They’re not in conflict with each other, but neither are they the same thing.
One of the things I’ve become increasingly interested in is the question of trust. This theme came up a bit in my research for Democracy of Sound, at least to the extent that pirate and bootleg networks depended on trust, credibility, and reciprocity (as well as social norms censure) in order to work, prefiguring the evolution of e-commerce. (Sociologist Peter Kollock did pioneering work in this area.) But I never looked into it much further because it just didn’t seem super important to what I worked on subsequently.
However, the idea of trust has come up again in my new research. In thinking about affective labor and care work, trust turns out to be a perennial theme. One must have a relatively high level of trust to “entrust” their child or elderly relative to a caretaker, especially when the potential for abuse or neglect is high (if, for instance, the care is likely to occur alone). Likewise, trust undergirds a relationship with a therapist or a financial adviser or attorney; one not only believes in the individual’s education, experience, and expertise, but in their candor and fidelity (okay, maybe not with a lawyer).
But trust is interesting precisely because it is A. definitely affective, B. both embedded in a relationship and a quality of an individual (trustworthiness), and it is not quite a thing. It could be measured imperfectly through surveys, interviews, or just judging the relative economic success of one service provider over another (successful because she is presumably more trusted than her competitors). It is social, affective, immanent, and somewhat ineffable, yet very grounded in particularity. Unlike intellectual property or information, it is not quite ownable (although reputation is mediated as an economic asset through trademark and other means).
So as I’ve read and reread Luc Boltanski and Eve Chiapello’s influential The New Spirit of Capitalism (published in French in 1999 and translated into English in 2005, I believe), I’ve searched for certain themes. (Thank you, PDFs and OCR.) I was amazed to see that “healthcare” appears nowhere in the 600 page text, and “health” appears in the body of the text a mere 32 times, and then in the index only once, as a sub-entry below “labour.” One would think healthcare was not part of the new spirit of capitalism, but surely it is.
Here are some of the authors’ comments on both trust and health:
“Managers can no longer rely on hierarchical legitimacy, or, as in the past, manipulate career expectations, for with the reduction in the height of organizational pyramids, there are far fewer opportunities to ‘rise’ in-house; and in the framework of their projects, they must get all sorts of people to work over whom they have little formal power. Consequently, they are supposed to assert themselves by means of their ‘skills’ and ‘charisma’, define actors thanks to the effectiveness of their ‘network ‘of personal relations’, which provides them with information and aid, and galvanize people by the power of their ‘vision’ and their skills as ‘midwives’ of other people’s ‘talent’ and developers of potential. They derive the authority that makes them ‘leaders’ from their personal qualities, not from some official position. Moreover, they refuse the ‘signs of power’ (such as numerous secretaries, private lifts or dining-rooms, lavish offices). The authority they acquire over their teams is bound up with the ‘trust’ that is placed in them on account of their ‘communication’ and ‘listening’ skills, which are exhibited in direct contact with others.”[1]
“With the decline of close monitoring by superiors, we witness the rapid development in management literature (as in microeconomics) of the theme of trust. Trust is what unites the members of a team, a firm with its leader, the coach with the person he supports, or the partners in an alliance. xl Trust is a sign that the situation is under control, since people only place it in someone who they know will not abuse it, who is predictable, who says what he means and means what he says.xh Neo-management lays great stress on the need to develop this type of relationship, on the need for people to be worthy of trust themselves, and on the need to dismiss those who betray it. Trust is in fact the other term for self-control, since it designates a trustworthy relationship where the only mechanism that exists is the pledged word and moral contract. Besides, it is moral in character, whereas third-party control is simply the expression of a relation of domination.”[2]
“Take trust, for example – leitmotiv of
partisans of networks. It can be described as a prop for selective, specifIc
information thatis diffIcult to confIrm (or unverifIable in the case of a
promise), with the help of tacit, diffuse information, bound up with a
syncretic estimation of persons, past experience, or an impression of
reputation. One of the most important things about relations of trust in market
relations is, as we have seen, that they facilitate the exchange of goods and
services which are diffIcult to format in a contract that is intended to be
reasonably comprehensive. They also lie behind two other types of advantages.
