Studying values:
The theoretical framework of Boltanski and Thévenot
3
Studying values:
The theoretical framework of Boltanski and Thévenot
Name: Douwe Nijzink Student number: s1905252
E-mail: w.j.d.nijzink@student.rug.nl
First supervisor: dr. Quirijn van den Hoogen Second supervisor: dr. Pascal Gielen
Study: Research Master Literary and Cultural Studies Course code: LWR999M30
5 Foreword
The road to finishing my thesis, and my master, has not been ordinary. In September 2012, I started with the master Kunst- en Cultuurwetenschappen at the University in Groningen. During my studies I did an internship at the culture department of the municipality of Groningen and finished my first thesis called De creatieve industrie: strijd of samenspel? [transl. The creative industries: struggle or collaboration?]. At the end of the year I still had to finish one course to graduate, but little by little I got the feeling that the master was not challenging enough for me. Fortunately, my thesis supervisors suggested me to transfer to the Research Master Literary and Cultural Studies (LCS), which allowed me to learn more about scientific research and to go more in-depth on my particular field study, namely cultural policy and the creative industries. It also allowed me to become a research assistant, which gave me the opportunity to bring my newly learned skills into practice, be a co-author of two scientific articles, and present a paper at an international conference. In the end, I’m thankful that I switched to the research master, which will finally come to an end with the completion of this thesis.
My thesis is in one way a continuation of the one I have written for the master Kunst- en Cultuurwetenschappen. In that thesis, I conducted empirical research on the needs of the creative industry by using the theoretical framework of the French sociologists Luc Boltanski and Laurent Thévenot. The framework proved to be quite useful for uncovering the different modes of justification of actors, but it can also be difficult to operationalize. Therefore, I wanted to investigate the theoretical framework of Boltanski and Thévenot more closely in the thesis for my research master and focus specifically on its theoretical and methodological implications for the study of art and culture. Ultimately, I want to use the outcomes of this thesis to improve the operationalization of the theoretical framework in future research (e.g. a PhD) on the creative sector.
I want to thank a number of people who have contributed to the successful completion of my thesis. First, I am grateful for the excellent guidance of my supervisors, Quirijn van den Hoogen and Pascal Gielen. They helped me with their useful suggestionsbto improve my thesis and to take a critical look on my own research. I also want to thank the director of studies of the research master LCS, Liesbeth Korthals Altes, since she supported me in doing the research master as a cultural policy student and encouraged me to apply for a research assistantship. Finally, I want to thank Leen van der Meiden for his patience and support during the months I was writing this thesis.
6 Table of content
Introduction ... 9
Research questions ... 11
Explanation of the term art and culture ... 12
Research method ... 12
Relevance ... 13
Outline ... 14
Part I:The orders of worth ... 15
1.1 Background on Boltanski and Thévenot ... 16
1.2 The theoretical framework of Boltanski and Thévenot ... 17
1.2.1 The common worlds ... 19
1.2.2 Additional worlds ... 22
1.2.3 Critiques and conflicts between worlds ... 26
1.2.4 Compromises and agreements between worlds ... 33
1.3 Position of Boltanski and Thévenot in the field of sociology ... 39
1.3.1 The critical sociology of Bourdieu ... 39
1.3.2 The Actor-Network Theory of Latour, Callon and Law ... 41
1.3.3 Boltanski and Thévenot compared with Bourdieu and Latour et al. ... 43
1.4 The pros and cons of the orders of worth ... 44
1.4.1 The benefits ... 45
1.4.2 The limitations ... 47
1.5 Theoretical implications for the study of art and culture ... 49
1.5.1 Important worlds and possible conflicts and compromises... 50
1.5.2 Other theoretical implications of the common worlds ... 56
Part II:The worlds in empirical research ... 59
2.1 Introduction ... 60
2.2 The empirical studies ... 64
2.2.1 Four different types ... 64
2.2.2 A variety of methods ... 73
2.2.3 Operationalizing the orders of worth ... 75
2.3. Methodological implications for the study of art and culture ... 82
2.3.1 Relevance of different methods and operationalizations ... 82
7
Conclusion ... 91
Findings part I: The orders of worth ... 92
Findings part II: The worlds in empirical research ... 93
Reflection ... 95
Questions for future research ... 96
Bibliography ... 97
Appendixes
10 In 2013, the Arts Council in England published a strategic framework in which it informs the public about the ‘rationale’ behind its investments in the cultural sector, its future funding decisions, and how it wants to measure the effects of their support (p. 13). The council argues that arts and culture ‘enrich people’s lives’ and play an important role in ‘local regeneration, in attracting tourists, in the development of talent and innovation, in improving health and well-being, and in delivering essential services’ (p. 14). Furthermore, the arts need to be thriving of excellence, be open to everyone, be resilient and environmentally sustainable, and have a workforce that is diverse and appropriately skilled (p. 39). So, in their strategic framework, the Arts Council uses a variety of arguments to legitimize the funding of art and culture. According to the council, the funding of arts and culture is not only based on their intrinsic values, but also on the effects it can create in other important areas, such as urban regeneration, health, environmentalism, employment, and the economy as a whole. This example shows that subsidized cultural organizations, which can be characterized by their creation of artistic and aesthetic values, have to cope with rationalities that are different from or opposite to their own, such as the measurability and efficiency of evidence-based policymaking (Caust 2003, p. 52). Moreover, the existence of cultural organizations often depends on the financial support from governments and it is therefore important for them to search for compromises between their own values and the values that are associated with evidence-based policymaking. In this thesis, I will focus on competing rationalities and compromises in the cultural sector, but more specifically on how they can be studied both theoretically and empirically.
The research instrument that is often used by scholars to investigate conflicting rationalities and compromises and that is central to my thesis, is the orders of worth model of the French sociologists Luc Boltanski and Laurent Thévenot. In 1991, they published the book
De la justification: les économies de la grandeur, introducing a theoretical framework that is
11 values associated with the cultural policy of the Arts Council, which can eventually result in a conflict. However, if these organizations want to survive financially, they need to create a compromise by searching for a common ground between their own principles and the ‘world’ of cultural policy.
