial phenomenon: The social mechanisms of cooperation among peers in a corporate law partnership. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lazega, E. (2003). Rationalité, discipline sociale et structure. Revue Française de Sociologie, 44(44), 305–330.Google Scholar
  30. Lazega, E. (2006). Capital social, processus sociaux et capacité d’action collective. In A. Bevort & M. Lallement (Eds.), Capital social: Echanges, réciprocité, équité (pp. 213–225). Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
  31. Lazega, E. (2012). Sociologie néo-structurale. In R. Keucheyan & G. Bronner (Eds.), Introduction à la théorie sociale contemporaine. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  32. Lazega, E. (2013). Network analysis in the ‘Morphogenetic Society’ project: A neo-structural exploration and illustration. In M. S. Archer (Ed.), Social morphogenesis (pp. 167–186). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lazega, E. (2014a). Appropriateness and structure in organizations: Secondary socialization through dynamics of advice networks and weak culture. In D. J. Brass, G. (Joe) Labianca, A. Mehra, D. S. Halgin & S. P. Borgatti (Eds.), Volume on Contemporary perspectives on organizational social networks (Vol. 40, pp. 381–402), Research in the sociology of organizations. Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar
  34. Lazega, E. (2014b). ‘Morphogenesis Unbound’ from the dynamics of multilevel networks: A neo-structural perspective. In M. S. Archer (Ed.), Late modernity: Trajectories towards morphogenic society (pp. 173–191). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  35. Lazega, E. (2015a). Body captors and network profiles: A neo-structural note on digitalized social control and morphogenesis. In M. S. Archer (Ed.), Generative mechanisms transforming the social order (pp. 113–133). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  36. Lazega, E. (2015b). Synchronization costs in the organizational society: Intermediary relational infrastructures in the dynamics of multilevel networks. In E. Lazega & T. Snijders (Eds.), Multilevel network analysis for the social sciences. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  37. Lazega, E. (2016). Joint ‘anormative’ regulation from status inconsistency: A multilevel spinning top model of specialized institutionalization. In M. S. Archer (Ed.), Morphogenesis and the crisis if normativity. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  38. Lazega, E., & Mounier, L. (2002). Interdependent entrepreneurs and the social discipline of their cooperation: The research program of structural economic sociology for a society of organizations. In O. Favereau & E. Lazega (Eds.), Conventions and structures in economic organization: Markets, networks, and hierarchies (pp. 147–199). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  39. Lazega, E. & Wattebled, O. (2011, November). Deux définitions de la collégialité et leur articulation: le cas d’un diocèse catholique. In Sociologie du Travail, 52/4: 480–502. English version: Two definitions of collegiality and their inter-relation: The case of a Roman Catholic diocese. 53 (Supplement 1), e57–e77Google Scholar
  40. Musselin, C. (1990). Structures formelles et capacités d’intégration dans les universités françaises et allemandes. Revue Française de Sociologie, 31, 439–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Palard, J. (1985). Pouvoir religieux et espace social. Le diocèse de Bordeaux comme organisation. Paris: Cerf.Google Scholar
  43. Perrow, C. (1986). Complex organizations: A critical essay (3rd ed.). London: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  44. Sainsaulieu, R. (1977). L’Identité au travail. Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.Google Scholar
  45. Schilling, T. P. (2002). Conflict in the catholic hierarchy: a study of coping strategies in the Hunthausen affair with preferential attention to discursive strategies. Utrecht: Labor Grafimedia BV.Google Scholar
  46. Selznick, Ph. (1949). TVA and the grass roots: A study in the sociology of formal organization. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  47. Vallier, I. (1969). Comparative studies of roman Catholicism: Dioceses as strategic units. Sociology Compass, 16(2), 147–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Villemin, L et Caillot J. (2001). Mission de l’Église qui envoie. Prêtres diocésains, mars-avril, 1395, 161–189.Google Scholar
  49. Waters, M. (1989). Collegiality, bureaucratisation and professionalization: A Weberian analysis. American Journal of Sociology, 94(5), 945–972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wattebled, O. (2004). Discipline sociale entre prêtres: Bureaucratie et collégialité dans un diocèse français. Doctoral thesis, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Lille 1, France.Google Scholar
  51. Weber, M., [1920] (1978) edition. In G. Roth & C. Wittich (Eds), Economy and society, Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  52. Willaime, J. P. (1986). L’autorité religieuse et sa pratique dans la situation contemporaine. Lumière et vie, 35(180), 37–52.Google Scholar
  53. Willaime, J. P. (1992). La précarité protestante: Sociologie du protestantisme contemporain. Genève: Labor et Fidès.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sciences Po, Centre de sociologie des organisations (CSO), CNRS. Sciences Po is a member of USPCParisFrance

Personalised recommendations