The fIrst is the possibility of sharing or exchanging fIne-grained information.
A mere ‘it is said’ when separated from a human medium, such information can
circulate only from person to person, because it is credible and interpretable
only in the light of the implicit knowledge mobilized by the recipient about
the character of the person communicating it. The second is the possibility of
restricting the pursuit of selective, purely selfIsh gains by sharing solutions
(on condition of reciprocation), allowing a more rapid adaptation to the
changes affecting technologies or markets.”[3]
“Does this mean that the anthropology underlying the projective city is indifferent to ownership? On the contrary, it takes an element at the origin of the liberal conception of property to its ultimate conclusion: connexionist human beings are the owners of themselves – not by natural right, but inasmuch as they are. th~ product of a labour of self -fashioning. The advent of the proJect1ve cIty IS thus closely bound up with another striking feature associated with the current change in conceptions of ownership and, in particular, the ownership we have over bodies, whether our Own or those of others (e.g. in the case of organ transplants). This is the very significant growth in industries whose purpose is the exhibition of a self-image, from fashion, health, dietetics or cosm.etics, through to the rapidly expanding personal development mdustry whIch, as we have seen, accompanied the reorganization of firms with the emergence of new professions, like that of coach. In this logic, property is dissociated from responsibility to others (which represented an additional constraint in the case of bureaucratic power, not to mention traditional patrimonial property). It is now defined exclusively as a responsibility towards the self: in so far as they are the producers of themselves, everyone IS responsible for their bodies, their image, their success, their destiny.”[4]
“In a connexionist world, the distinction between pnvate bfe and professionallife tends to diminish under the impact of a dual co~fusion: on the one hand, between the qualities of the person and the propertles of theIr labourower (inseparably combined in the notion of skiff); and on the other, between :ersonal ownership and, above all else, self-ownership and SOCIal property, I d ed in the organization. It then becomes dIfficult to make a distlllCtlon og . f . lli£ bt n between the time of private life and the tIme of pro esslOna C, e wee dinners with friends and business lunches, between affectl\-e bonds and useful relationships, and so on (see Chapter 7)…
At the same time, the whole work ethic or, as Weber put It, the ethIC of toil, which had permeated the spirit of capitalism in various fo.rms, was affected. Associated in the first state of capitalism WIth ratIonal ascetICIsm and then in the mid-twentieth century, with responsibility and knowledge, It tends to rr:ake way for a premium on activity, without any clear distinction between personal or even leisure activity and professional activity. To be domg sOmething, to move, to change – this is what enjoys p:estige, as agamst stabIlity, which is often regarded as synonymous with inaction.”[5]
“The support paradoxically given by the left in government to moves leading to reduced security for wage-earners, and to a drastic cut in the power of its traditional union allies, is obviously explained by the economic and social circumstances of France in the 1980s. Acknowledging that social measures were insufficient to deal with unemployment amid a continuous rise in the number of those seeking work, and having to confront the impossibility of the state itself taking people on – which would have aggravated the budget deficit – politicians gradually became accustomed to the idea that only firms could solve the problem, by creating jobs. Logically enough, not being able to force them to do this, the government listened to the demands from heads of firms, who claimed that greater flexibility would enable them to hire.96 At the same time, employment difficulties restricted the bargaining power of the unions, which were less confident of mobilizing their membership bases. The reversal in the balance of forces between employers and unions was thus inscribed in the economic situation. But this analysis neglects the role of the nelv elites won overto the artistic Clitique and distrustful of the old social critique, which was too closely associated with Communism in France. In actual fact, the policy of flexibility was not simply pursued in desperation, but also found numerous champidns within the left-wing government.”[6]
“But other dispositions (in part bound up with the level of education), like an ability to relate and a capacity to communicate, have also played a role in selection.”[7]
“The new work mechanisms in fact require adequate access to written culture , on the part of wage-earners (in order to read instructions and write short reports);114 and forms of collectivization of skills (progress groups, quality circles) demand sufficient discursive ability to give an oral progress report in public. Finally, transverse modes of co-ordination (teams, projects, etc.) place greater weight not only on specifically linguistic mastery, but also on qualities that might be called more ‘personal’, more clearly bound up with the ‘character’ of the person – for example, openness, self-control, availability, good humour, composure – which were by no means so highly prized in the old work culture. The techniques of enterprise psychology (interviews, graphology, etc.) are used to pinpoint these propensities in candidates for a job. And this applies to applicants not only for jobs as cadres, but equally for blue-collar jobs. llS An ability to adjust to face-to-face situations in the course of a psychological interview in fact already represents a form of self-testing.