The theoretical framework of Boltanski and Thévenot is particularly useful for scholars that focus on the empirical study of justifications, conflicts, and compromises of individuals and organizations, because it is able to handle both agreement and disagreement with the same set of concepts (e.g. Boivin and Roch 2006 and Larsen 2014). There are also many researchers that use the orders of worth model specifically to analyze the rationalities of artists and cultural organizations, which indicates that the framework is also a valuable research tool for empirical investigation of the field of art and culture (e.g. Van Winkel et al. 2012 and Daigle and Rouleau 2010). Because of its versatility and practicality, I’m planning to apply the theoretical framework of Boltanski and Thévenot in future research to investigate the justifications, conflicts, and compromises between actors in the creative sector. However, I’ve noticed that empirical researchers explained the framework of Boltanski and Thévenot differently and have created various ways to operationalize and measure the orders of worth, because there is no consensus for its application in empirical research. In this thesis, I will therefore focus on the characteristics of the theoretical framework of Boltanski and Thévenot and its theoretical and methodological implications for the study of art and culture.
Research questions
In this research, I will investigate how justifications, conflicts and compromises can be studied with the help of the theoretical framework of Boltanski and Thévenot. I will focus particularly on the theoretical and methodological implications of the orders of worth for the study of art and culture. These two goals are combined in the main research question of my thesis:
What are the theoretical and methodological implications of the framework of Boltanski and Thévenot when it is used to study value justifications, conflicts, and compromises in the field of art and culture?
In order to answer my main research question, I have formulated eight sub questions, which are divided into two different subjects. The first set of sub questions is focused on the theoretical implications of the orders of worth for the study of the creative sector, while the second set concentrates on the methodological implications of the framework when it is used in empirical research on art and culture:
Theoretical implications
1. What are the characteristics of the orders of worth?
2. How can the theoretical framework be positioned within the field of sociology? 3. What are the general benefits and limitations of this theory?
12 Methodological implications
5. What types of empirical studies use the orders of worth as a research tool? 6. What methods do they use and how do they operationalize the orders of worth? 7. What are the benefits and limitations of these methods and operationalizations? 8. What is a useful way to operationalize the orders of worth for the study of art and
culture?
Explanation of the term art and culture
In my research question and in the rest of my thesis I use the term art and culture, which is a broad term that describes a range of fields, social processes, and institutions. In this study, I will not go into detail on the philosophical discourse surrounding the meaning of art and culture, but instead I want to explore how the theoretical framework of Boltanski and Thévenot can be applied and operationalized to make the study of (the conflicts and compromises between) actors in these sectors possible and useful. The field of art and culture can be characterized by its strong dependence on creativity in the production and distribution of products and services and it will therefore also be called the ‘creative sector’ in this study. Some relevant actors in the creative sector are for example creative individuals (e.g. artists and designers), art organizations (e.g. theater groups and experimental platforms), cultural institutions (e.g. public television and festivals), and businesses from the creative industry (e.g. design and fashion). Furthermore, there are also actors that influence and support the creative sector, such as governments (e.g. cultural policy) and schools (e.g. arts education). So, in this thesis, the terms ‘art and culture’ and ‘creative sector’ are used interchangeably to describe a number of actors that owe their existence mainly to the admiration, exploitation, or support of creativity.
Research method
The first set of sub questions will mainly be answered by studying the theoretical framework of Boltanski and Thévenot itself. I will describe the characteristics of the orders of worth and their theoretical limitations for the study of art and culture by focusing on the English translation of De la justification: les économies de la grandeur, in which the properties of the orders of worth are discussed, the theory on conflicts is explained, and the possible common grounds between the worlds are explicated. I will also use additional publications of Boltanski and Chiapello (2005 [1999]) and Thévenot et al. (2000) to discuss two additional orders of worth, which can also be important for the study of the creative sector. For the position of the theoretical framework of Boltanski and Thévenot in the field of sociology, I will also use De la
justification: les économies de la grandeur and compare it with other sociological approaches,
13 The second set of sub questions focuses on the methodological implications of the theoretical framework and they will be answered by studying the application of the orders of worth in empirical research. In total, I will analyze 22 empirical studies in this second part of my thesis and focus particularly on their subjects, research methods, and how they operationalized the theoretical framework of Boltanski in Thévenot. Furthermore, I will categorize these studies based on their object of analysis and discuss how they coincide and differ. Of these 22 studies, seven are focused on art and culture in particular (e.g. Ten Eyck and Busch 2012 and Petani and Mengis 2014) and fifteen are from other fields (e.g. Lynch 2008 and Kietäväinen and Tuulentie 2013), but contained interesting methods or had relevant subjects. For example, a study that investigates the partnership between a university and an industrial company can also contain interesting and valuable research methods that could eventually be applied in empirical research focusing on art and culture. As a guideline for finding the most relevant empirical studies, I have created a short set of requirements to include or exclude empirical studies in my research, which can be found in chapter 2.1. In the end, I will combine the theoretical implications that are discussed in part one of my thesis with the methodological implications that are described in the second part of my thesis to uncover useful ways to operationalize the orders of worth for the study of art and culture.
Relevance
14 Outline
In the first part of my thesis, I discuss the theory behind the orders of worth. To do this, I focus first on the background of Boltanski and Thévenot. Subsequently, I describe the different aspects of the theoretical framework of Boltanski and Thévenot in the following chapter, with a focus on the characteristics of the original six worlds, the expansion of the framework with two additional worlds, the theoretical critiques and conflicts between worlds, and the possible compromises and agreement between orders of worth. After this exposition, I concentrate on the position of Boltanski and Thévenot in the field of sociology by comparing it with the critical sociology of Bourdieu and the Actor-Network Theory of Latour, Callon, and Law. Furthermore, I discuss the benefits and limitations of the theoretical framework and the criticism of other authors on the orders of worth in chapter 1.4. In the last chapter of part I of my thesis, I focus specifically on the theoretical implications of the framework of Boltanski and Thévenot for the study of art and culture, by discussing the most important worlds and the possible conflicts and compromises in the creative sector. I also pay attention to the improvement of two orders of worth and some theoretical situations in the field of art and culture that can be analyzed by using the framework of Boltanski and Thévenot as a research tool.
