Tag Archives: Weber

Organization als Verband. A Seminar with Keith Tribe on Weber’s Economy and Society

[Sí hay interesad@s por ahí a acceder vía zoom envía un email a José Ossandón]

Organization als Verband. A Seminar with Keith Tribe on Weber’s Economy and Society

Guest: Keith Tribe is a leading authority on Weber, a noted historian of economic and social thought and an accomplished translator of (among others Max Weber, Reinhart Koselleck, and Wihelm Hennis). He recently translated Max Weber Economy and Society.

Program: Introduction by the organizers. Thomas Lopdrup-Hjorth & José Ossandón, Department of Organization. Talk by Keith Tribe 30-40 minutes. Discussion

Description: The publication of a new English translation of Max Weber’s Economy and Society (Harvard University Press 2019) is the perfect opportunity to re-assess the impact of Weber on organization studies. Of course, as every organization theory textbook explains, Weber has a secured place in the cannon as the main figure behind the classical theory of bureaucracy. This seminar will focus on a different and less explored issue. As Keith Tribe explains in his translator’s introduction, a key but often unnoticed concept in Economy and Society is the notion of Verband which translates as organization.

Verband is more general than what we normally expect with the term organization. Bureaucracy and the modern capitalist firm are instances of this more general category. It is also, however, much more specific than, for instance, notions like “organizing” or even “institution”. Organization [Verband] refers to social relationships where “the observance of its order is guaranteed by the behavior of particular persons specifically charged with its implementation, such as a director and, quite possible, of an administrative staff” (Weber 2019: 129). Economy and Society provides a conceptual apparatus for a deeply comparative study of organization, that, does not need to get lost in more general sociological processes.

Some of the issues we expect to discuss in this seminar are: what is Verband and what is the status of this concept in Weber’s work? and, more speculatively, how would organization studies be if they were Studies of Verband?

Time and Date: November 18th 2021, 15.00 – 16.30

Location: Copenhagen Business School, Kilevej 14 A, 2000 Frederiksberg Room: KL 3.54
And on Zoom

Format: Hybrid. Keith Tribe will participate via Zoom, Thomas & José will be in the meeting room KL 3.54

Algunas lecturas, SASE Newsletter

[Florencia Labiano me escribió hace un tiempo para preguntar si podía escribir algo para la sección “On the Bookshelf” de SASE Newsletter donde gente comenta sobre libros que están leyendo o que quieran recomendar. Acaba de salir acá https://sase.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/SASE-Newsletter-Volume-IV-Issue-I-Winter-2019-2020.pdf. Abajo va lo que respondí. La Newletter viene además con contribuciones de Mariana Heredia y Mariana Luzzi]

Daniel Fridman, El sueño de vivir sin trabajar (Siglo XXI, 2019; previously published as Freedom from Work, Stanford University Press, 2016). This book is an ethnographic account of people in Argentina and the U.S. who followed a financial self-help program. The promise of the program was to convert those who participated (which means reading the books, playing board games, participating in the seminar) from dependent employees to autonomous investors. Theoretically, it is a story that contributes to the understanding of governmentality and performativity, but perhaps the book’s main accomplishment is Fridman’s own self-discipline as a storyteller. This is a book that respects and does not patronize the lived experience of self-converted neoliberals.

Philip Mirowski and Edward Nik-Khah, The Knowledge We Have Lost in Information (Oxford University Press, 2017). The authors trace a very important but often unnoticed transformation in recent economics. The market is not what it used to be. The key concept is information: the market is now understood as an information processor. Economists, however, do not have a shared understanding of what information is or does—what we have is different schools of information economics. What these schools share is that their market is very different to the market of neo-classical economics: here economic actors have only a partial and limited perspective, the key agency is not the entrepreneur but the market itself, and economists see themselves as market designers.

Juan Pablo Pardo-Guerra, Automating Finance (Cambridge University Press, 2019). There is a recent interest in what we could call the figure of the “market organizer.” This means that sociological analyses of markets are not only about entrepreneurs, consumers, or competition, but about those whose work it is to make markets work. Automating Finance, by Juan Pablo Pardo-Guerra, re-tells the history of the stock exchanges in London and New York from the perspective of the work of back-office engineers. What we get is a fresh version of automation and an account where the border between market and formal organization is almost indistinguishable.

Max Weber, Economy & Society (Harvard University Press, 2019). With a group of colleagues, I recently started a reading group of the new translation of Weber’s Economy & Society. For now, I can highly recommend the introductory text by the translator, Keith Tribe. Tribe’s text is like a book within the book. It is also an exemplar of academic effort and dedication, and, perhaps, one the best available introductions to Weber’s work.

