Morphogenesis and Human Flourishing pp 211-237 | Cite as
Networks and Commons: Bureaucracy, Collegiality and Organizational Morphogenesis in the Struggles to Shape Collective Responsibility in New Sharing Institutions
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 morphogenesisReferences
- 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
- Al-Amoudi, I., & Latsis, J. (2014). The arbitrariness and normativity of social conventions. British Journal of Sociology, 65(2), 358–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Archer, M. S. (1995). Realist social theory: The morphogenetic approach. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Archer, M. S. (2013). Introduction. In Social morphogenesis. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Baylis, T. A. (1989). Governing by committee: Collegial leadership in advanced societies. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
- Béraud, C. (2006). Le Métier de prêtre. Approche sociologique. Paris: Les Editions de l’Atelier.Google Scholar
- Bosk, C. (1979). Forgive and remember: Managing medical failure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- Charles, F. (1986). La génération défroquée. Paris: Cerf.Google Scholar
- Coriat, B. (Ed.). (2015). Le retour des communs et la crise de l’idéologie propriétaire. Paris: Les Liens qui libèrent.Google Scholar
- Courcy, R. (1999). La paroisse et la modernité – lieu fondateur et arguments actualisés. Archives de sciences sociales des religions, 107, 21–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Freidson, E. (1986). Professional powers. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Gannon, T. M. (1971). Priest/minister: Profession or not profession? Review of Religious Research, 12(2), 66–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Gannon, T. M. (1979b). The effect of segmentation in the religious clergy. Sociological Analysis, 40(3), 183–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Gellard, J. (1977). Pouvoirs et stratégies dans l’administration d’un diocèse. Recherches en sciences religieuses, 65(4), 505–542.Google Scholar
- 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
- Granfield, P. (1988). Légitimation et bureaucratisation du pouvoir dans l’Église. Concilium, 217, 109–117.Google Scholar
- Hess, C., & Ostrom, E. (Eds.). (2007). Understanding knowledge as a commons: From theory to practice. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Hervieu-Léger, D. (2003). Catholicisme, la fin d’un monde. Paris: Bayard.Google Scholar
- Lazega, E. (1992). Micropolitics of knowledge. New York: Aldine-de Gruyter.Google Scholar
- Lazega, E. (1993). Collégialité et bureaucratie dans les firmes américaines d’avocats d’affaires. Droit et Société, 23(24), 15–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lazega, E. (1994). Analyse de réseaux et sociologie des organisations. Revue Française de Sociologie, 35, 293–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Lazega, E. (2003). Rationalité, discipline sociale et structure. Revue Française de Sociologie, 44(44), 305–330.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Musselin, C. (1990). Structures formelles et capacités d’intégration dans les universités françaises et allemandes. Revue Française de Sociologie, 31, 439–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Palard, J. (1985). Pouvoir religieux et espace social. Le diocèse de Bordeaux comme organisation. Paris: Cerf.Google Scholar
- Perrow, C. (1986). Complex organizations: A critical essay (3rd ed.). London: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
- Sainsaulieu, R. (1977). L’Identité au travail. Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.Google Scholar
- 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
- Selznick, Ph. (1949). TVA and the grass roots: A study in the sociology of formal organization. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
- Vallier, I. (1969). Comparative studies of roman Catholicism: Dioceses as strategic units. Sociology Compass, 16(2), 147–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Villemin, L et Caillot J. (2001). Mission de l’Église qui envoie. Prêtres diocésains, mars-avril, 1395, 161–189.Google Scholar
- Waters, M. (1989). Collegiality, bureaucratisation and professionalization: A Weberian analysis. American Journal of Sociology, 94(5), 945–972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Weber, M., [1920] (1978) edition. In G. Roth & C. Wittich (Eds), Economy and society, Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
- Willaime, J. P. (1986). L’autorité religieuse et sa pratique dans la situation contemporaine. Lumière et vie, 35(180), 37–52.Google Scholar
- Willaime, J. P. (1992). La précarité protestante: Sociologie du protestantisme contemporain. Genève: Labor et Fidès.Google Scholar