15
Part I:
16 1.1 Background on Boltanski and Thévenot
The authors who are responsible for the creation of the six main ‘orders of worth’ are the French scholars Luc Boltanski and Laurent Thévenot. In 1991, they published the book De la
justification: les économies de la grandeur, introducing an analytical framework that is able to
analyze both agreements and disagreements between people (Boltanski and Thévenot 1999, p. 360). The first author, Luc Boltanski (born in 1940), studied sociology at the University of Paris, La Sorbonne, and has since then been part of the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales (EHESS). First as a head of works (1965), then as an assistant professor and he finally became a Director of Studies in 1982. Furthermore, Boltanski was also a member of the Centre de Sociologie Européenne between 1962 and 1984, which was founded and directed by the famous French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu (Boltanski 2012, p. 2). However, in 1985 he wanted to go in a different direction and created, together with Laurent Thévenot and Michael Pollak, his own research group called the Groupe de Sociologie Politique et Morale (GSPM) (GSPM 2014a). One of the most important and well known outcomes of this research group was the analytical framework that was introduced in De la justification: les économies de la grandeur. Nowadays, Boltanski is still part of the GSPM and is a professor and Director of Studies at the EHESS.
The second author, Laurent Thévenot (born in 1949), has a background in economics and statistics. He studied economics at the École Polytechnique and the École Nationale de Statistique et de l’Adminstration in Paris and during that time he was also connected to the French ministry of Economic Affairs (Devos and Vanmarcke 1995, p. 211). In 1980, Thévenot starts his career by giving lectures at the École Nationale de Statistique and two years later he also becomes a lecturer at the EHESS. In 1985 he founded, together with Luc Boltanski and Michael Pollak, the GSPM and in 1991 he is appointed as a Director of Studies at the EHESS, where he still works today (GSPM 2014b). Boltanski and Thévenot have different backgrounds, but they met each other at the seminars of Bourdieu. Boltanski was already part of the group of scholars around Bourdieu since 1962 and Thévenot started to participate in the seminars from 1978 to 1984 (Devos and Vanmarcke 1995, p. 211). The scientific collaboration between Boltanski and Thévenot begins around 1980 and in their first joined study, published in 1983, they explored how people used mental categories when thinking about society (1983, p. 633). This research was still very much in line with the work of Bourdieu, but after 1985, when they started their own research group, Boltanski and Thévenot started to dissociate themselves from the critical sociology of Bourdieu and created their own theoretical framework, which is at the center of their book De la justification from 1991. In chapter 1.3, the relation, similarities and differences between the sociology of Bourdieu and the sociology of Boltanski and Thévenot will be discussed in more detail.
17 in the mid and late 1990s, it did not yet become that widely known, because these studies were also mainly published in French. However, after 2000, the framework of Boltanski and Thevenot has ‘increasingly been applied by researchers outside the French-speaking academic world’, because it was picked up by French-Canadian researchers (e.g. Cloutier and Langley 2007) and it was translated in English in 2006 (Jagd 2011, p. 355). This translation, which is also used in this thesis, is called On justification: economies of worth and opened up new opportunities for researchers all around the world to study justifications, value conflicts and compromises in an interesting new way.
1.2 The theoretical framework of Boltanski and Thévenot
In the first chapter of On justification: economies of worth, Boltanski and Thévenot give a short explanation of the most important goal of their book and discuss the usefulness of their newly introduced theoretical framework:
This book deals with the relation between agreement and discord. Its primary aim is to build a framework within which a single set of theoretical instruments and methods can be used to analyze the critical operations that people carry out when they want to show their disagreement without resorting to violence, and the ways they construct, display, and conclude more or less lasting agreements. (2006, p. 25)
This single set of theoretical instruments consists of a general model that includes six different orders of worth, which can be used by scholars if they want to analyze the justifications of actors. According to Boltanski and Thévenot, actors produce justifications in many different situations. For example, when a person criticizes another person he needs to support his criticism by legitimizing it, just as the criticized person needs to justify himself if he wants to defend his own actions and does not agree with the critique of the other person (1999, p. 360). These persons can justify their actions by referring to the principles of one or more of the six orders of worth. According to Boltanski and Thévenot, actors are able to shift from one form of justification to another and this inspired them to create a general model (modèle de
cite) with a common set of requirements, which are shared by all the orders of worth. This
common set of requirements of the six orders of worth will be discussed in section 1.2.1. Boltanski and Thévenot argue that a conflict between two persons can ultimately be solved if they reach an agreement by creating a compromise between their justifications (i.e. orders of worth). So, in On justification, Boltanski and Thévenot propose a new theoretical framework that focuses on particular situations in which actors justify their own actions by referring to the principles of one or more orders of worth.
18 justifications that are often used in daily life (1999, p. 365). The second corpus of data was created by gathering and analyzing a set of canonical texts from the field of political philosophy. According to Boltanski and Thévenot, comparing these texts with the first body of data (i.e. fieldwork on disputes) resulted in the construction of a solid link between political philosophy and sociology (p. 14). The texts that were analyzed were St Augustine’s City of God, Bossuet’s Politics Drawn from the Very Words of Holy Scripture, Hobbes’ Leviathan, Rousseau’s
Social Contract, Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments, and Saint-Simon’s On the Industrial System (Boltanski and Thévenot 2006). Out of these texts, Boltanski and Thévenot distilled
different principles of equivalence, which they used, together with their fieldwork data on disputes, to create a general model of six orders of worth (1999, p. 366). The last body of data was gathered by analyzing different types of behavioral guides that are used in contemporary organizations. According to Boltanski and Thévenot, these guides teach people certain patterns of desirable behavior by referring to a common principle (i.e. an order of worth) and they are designed to help people that are faced with new situations or that need to cope with existing ones. Boltanski and Thévenot have analyzed a total of six different guides, each presenting one of the six orders in the ‘purest and most exemplary way possible’ (2006, p. 151). Furthermore, Boltanski and Thévenot argue that these guides are devoted to show a ‘particular way of defining worth’ by exposing how actors have to behave and need to justify their actions in different situations. For example, a university scholar has to cope with a variety of activities during his work, such as writing papers, giving lectures, convincing investors, and attending meetings. In these different situations the scholar needs to shift between orders of worth if he wants to justify his actions, because he needs to refer to the order that is suitable for that particular activity. These shifts between orders of worth are thus quite prominent in contemporary companies and this is the reason why Boltanski and Thévenot have chosen to use behavioral guides as the third corpus of data. So by using three different bodies of data, from fieldwork, political philosophy texts, and behavioral business manuals, Boltanski and Thévenot have created a general model that can be used to analyze the justifications of (and between) actors in various situations.