Caitlin Zaloom, Indebted: How Families Make College Work at Any Cost (Princeton University Press, 2019). Finally, I am halfway through Caitlin Zaloom’s Indebted: How Families Make College Work at Any Cost. The object of the book is what Zaloom calls the “financial student complex”: the multilayered system developed around student loans in the U.S. The book uses an ethnographic sensibility to construct a public intervention that both opens up the black box of the complicated financial student complex and makes the reader feels the existential situation of those affected by this quite mad approach to helping students.

Cfp_El dinero desde las ciencias sociales: prácticas, instituciones, representaciones

[Mariana Luzzi avisa del siguiente llamado a presentar artículos que seguro será de interés]

Llamado a presentar contribuciones, dossier: “El dinero desde las ciencias sociales: prácticas, instituciones, representaciones”, Sudamérica: Revista de Ciencias Sociales, Coordinadoras: Mariana Luzzi (UNGS-CONICET) y María Soledad Sánchez (UNSAM-CONICET).

Las instituciones, procesos y prácticas económicas constituyen problemas centrales de la disciplina sociológica desde su período clásico. Los desarrollos teóricos de Karl Marx, Max Weber y Georg Simmel evidencian la preocupación de la sociología por dar cuenta de la irrupción del dinero como equivalente general del intercambio y analizar su impacto sobre los vínculos sociales. Si bien durante algunas décadas del s. XX el dinero dejó de ocupar aquel lugar protagónico que tenía en la imaginación sociológica clásica, puede decirse que asistimos, desde hace ya algunas décadas, a un proceso de redescubrimiento de la economía y sus procesos como objetos de conocimiento en las ciencias sociales. En el marco de una proliferación de trabajos teórica y metodológicamente heterogéneos en los campos de la sociología y la antropología económicas, el dinero en particular y la cuestión monetaria en general han sido teorizados in extenso nuevamente. Continue reading

La pregunta por la vocación pública de los estudios sociales de la economía en América Latina

[Mañana y pasado mañana participaré en el “Encuentro: La Vocación Pública de los Estudios Sociales de la Economía”. Comparto acá la versión actual de las notas para mi presentación]

Introducción

Para la mayoría de los que presentamos acá, esta no es la primera vez que trabajamos juntos. Hemos ido encontrándonos por aquí y por allá durante los últimos 10 o 15 años. En algunas de las jornadas anuales en el IDAES en Buenos Aires, en algún evento acá, organizado por el NUCEC, en alguno de los muchos workshops y sesiones de conferencias, en Santiago, Londres, SASE o LASA, o, virtualmente, en la página de Estudios de la Economía, como también en varios libros, números especiales, etc. Generalmente, nuestros encuentros han sido en el contexto de conferencias académicas, donde lo que hacemos es intentar convencernos mutuamente de nuevas formas de lidiar con nuestros objetos de investigación. Por ejemplo: un nuevo concepto o un nuevo método. Este encuentro es distinto. No nos reunimos para hablar de cómo analizamos nuestros objetos de estudio, nos juntamos para pensar sobre como relacionamos con aquellos que – a falta de un mejor término- son nuestros públicos. ¿Cómo relacionarnos con quienes no son nuestros colegas, pero se interesan por el mismo tipo de asuntos que a nosotros nos interesa? ¿Cómo nos relacionamos con estudiantes, periodistas, economistas, expertos de otras disciplinas, reguladores, empresarios, trabajadores, traders, activistas?

¿Por qué juntarnos para hablar sobre esto? Se preguntarán algunos. No sé si tengo una respuesta muy convincente, pero puedo contarles lo que hemos pensado como una hipótesis de partida con los otros organizadores de este evento. Continue reading

‘The digression is the story’ (or how to read economics and Weber). An interview with Keith Tribe

Image result for the economy of the wordKeith Tribe’s academic work combines an original mix. Tribe is a recognized scholar in history of economics who has played a very important role in the dissemination and translation of the work of Wilhelm Hennis and Reinhart Koselleck in English speaking academic circles, and he is currently working on a new translation of Max Weber’s Economy and Society for Harvard University Press.