Capacities for commitment and adaptation, which can be assessed according to the same mechanisms, have also served as selection criteria. These capacities, which are essential in a logic of ‘flexibility’ presupposing a series of engagements in, and disengagements from, various tasks and different jobs, require the selection of people who can prove themselves capable of flexibility. One of Gorgeu and Mathieu’s interlocutors details the qualities of a good recruit as follows: ‘There is sharing and communication, you don’t cover up a defect, you do not let a customer down, you take on an even less skilled post in the immediate interests of the site. You do extra work even if the working day is over, you agree to come in on Saturday morning if required, you are mentally adaptable.’116 Thus, for example, in a firm that makes soldering instruments studied by Christian Bessy, economic redundancies, numerous in the second half of the 1980s, were made on the basis of a selection whose main criteria were ‘wage-earners” personal commitment’ and ‘versatility’.117 The role accorded to the possession of academic qualifications has, it seems, never been so important11S – for example, certificates of general education are demanded for blue-collar jobs. Over and above the technical skills they sometimes certify, this is explained by the fact that such qualifications presuppose a rninitnum capacity to engage in a task, to see a project through to a successful conclusion over a period of time – that is to say, to pursue studies to the point of obtaining a qualification, and to prove oneself sufficiently malleable to conform to the examiners’ assessment standards.ll9”[8]
“In addition, the demand for autonomy and the individualistic ideal of selfbegetting, of self-realization as a superior form of achievement, which represent the dominant values in a connexionist world, contribute to rendering those who are comfortable in networks largely inattentive to indebtedness as a legitimate source of social bonds. Hence, in particular, networkers succeed in exploiting others by establishing relations with them that can be interpreted in terms of the logic of a domestic world (trust), but in contexts where they can extricate themselves from the forms of control on which the stability of the domestic world was based.”[9]
“Entrepreneurs regarded this new source of supply as an opportunity to combat market saturation, intensifying consumers’ desire by furnishing ‘quality’ products that were healthier and offered greater ‘authenticity’.6D This new output was stimulated by a growing interest in physical beauty and health, and encouraged by the denunciation, for which nascent ecology supplied some arguments, of the artificial, industrial character – especially in the case of food produce – of mass consumer products, which were not only insipid but also bad for the health. It was also furthered by an increase in consumer know-how in the developed countries. It proceeded in tandem with a commodification of goods that had hitherto remained outside the commodiry sphere (the very reason they were deemed authentic): capitalism was to penetrate domains (tourism, cultural activities, personal services, leisure, etc.) which had hitherto remained comparatively external to mass commodity circulation.