19 agreement, which Boltanski and Thévenot call a compromise. Therefore, the possible compromises between different orders will be discussed as fourth by focusing specifically on the overlaps and common grounds between them. Finally, an overview of these theoretical compromises will been given by also summarizing the most important overlaps in a table.
1.2.1 The common worlds
Boltanski and Thévenot define an order of worth as a ‘more or less secularized theological order’ that is ‘imposed on everyone and governs people’s actions’ (p. 127). The six original orders of worth, also called ‘worlds’ or ‘value regimes’, are the inspired world, the domestic world, the world of fame, the civic world, the market world, and the industrial world (Boltanski and Thévenot 2006). Actors have access to all the orders of worth, but in a particular situation they can implicitly or explicitly refer to the principles of one or two worlds, because they represent a stable set of values. For example, an actor (e.g. an artist) can refer to the principles of the inspired world (e.g. inspiration and creativity) to legitimize his actions, but could also use the same order of worth to criticize the principles (e.g. routines) of other value regimes (e.g. the industrial world). These critiques can ultimately lead to conflicts between actors, and thus between worlds, but some orders of worth are more likely to collide with each other than others. For example, the industrial world and the market world have more in common and are less likely to create conflicts than the inspired world and the industrial world. Furthermore, Boltanski and Thévenot argue that these conflicts can be solved when two actors create a compromise by looking for a common ground between two or more value regimes.
According to Boltanski and Thévenot, actors are able to shift from one form of justification to another and this inspired them to create a general model with a common set of characteristics, which are shared by all the orders of worth. These common characteristics are as follows: higher common principle, worth, human dignity, subjects, objects, investment,
relations of worth, relationships, figures, tests, judgment, evidence, and decline (Boltanski and
Thévenot 2006, p. 140-144). I will not discuss these characteristics separately, but by using them to describe each of the six orders of worth it will become clear what they mean and what they refer to. The six worlds and their characteristics will be discussed below in the sequence of order that is also used by Boltanski and Thévenot in On justification (2006, p. 159-211).
1.2.1.1 The inspired world
The higher common principle in the inspired world is inspiration. Boltanski and Thévenot argue that the outpouring of inspiration is spontaneous and it can therefore never be measured or routinized. The states of worthiness (i.e. values that are important) that can be associated with the inspired world are the bizarre, the unusual, the disturbing, and the emotional, while the
dignity of persons is based on love, passion, and creation. In this world, actors need to have
an intense desire to create, which is awakened by the outpouring of inspiration. Important
subjects in this world are often despised by the world at large, because they are poor,
20 world. Relevant objects in this value regime are the mind, the body, the dream, and the unconscious. If an actor wants to get access to the world of inspiration, he or she has to invest by taking risks. This can be done by sacrificing forms of stabilization and tradition and breaking with habits. Worthy actors in the inspired world do not create relations of worth by acknowledging what they have in common, but do this by emphasizing what is original, unique, and genius about others. So, relations of worth in this world are mainly based on individuality and independence. Boltanski and Thévenot call relationships in the inspired world relationships of creation. Every being, or actor, creates and is created by others and discovering, imagining, and dreaming play an important role in this. Figures (i.e. manifestation) of the inspired world are spaces that are detached from reality, such as the unconscious and the imaginary. Subjects can be tested in this world by taking on an adventure, quest, or mental voyage and they will be judged on the worthiness of their intuition, masterpiece, illumination, and revolution. According to Boltanski and Thévenot, evidence of this world can be found in symbols, images, signs, and phantasms. Finally, the decline (i.e. fall) of the inspired world can be caused by habits, reproduction, and routines, because they limit an actor’s creativity and originality.
1.2.1.2 The domestic world
The domestic world sees traditions and hierarchy as its common principles and the state of
worthiness is based on trust, honesty, and wisdom. In the domestic world, persons are dignified (i.e. worthy) when they are guided by habits, good manners, and character.
Important subjects in this world are family, kings, and ancestors, and relevant objects are good behavior, ranks, and titles. An actor can invest in the domestic world by acknowledging and fulfilling duties and by paying respect to other beings. An actor has to know his rightful place within a hierarchy and act accordingly. Boltanski and Thévenot argue that there are always two sides in the domestic world, the dominant and the dominated. Successful relations of
worth are therefore formed on the basis of authority, respectability, and honor. Furthermore,
valuable relationships within this world are created by reproduction, birth, training, and respect. The domestic world manifests in households, families, principles, and conventions and important tests are celebrations, birth, marriage, and other social events. The success of subjects and tests is being judged on the basis of appreciation, compliments and critique from others. In the domestic world, the forms of evidence that support judgment belong to the category of examples of good or bad behavior, such as anecdotes. The domestic world will ultimately decline if people are impolite, gossip about each other and interact indiscreetly.
1.2.1.3 The world of fame
21 brands, the press, and public relations as the most relevant objects. Because everything is revealed to the public in the world of fame, people have to give up their secrets if they want to invest in it. This ‘no secret’ policy allows the public to create relations of worth by identifying itself with stars and celebrities. In the world of fame, successful relationships are created on the basis of the influence of a subject. To gather influence, an actor has to be persuasive, seductive, convincing, and attractive, and needs to know how to use promotional tools. Important figures of the world of fame are the positioning of audiences and targets. Subjects are being tested in this value regime by giving presentations, demonstrations, and press conferences, and they are judged on the basis of rumors, sensation, reports, and trends. The most important sign of success, or evidence, in the world of fame is of course fame and being known. This has as a consequence that the world of fame would ultimately fall if people are indifferent, banal, unknown, and hidden.