This interview was recorded in the context of his visit to Copenhagen Business School in 2016 (one of Tribe’s talk on that visit was recently published in this special section in Sociologica). In our conversation, Tribe kindly answered questions about his different academic interests. In the first two answers, he expands on the original method of analysis of economic ideas unfolded in his book The Economy of the Word: Language, History, and Economics (2015, Oxford University Press). The answers to questions 3, 4 and 5 are about Weber, particularly the strange role Hayek played in making the first English translation of Economy and Society, the contemporary relevance of Hennis’s interpretation, and a clarification about the long lasting confusion with the term “iron cage”. Continue reading

Max Weber’s Sciences as a Vocation 100 years on: Context and continuing Significance

Acaba de aparecer en Sociológica (International Journal for Sociological Debate) una sección especial a 100 años de ‘La Ciencia como Vocación’ de Max Weber. La sección, editada por Paul du Gay y José Ossandón, presenta dos excelentes artículos en que los historiadores de las ideas Keith Tribe e Ian Hunter re-visitan el contexto y las interpretaciones de la famosa charla de Weber. Incluye además un breve ensayo introductorio en que los editores se preguntan sobre la relevancia de la charla de Weber para la práctica sociológica hoy y un comentario final de Du Gay. Los artículos están disponibles y de libre accesso acá: https://sociologica.unibo.it/. De possible interés el debate en el mismo número de Sociologica en que muy connotados investigadores (por ejemplo, Abbott, Swedberg, Bearman, Czarniawska, DiMaggio, Fourcade, Suchman) discuten sus heurísticas o métodos para descubrir nuevas ideas.

Cfp_Número especial “Paradojas del Capitalismo: desafíos para los Estudios Sociales de la Economía”.

[Felipe Mallea avisa del siguiente llamado a contribuciones al número 9 de la Revista Contenido]

Llamado a contribuciones Revista Contenido, número especial “Paradojas del Capitalismo: desafíos para los Estudios Sociales de la Economía”.

Los Estudios Sociales de la Economía han contribuido desde sus orígenes a develar las relaciones establecidas entre las actividades económicas y aquellas reservadas para el resto de la sociedad. Max Weber (1922) definió esta relación conforme a criterios claramente diferenciados, pero al mismo tiempo interdependientes, que garantizaron la especialización de la sociología en cuanto disciplina científica (Parsons & Smelser, 1956). Hacia mediados de los años ochenta, una serie de investigaciones desafiaron tal definición para estudiar en cambio las estructuras sociales donde se ‘incrustan’ los agentes económicos (Granovetter, 1985). Por otra parte, los desarrollos posteriores han demostrado la importancia de los dispositivos de cálculo que dan formato a las transacciones comerciales (Callon, 1998), así como también el rol de los economistas en la constitución de las condiciones de intercambio que describen sus modelos (Mackenzie, Muniesa & Sui, 2007).

Si bien aquellas contribuciones revelaron operaciones concretas del mundo económico con una enorme precisión empírica, no obstante, las ciencias sociales han tenido dificultades al momento de instalar un debate igualmente satisfactorio con respecto a las consecuencias paradójicas del desarrollo económico (véase Hartmann & Honneth, 2009). En efecto, la incidencia de modelos predictivos en los comportamientos que motivaron la crisis del sector financiero (Haldane, 2013), así como el uso especulativo del dinero digital constituyen claros ejemplos de cómo estos nuevos agentes económicos desafían los modelos de coordinación centralizada (Scott, 2016). De manera incluso más contradictoria, el discurso crítico ha experimentado las consecuencias de su propia circulación entre los repertorios de la clase empresarial (Boltanski & Chiapello, 2002), haciendo de las expectativas de auto-realización individual una exigencia normativa en su versión adoptada por la cultura económica.

¿Cómo integrar entonces los distintos niveles de análisis? ¿Cuáles son estas nuevas modalidades bajo las cuales se manifiestan las relaciones entre economía y sociedad? ¿Es posible conservar el estudio empírico del mundo económico sin renunciar al momento teórico que caracteriza a los diagnósticos de la economía-política? En definitiva, ¿cómo dar sentido a las distintas expresiones de la evolución paradójica del capitalismo desde los Estudios Sociales de la Economía? Continue reading

T. Undurraga reseña y comenta Freedom from Work de D. Fridman

Billedresultat[La categoría “debate” es una sección dedicada a discutir a partir de libros publicados por los contribuidores de Estudios de la Economía. En este post Tomás Undurraga comenta el libro Freedom from Work: Embracing Financial Self-Help in the United States and Argentina, (Stanford University Press 2017) de Daniel Fridman. El debate sobre “Freedom from Work” continuará con un comentario de Tomás Ariztía, para terminar con una respuesta de Daniel a los comentaristas] 

Based on careful ethnographic research, this book provides a compelling account of how financial self-help followers aim to change their economic thinking, adopt new practices and thereby reach financial freedom. Freedom from work investigates the expansion of neoliberalism not at a structural level, but rather at the micro level where self-governance is shaped. It follows financial self-help groups, artefacts and actors, paying attention to the philosophy and materiality of their actions – e.g. forums, board games, interactions. The book is based on a two-year ethnographic fieldwork (2008 – 2009) with groups of financial self-help fans in New York and Buenos Aires. Specifically, it focuses on the cult-like influence of Robert Kiyosaki’s bestselling books and how devoted readers adopted and spread their views, aiming to do business, gain new followers, and change their lives.