Developments in the direction of an increased commodification of certain qualities ~f human beings also started, with the wish to ‘humanize’ services and, in particular, personal services, as well as work relations. The framework of personal services typically involves the proximity of direct contact, such that along with the actual ‘service’ other dimensions enter into the transaction, particularly those. whose presence is most directly bound up with the body (not only inasmuch as it is offered to inspection, but also as regards smell, even touch). In eliciting, for example, sympathy or antipathy, attraction or repulsion, these influence customer satisfaction, and hence the profits that can be made. The personal dimensions involved in the transaction, without directly forming part of the definition of the service sold, may be present spontaneously, in unpremeditated fashion. Or, on the contrary, they may derive from specific selection or training,61 to the point where the question of the actual nature of the relation (purely ‘commercial’ or also bound up with ‘genuine’ feelings) is always left in suspense, and invariably unanswered. Within a work collective, possession of these ‘interpersonal qualities’ is likewise recommended today – qualities that did not previously feature in the definition of what can be exchanged against a wage in the framework of a work contract.”[10]
“The importance accorded to the role of mediators, personal relations, friendship or trust in profit creation in a connexionist world – and, correlatively, the fading of the distinction between private life and business life – thus tend to bring relations that were once defined precisely as ‘disinterested’ into the commodity sphere…
The commodification of the authentic thus assumes reference to an original that is not a commodity good, but a pure use-value defined in a unique relationship to a user. Consequently, it acknowledges, at least implicItly, that non-commodity goods are superior ‘in value’ to commodity goods, or that use-value in its particularity is superior to exchange-value in its generic character.”[11]
“The commodification of the authentic first of all presupposes exploring sources of authenticity that are potential sources of profit, such as human beings, scenery, cafes where people feel comfortable, tastes, rhythms, ways of being and doing, and so on, which have not yet been introduced into the sphere of commodity circulation. This logic initially developed in what was for a long time the economically rather marginal domain of cultural enterprises – publishing, record production, orchestras, art galleries, and so on – where economic performance is basically a matter of the entrepreneur’s ability in a personal relationship to sense creative potential and anticipate a public’s tastes and desires. It has expanded considerably over the last thirty years with the growing importance of cultural and technological investments, and also with the development of services – in particular, tourism, the hotel business and catering, fashion and ready-to-wear clothes, interior decoration and design. It is a matter for ‘managers’, whose skills approximate to those of the artist, the organizer and the businessman. Seeking to exploit as yet unidentified sources, these people with a talent for sniffing things out cannot rely on existing standards, and must demonstrate what management literature calls ‘intuition’. The chances of hitting the bull’s-eye increase depending on how ‘spontaneous’ or ‘natural’ the intuition is – that is to say, the more it is rooted, not in a reflexi:vity developed in the course of professional activity, but in their own desire, which presupposes that they have shared tastes, interests and activities with the potential public whose demands they anticipate or, rather, elicit.”[12]
“Take the example of the small cafe, which is fitted out any old how, intuitively, at random, but works. It works very welL It is always fulL One is tempted to expand it. One could buy the adjoining house next door, but that would not go very far. To expand it, it must be reproduced elsewhere – in another district, another town. It needs to be transposed. But because it is not clear what accounts for its success, it is not clear what to take from it. The odd tables? The peasant dishes? The informal service? The friendly clientele that frequents it? The reasonable prices? (But wouldn’t different customers elsewhere be willing to pay more?) To find out, it is necessary to analyse the cafe, see what gives it the truly authentic character that accounts for its value, select certain of its qualities – the most significant or the most transposable (for example, the clientele is the most difficult thing to transpose) – and ignore others, deemed secondary. This process is a process of coding…
The desire for authenticity is principally focused on goods that are regarded as original – that is to say, on goods that may be regarded as having remained o~tside the commodity sphere and access to which, for that very reason, required a sacrifice irreducible to monetary expenditure (time, sustained physical effort, a personal im-estment in the establishment of a relationship of trust, etc.). ”[13]
“59 Some of the dynamic of capitalism
and ‘economic growth’ must in fact be attributed to the ‘transformation of
activities that bring pleasure- or use-values into activities that also yield a
profit to their organizers …. The steady movement of such tasks as
laundering, cooking, cleaning, and simple health care – not to mention
recreation and entertainment – from the exclusive concern of the private
household into the world of business testifies to the internal expansion of
capital within the interstices of social life. Much of what is called
“growth” in capitalist societies consists in this commodification of
life, rather than in the augmentation of unchanged, or even improved, outputs’:
Robert Heilbroner, The Nature and Logic of Capitalism, Nortion, New York and
London 1985, p. 60”[14]
[1] B&C, 78.
[2] B&C, 83.
[3] B&C, 130.
[4] Boltanski and Chiapello, New Spirit of Capitalism, 154.
[5] Boltanski and Chiapello, New Spirit of Capitalism, 155.
[6] B&C, 196.
[7] B&C, 240.
[8] B&C, 241.
[9] B&C, 379.
[10] Boltanski and Chiapello, 442.
[11] B&C, 443.
[12] Boltanski and Chiapello, New Spirit of Capitalism, 444.
[13] B&C, 445.
[14] B&C, 476.