1.2.1.4 The civic world
In the civic world, everything revolves around the collective and the most important higher
common principle is the general interest. According to Boltanski and Thévenot, the worthy
beings in the civic world are the masses and the collectives that ‘assemble and organize them’ (p. 186). The states of worthiness that can be associated with this world are therefore representation, rules, and commonality. A person in the civic world may attain worth (i.e.
human dignity) by being political, which means investing in civil rights, having political
aspirations, and participate in the political process. Important subjects are, according to Boltanski and Thévenot, public collectives, elected officials, representatives, members, federations, and delegations. In addition, relevant objects in the civic world are rights, laws, policy, bureaucracy, and formality, which are used to provide a stable environment for the collective. An actor can invest in this value regime by focusing on solidarity and sacrificing his or her individual and personal interests for the collective interests. Worthy beings in the civic world create relations of worth by focusing on membership, representation, and delegation, and relationships are based on the fact if one succeeds to unify, mobilize, assemble, exclude, and join others in a collective. Interesting examples of the different figures of the civic world are the state, the republic, and the democracy. According to Boltanski and Thévenot, subjects are tested in this world at assemblies, council meetings, and court hearings. In this world, beings are being judged during mobilizations, consultations, voting, and elections, and important forms of evidence are laws, rules, and statutes. The civic world will decline if it yields to the particular, isolation, and individualism.
1.2.1.5 The market world
The market world sees competition and rivalry as its higher common principles and the state
of worthiness is based on winning, desirability, and monetary value. In this world, human dignity can be associated with interest, the love of things, desire, egoism, and selfishness.
22 desires to be a worthy being in the market world one needs to invest in opportunism, emotional distance, liberty, and openness. According to Boltanski and Thévenot, relations of
worth in the market world are based on the possessions of subjects. For example, they argue
that millionaires are often defined by their possession of things that everyone desires. In this value regime, successful relationships are formed by doing business. This means that buying, selling, negotiating, and competing are important influences on the relationships that can arise in the market world. The most obvious manifestation of the market world is of course the market and some relevant examples are the financial market, the house market, and the flea market. A characteristic test in this world is the deal, because it shows how worthy a subject is if he managed to negotiate successfully and seal the deal. In these tests, judgment is based on the price and the value of an item and important evidence of success is money, profit, results, and paybacks. Finally, the fall of the market world can be caused when there is a confusion between persons and things, because an actor is enslaved to money.
1.2.1.6. The industrial world
The higher common principle in the world of industry is efficiency. Boltanski and Thévenot argue that persons are unworthy if they do not produce anything useful and the state of
worthiness is therefore based on functionality, reliability, and operationality. In the industrial
world, the dignity of persons lies in the human potential for activity, because they need to show commitment and put in energy to succeed. Important subjects in this world are experts, specialists, professionals and operators, and objects are seen as instruments that support tasks of production. A few examples of these instruments are tools, resources, methods, tasks, definitions, and plans. Actors can become worthy in the world of industry if they invest in progress and new developments, which can potentially lead to more efficient processes. According to Boltanski and Thévenot, relations of worth are mainly based on control and responsibility and relationships are formed by means of organization, formalization, standardization, optimization, processes, and analysis. The industrial world manifests itself in organizations, systems, and structures and important tests are trials and experiments, because they test the functionality of these systems and organizations. The judgment of tests are therefore mainly based on effectivity, correctness, and functionality. Furthermore, Boltanski and Thévenot state that evidence in the world of industry is based on measurability and the possibility to standardize and repeat methods of measurement. The world of industry will ultimately decline if the boundary of humanity is blurred and that people are being treated as things.
1.2.2 Additional worlds
23 Interestingly, a few years later, these new orders of worth have indeed been created by Boltanski and Thévenot, but they did not do this together this time. After On justification, the two French scholars went their own way and started their own lines of research. Boltanski grouped up with the sociologist Ève Chiapello and published the book Le nouvel esprit du
capitalism in 1999 [transl. The new spirit of capitalism in 2005] in which they discussed the
dynamic relationship between capitalism and critique in society since the 1960s and introduced a new order of worth, called the projective city. This additional order is not called ‘world’ because the French word ‘cité’ is translated differently in The new spirit of capitalism than in On justification, but the projective city could also be described as the network or project world. At the same time, Thévenot started to collaborate with the French sociologist Claudette Lafaye to investigate the possibility of a green order of worth, which they published in Revue française de sociologie in 1993. However, it wasn’t until 2000, with the help of the American scholar Michael Moody, that the common set of characteristics, which are shared by all the other worlds, was made more explicit for this new green order of worth.
The projective city and the green world will be explained below in a similar fashion as the six original orders of worth, by describing their principles of equivalence (e.g. higher common principle, subjects, and tests). It must be noted however, that the projective city is more generally accepted as an additional order of worth in the original theoretical framework of Boltanski and Thévenot than the green world. The characteristics of the projective city were properly introduced in an independent book, which was even translated in English before De
la justification, while the attributes of the green world were only explained shortly in one
French article (Lafaye and Thévenot 1993) and an English book chapter (Thévenot et al. 2000). As a consequence, I had to use my own interpretation more often for the description of the green world than for the explanation of the projective city. This does not mean that the green world is not a valuable addition to the original theoretical framework, but it is not as well grounded in theory as the other orders of worth. For cultural organizations, the green world could potentially be an interesting additional order of justification and its possibilities, benefits, and limitations for the study of cultural organizations will therefore be discussed in more detail in chapter 1.4 and 1.5.
1.2.2.1 The projective city
The higher common principles in the projective city are networking, being connected, and activity. The state of worthiness in the network world is based on trust, communication, and adjustment. Furthermore, Boltanski and Chiapello argue that a person is dignified in this world when they are engaged by the network and show a will to connect with others. Important
subjects in the projective city are people who play an active role in the expansion and
formation of networks, such as mediators, coaches, project heads, and experts. All the instruments and mechanisms that contribute to the construction of a network are relevant
objects in this value regime and a few examples are alliances, partnerships, agreements, new
24 beings in this world can create relations of worth by focusing on communication, coordination, and adaptability and successful relationships are based on the redistribution of connections, mobility, flexibility, and diversity. The most exemplary figure of the projective city is, of course, the network itself. According to Boltanski and Chiapello, people are being tested in this world in the time between the end of a project and the beginning of another and they are being
judged on their ability to participate and the enrollment of others in a network. Important evidence in the network world can therefore be found in the amount of people that have
successfully taken part in a project. Finally, the projective city is doomed to fail when there is corruption, cronyism, and certain subjects have more privileges than others. In the end, Boltanski and Chiapello use the example of the mafia to illustrate what would cause the decline of the network world.