Fridman offers a comprehensive explanation of the logic of financial self-help circuits, the promises which engage fans, and the practices distinctive of the programme. According to Fridman, the popularity of Kiyosaki’s books can be explained by a powerful combination of motivational elements, engaging tools for the development of rational thinking, and his sociological interpretation of late capitalism changes. The book argues that it is the combination of these elements that makes Kiyosaki’s ideas so popular. First, financial fans are personally challenged to voluntarily change their economic perspective, developing the courage to overcome their fears about money. Second, this philosophy promotes discipline in acquiring new financial expertise and tools (literacy in economic history, business planning, accounting practices, taxes, investing). Fans are then encouraged to use these techniques to change their economic practices. Third, Kiyosaki’s programme offers a diagnosis of contemporary capitalism – e.g. the rise of globalisation, the state’s changing role in the economy, and the decline of working conditions – that helps readers make sense of their own personal experiences, and financial grievances. Kiyosaki thus criticises the crises of industrial capitalism, at the same time inviting followers to survive by themselves in this brave new world.

Freedom from work is at its most impressive in revealing the logic by which this financial self-help programme produces the ‘neoliberal self’. Continue reading

The concept of market (Part 3)

[El nombre de esta sección es “artículos en cuotas”. La idea es, como en una novela por entregas, ir subiendo partes de papers a medida que vayan saliendo. El texto abajo es un borrador de un artículo en el que trabajo. Presenté la primera versión en EGOS este año y esto que estoy subiendo acá es una segunda versión, pero aun, borrador y sin edición del inglés. Además de la introducción, el artículo se compondrá de cuatro secciones. Cada parte será una entrega que iré subiendo a medida que tenga las nuevas versiones listas. El texto abajo es la tercera entrega. Como siempre, sugerencias son muy bienvenidas]

The concept of Market (Part 3): Conceptual stances after the concept of organization

(Part 1 available here, and Part 2 here)

draft 14/12/2017

Sociologist of Czech origin, Egon Bittner published in 1965 a paper titled ‘The Concept of Organization’. The article problematized some of the challenges notions like ‘formal and rational organization’ pose to the researchers that use them.

In Bittner’s words:

‘the sociologist finds himself [sic] in the position of having borrowed a concept from those he seeks to study in order to describe what he observes about them’ (Bittner 2013 [1965]; p.176).

Concepts like formal and rational organization are used by researchers, like sociologists and experts in management, and are used also by practitioners involved in the everyday practice of organizing, such as managers and consultants. Researchers, Bittner explains, have so far followed two strategies to deal with this situation. Often times, they ‘proceed to investigate formal organization while assuming that the unexplicated common-sense meanings of the terms are adequate definitions’ (Bittner 2013 [1965]; p.180). Notions like formal and rational organization are taken as terms that are understood by those who use them and therefore do not need a more specific treatment. Other times, researchers take an almost opposite path. They provide technical definitions for terms such as organization that might well contradict the meaning given to these notions in their ordinary usage. In this latter case, ‘interest in the actor’s perspective is either deliberately abandoned, or some fictitious version of it is adopted’ (Bittner 2013 [1965]; p.176). The two strategies, Bittner suggests, are unsatisfactory. In his view, social researchers cannot simply ignore the fact that notions like formal and rational organization are part of their object of inquiry; these are ‘schemes of interpretation that competent and entitled users can invoke in yet unknown ways whenever it suits their purposes’ (Bittner 2013 [1965]; p.182). Accordingly, researchers should develop analytical strategies to study how actors skillfully use and deploy these terms in their practices. For instance: they could study how different activities are deemed irrational and which ones are tolerated or how actors invoke different meanings of a similar concept in different situations.

Continue reading

Seminars with Keith Tribe

Image result for the economy of the wordKeith Tribe will be visiting CBS in November where he will give two seminars jointly organized by the CBS Public-Private Platform’s cluster on Market and Valuation and the research programme ‘Office as a Vocation’.  On November 23rd, the title of the seminar will be “The history of concepts as a method to study the economy and markets”. On November 24th, the title of the seminar will be “Max Weber’s Lecture: Science as a Vocation”.

Keith Tribe

Keith Tribe has a long-standing interest in conceptual and economic history, language and translation as well as an interest in the work of Max Weber. In April 2015, he published the book The Economy of the Word: Language, History, and Economics with Oxford University Press and is currently working on a new translation of Max Weber’s Economy and Society for Harvard University Press. Keith Tribe has also played a huge role in the dissemination and translation of the work of Wilhelm Hennis and Reinhart Koselleck to English speaking academic circles.

The seminars Continue reading