1.2.2.2 The green world
Environmentalism is in the green order of worth the most important higher common principle. Subjects in this world are respectable to nature and the state of worthiness is therefore based on sustainability, renewability, and recyclability. In this value regime, persons are dignified if they show a friendliness towards the environment and act accordingly. Important subjects in the green world according to Thévenot et al. are environmentalists and activists, because they focus on relevant objects, such as nature, wilderness, and healthy environments. Worthy beings can invest in the environmental order of worth by developing activities that would benefit the health of the ecosystem, such as recycling, use green energy, and support environmental activism. Relations of worth in this world are mainly based on the protection of the environment and the sensitivity of subjects to environmental issues and relationships are therefore created by means of activism and increasing awareness. However, in their article and book chapter, Thévenot et al. do not discuss exactly how relationships are formed in the green world and it is therefore mostly my own interpretation. The green order of worth can
manifest itself in everything that has to do with nature and the most obvious example is the
planet’s ecosystem. Worthy being in this world can be tested during environmental disputes and protests and they are then being judged on the sustainability and renewability of their actions and the effects it has on the environment. Thévenot et al. argue that the evidence of the environmental order of worth can be found in the health of the ecosystem, which they call ecological and ecosystemic proof. The green world can ultimately decline if subjects fail to protect the environment, because they are unaware, indifferent, unfriendly, and unconcerned about ecological issues.
1.2.2.3 Schematization of the original and additional orders of worth
25
Original worlds Additional worlds Inspired Domestic Fame Civic Market Industrial Project Green Higher common
principle
Inspiration Tradition, hierarchy
Public opinion General interest Competition, rivalry Efficiency Networking, activity Environmentalism State of worth Bizarre, unusual, emotional Trust, honesty, wisdom Recognition, reputation, visibility Representation, rules, commonality Winning, desirability, money Functionality, reliability, innovation Trust, communication, adjustment Sustainability, renewability, recyclability
Human dignity Passion,
creation Habits, good manners Recognition, respect Civil rights, participation Desire, materialism
Activity, energy Engagement, participation
Friendliness to environment
Subjects Artists, spirits,
madmen Fathers, family, kings Opinion leaders, journalists Representatives, members Businessmen, clients, buyers Experts, professionals Mediators, coaches, expert Environmentalists, activists
Objects Mind, dreams,
artworks Good behavior, ranks, titles Brands, press, public relations Rights, laws, policy Luxury items, wealth Methods, plans, tasks, resources Alliances, partnerships Nature, healthy environment
Investment Risk Duty, respect Revealing secret Solidarity Opportunism Investing Flexibility,
tolerance Recycling, activism Relation of worth Originality, uniqueness Authority, honor Identification Membership, delegation Possessions Control, responsibility Communication, adaptability Will to protect environment Relationships Creation, imagining Reproduction, training, respect Influence, promotion Mobilization, assembly Negotiation, buying, selling Formalization, standardization Mobility, diversity Awareness, activism Figures Unconscious, imagination Families, conventions Positioning, public, audience State, republic, democracy Market Organizations, systems Network Ecosystem Test Adventure, mental voyage Celebrations, social events Presentation, demonstration Assemblies, council meeting Deal Trials, experiments Time between projects Environmental disputes Judgment Intuition, illumination Appreciation, critique Rumors, trends, sensation Consultation, voting, elections
Price, value Effectivity, functionality Ability to participate Sustainability, renewability Evidence Symbols, images, signs Good behavior, anecdotes Fame, being known Laws, rules, statutes Money, profit, results
measurability Part of a project Ecological, ecoystemic
Decline Habits,
routines
Impolite, gossip Indifferent, unknown Isolation, individualism Enslavement to money People treated as things Corruption, cronyism Indifference to environment
26
1.2.3 Critiques and conflicts between worlds
The characteristics of the different orders of worth have been explained in the previous sections, but how are relations between worlds established when they are presented together in particular situations? According to Boltanski and Thévenot, actors can exist in a plurality of worlds and move between them, which offers them the opportunity to question the distribution of worth and the validity of tests (1999, p. 373, and 2006, p. 219,). Even if actors have the desire to associate themselves with only one order of worth, they still have to deal with the other worlds in everyday life. For example, an artist, who justifies his actions from the principles that can be associated with the inspired world, also has to cope with the values of other orders, such as the civic world and the market world, because he needs policymakers, subsidies, and art markets to make a living for himself. In these situations of multiple worlds, actors have the opportunity of critiquing other justifications, and orders of worth, by referring to the principles of their own value regime. So for instance, an artist can condemn the need of the policymaker to emphasize the general interest and the will of the collective (i.e. civic world) by referring to the importance of uniqueness and originality (i.e. inspired world) for art and culture. These critiques between worlds can ultimately lead to unsolvable disputes and conflicts between actors.
27 state that these situations, in which several worlds are involved, are quite susceptible to critique and they describe them as ‘ambiguous situations’ (p. 374).
The possible critiques from one order of worth to another are discussed in detail by Boltanski and Thévenot in On justification (2006, p. 237-273). These theoretical examples will be described below to give insight in how an actor can criticize situations or other actors by using the principles of a certain world. I will also include the two additional worlds, but it must be noted that Boltanski and Chiapello (2005. P. 128-138) are not complete in their discussion of the critiques that involve the projective city and that Thévenot et al. (2000) do not elaborate at all on the critiques from the green order of worth. So, the critiques involving the projective city and the green world will be partly based on my interpretation of these two orders of worth and how they relate to the other value regimes.
1.2.3.1 Critique from the inspired world
Everything that is stable and fixed, such as habits and traditions, is not being appreciated in the inspired world. Actors in the inspired world like to give everything up and this could potentially create conflicts with the domestic world. Furthermore, an inspired person is according to Boltanski and Thévenot humble towards the mysteries of inspiration and would therefore criticize the desire of success and fame that are so important in the world of fame. The civic world is also conflicting with the principles of the inspired world, because it is often too institutionalized with laws, policies, and rules, which can create a detachment of persons. The market world is known for the desire of things and monetary value. This is something that the inspired world despises, because creativity is not a commercial product and people are becoming slaves towards their own desires. The disputes that are caused by the industrial world are quite similar with the conflicts with the domestic city. For example, reason, logic, and routines from the industrial world can constrain the outpouring of inspiration and creativity. The projective city and the inspired world collide often, because the first refers to a network of actors that create something together, while the latter emphasizes the individuality and uniqueness of persons. Finally, the green order of worth is known for the protection of nature and the environment. The inspired world is not interested in these matters, because the inside of an actor (e.g. the mind, the unconscious, and the imaginary) is much more important than the outside world.
1.2.3.2 Critique from the domestic world
28 potentially destroy that. Not everything can be bought and actors from the domestic world would also argue that money is damaging to personal relationships. Disputes between the domestic world and the industrial world are often created because these two orders have different thoughts about the importance of diplomas and experience. Worth in the industrial world is being obtained by finishing processes, such as education, which results in valuable diplomas and ranks. However, the domestic world thinks that the experience of individuals is much more important than their diplomas. The projective city is too flexible and mobile for the domestic world, because relationships change with every new project and are not durable. On the other hand, long-lasting relationships between actors are the backbone of the domestic world. Lastly, the green world and the domestic world can clash if environmental issues stand in the way of habits and traditions that are important in the domestic order of worth.
1.2.3.3 Critique from the world of fame
The world of fame is incompatible with the inspired world, because the latter is too introvert and secretive. Everything has to be revealed in the world of fame and that is something that the inspired world could not facilitate. The domestic world is also too non-transparent and the world of fame dislikes the paternalism that comes with the domestic order of worth. An important critique from the world of fame to the civic world is that the latter can be characterized by anonymity and the collective, while the first empathizes the fame of individual stars and would collapse if everyone was anonymous. Advertising and marketing are important instruments in the market world if actors want to sell products and services, but these mechanisms are not important in the world of fame, because the latter focuses on the reputation of actors via public relations. The industrial world can collide with the world of fame when technicians and experts are cut off from the mass and do not include the public opinion in their work. Scientists should not work in an ivory tower, but should test themselves during press conferences and demonstrations. The projective city is a conflicting order for the world of fame, because connections in networks are not known for their transparency. The world of fame uses mass communication to bring messages across and to form relationships, but relationships in the projective city are created within a private setting. Finally, the main critique on the green order of worth is that activists are often anonymous and protecting the environment does not contribute to the recognition and fame of you as an actor.
1.2.3.4 Critique from the civic world
29 influence the outcome of elections and this would be undesirable, because actors have to make their choice independently. The market world is according to the civic world too egotistical and individualistic and certain groups of people would not profit from that. In the civic world, everything needs to be treated the same and that is not the case in the market order of worth. Boltanski and Thévenot argue that the bureaucratization and standardization in the industrial world can potentially create problems in the civic world, because it can affect the general interest negatively. The projective city can clash with the civic world because the first focuses on individualism and the gathering of several persons with different ideas, whereas the latter revolves around the collective and the general interest. Lastly, the civic world is critical about the green world because the latter is concerned with the interest with a smaller group and actors do often not obey the rules and laws during protests.
1.2.3.5 Critique from the market world
Emotional distance and self-control are important conditions for seizing opportunities and making deals in the market world. The inspired world is therefore problematic, because it focuses particularly on emotionality, spontaneity, and acting on your impulses. The domestic world is also conflicting because of the emotional distance that is acquired in the market world. Actors in the market world have to free oneself from personal relationships and should move away from the influences of others. Boltanski and Thévenot argue that the conflicts between the world of fame and the market world are created because subjects in the first world only buy products to identify themselves with celebrities. Also is it possible that the public opinion influences prices negatively if it acts on individual expectations and speculation. The civic world is deemed inferior because it only focuses on groups and does not attach importance to deals that happen face to face. Furthermore, the legal apparatus of the civic world can also influence the market world negatively, because it diminishes the freedom of the market. Problems between the industrial world and the market world originate because the first revolves around planning, methods, and routines, whereas the latter highlights the importance of opportunism to anticipate on changes in the market. The network of the projective city is not transparent enough for the market world, because important information only stays with certain actors within a network. Besides, the projective city is too personal for the market world, because the latter focuses on autonomous transactions. Finally, the market world is critical about the green world, because the protection of the environment with new pacts and laws often has negative consequences for the freedom of markets and could reduce profits. Besides, the market world is mainly interested in materialism and luxury items and not in nature and the ecosystem.
1.2.3.6 Critique from the industrial world
30 because actors in the latter always look at the future to search for new methods and innovation. The industrial world clashes with the world of fame because the latter focuses on the opinion of the public and does not consider expertise to be important. The inefficiency of administrative procedures is the main critique from the industrial world on the civic world, because bureaucracy can limit efficiency and productivity greatly. The market world is too inefficient from an industrial standpoint, because actors have to negotiate about prices and objects and this makes the outcome unpredictable and random. Also, luxury items are redundant in the industrial world, because they are expensive and do not satisfy real needs. Actors in the projective city move from project to project and this has as a consequence that expertise is disappearing. The flexibility of actors in the network world also affects efficiency negatively, because nobody has a fixed location in the work process. Lastly, the green world is too protective of the environment according to the industrial world. If industries have to take environmental issues into account, they need to change their work process and this can ultimately affect efficiency and innovation in a negative way.
1.2.3.7 Critique from the projective city
Networking is very important in the projective city and the introversion of the inspired world can certainly work against it. Furthermore, networks can’t be created quickly if the originality and uniqueness of every individual actor has to be assessed separately. In the domestic world, relationships are based on tradition and hierarchy and this is despised by the projective city, because it affects the creation of new networks negatively. The strength of a network depends on the collaboration of different actors with a variety of backgrounds and not on tradition. The projective city is also critical towards the world of fame, because it tries to reach a large public without really listening to individual actors. Actors have a voice in the projective city, which they do not have in the world of fame. The rules and statutes of the civic world are too rigid according to the projective city and this hampers the flexibility and mobility of a network and would thus also create conflicts. In the market world, deals are sealed between anonymous actors and with emotional distance, which is criticized by the projective city. Personal relationships are very important in the network world and they are there to stay for a longer period of time. Conflicts between the industrial world and the projective city are often created because the first order of worth is not flexible and mobile enough. Actors have a fixed position to increase efficiency in the industrial world and this is not being valued within the network world. Finally, the projective city conflicts with the green world if environmental issues stand in the way of the quick formation of networks and the flexibility of actors within them.
1.2.3.8 Critique from the green world
31 traditions, habits, and family. Personal relationships are very important in the domestic world and there is no place for relationships with the environment and besides, traditions and habits often stand in the way of learning new behavior, such as recycling. The world of fame is too self-centered according to the green order of worth, because it only revolves around the fame of individual persons and how they can influence the public opinion. The sustainability and health of the environment can even be (ab)used as a PR tool by actors of the world of fame to win the favor of the public. The green world is critical towards the civic world because the latter is focused on the general interest, which is often not the protection of the environment. Also, the laws and rules of the civic system are too rigid to anticipate on changes in the environment and promote a sustainable way of living. Disputes between the green world and the market world are often created, because actors in the latter have a desirability of luxury items and wealth and are not interested in environmental issues. The competition in the market world and the creation and acquisition of luxury items are often the reason that the environment needs to be protected in the first place. The industrial world can be characterized by measurability, standardization, innovation, activity, and functionality and these values can collide with the principles of the green world. It is difficult to alter a process if it is already standardized and the industrial world can therefore not respond quickly to changes in the environment. Lastly, the critique from the green world on the projective city is that networks are too flexible and mobile and therefore not sustainable for a longer period of time. Moreover, a stable and solid network is needed if the environment is going to be protected permanently.
1.2.3.9 Schematization of the critiques between worlds
32
1st world
2nd world
Original worlds Additional worlds Inspired Domestic Fame Civic Market Industrial Project Green
Or ig in a l w o rl d s Inspired Disorder though chaos and instability Too secretive and introvert Too impulsive and individualistic Spontaneity and no emotional distance Improvisation bad for efficiency Too introvert to create relationships Too introvert to care about environment Domestic Traditions and habits limit creativity Paternalism and not transparent Authority and corruption Free from personal relationships No innovation with tradition and history Tradition and hierarchy
Old habits are hard to change
Fame
Desire of fame is fake and not humble
Publicity and fame as a tool for personal gain Public opinion influences and dictates Items as identification with stars Expertise not important in world of fame Individuals do not have a voice Self-centered and nature as PR tool Civic Detachment of persons through laws and rules
Persons are too anonymous The collective and too anonymous No face to face relationships Bureaucracy limits efficiency Rules and statutes too rigid
Laws and rules not able to anticipate Market Creativity is not commercial and enslavement to money Money damages relationships and not everything is for sale Advertising and marketing can be bad Egoism and individualism Outcome negotiation is unpredictable and random Emotional distance limits personal relationships Luxury items more important than environment Industrial Routines and logic limit creativity
Diplomas are not more important than experience Subjects cut from public in ivory tower Too much bureaucracy Routines limit opportunism Not flexible and mobile enough Difficult to alter standardized processes A d d ition al w o rl d s Project Collaboration is not desirable Relationships are too flexible and unstable Relationships are not transparent Focused on individuals Network is not transparent Leaking of expertise in networks Networks too flexible and not sustainable Green The inside of persons is more important Environmental issues stand in the way of habits and traditions No fame in protecting the environment Disobeying laws and interest of smaller group Reduces profit and freedom of market Process changes limit efficiency and innovation Environmental issues limit flexibility of actors
33
1.2.4 Compromises and agreements between worlds
Boltanski and Thévenot argue that there are two different ways of solving disputes that involve more than one world. First, if criticism refers to the guiding principle on which a particular situation is based, the ‘dispute transforms itself into a competition between two different reality tests’, based on two separate orders of worth (1999, p. 374). For example, a discussion about the uniqueness of the arts (i.e. the inspired world) and their use for society as a whole (i.e. civic world) can create conflicts for policymakers, because they have to cope with two different worlds and reality tests. If they were to discard one world (e.g. the inspired world) they would avoid creating disputes between value regimes. So, if actors want to solve a conflict by using this first method, they need to come back to only one order of worth. The second way of solving conflicts between worlds is by reaching an agreement, which Boltanski and Thévenot call a compromise. To solve disputes using this method, actors have to search for overlaps between worlds and look for a ‘common good’, which is relevant in multiple orders of worth. Boltanski and Thévenot illustrate this by using the example of ‘civil rights’, which is an agreement between an object of the civic world (i.e. rights) and beings from the industrial world (i.e. workers) (2006, p. 277). A relevant example from the cultural field is the compromise ‘techniques of creativity’, which refers to industrial routines and inspired outpourings that serve one common good. However, it is important to note that value regimes have to be included equally in a compromise, so one should not be dominant over the other. The possible grounds for compromise between worlds will be discussed below with the help of the common goods that are described by Boltanski and Thévenot in On justification (2006, p. 293-335) and by Boltanski and Chiapello in The new spirit of capitalism (2005, p. 128-138). However, just as with the discussion of critiques between worlds, Boltanski and Chiapello (2005) and Thévenot et al. (2000) do not elaborate on all the compromises that involve the projective city and the green world. So, the compromises involving these two value regimes will be based on their common set of characteristics and my own interpretation of how they relate to the other orders of worth. The descriptions of compromises will become shorter with each paragraph, since they are based on a common good between two worlds and count for both orders of worth. For example, I do not want to repeat the commonalities that I’ve discussed in the paragraph about the inspired world when I describe the compromises involving the domestic world. This was different in the section about conflicts, because the criticism from the inspired world on the domestic order of worth is of a different nature than the critique from the domestic world on the inspired value regime.
1.2.4.1 Compromises involving the inspired world
34 outcome of the inspired world and this is where the two worlds can create compromises. A commonality between the civic world and the inspired world is that they both can call things into question. When authorities and representatives do not have the general interest in mind, actors can participate in spontaneous revaluations and protests to overthrow them. So this critical capacity towards authority is an important common ground between the civic world and the inspired world. Another overlap between the two value regimes is the capacity to create, which is an attribute of a genius, but only if it is applied to groups of people (i.e. collective genius). The market world and the inspired world are both based on instability and actors are driven by desires. Both value regimes love new things and actors in the inspired world try to obtain them by being spontaneous and original and persons in the market world want to collect them by being opportunistic. This emergence of new goods can create an interesting compromise between the two orders of worth, which Boltanski and Thévenot call the creative market. The world of inspiration is also interesting for the market world, because attributing a price to an inspired being or object (e.g. a painting) can eventually turn into a huge profit. The industrial world and the inspired world also have interesting possibilities to create compromises, because they both focus on innovation, passion and honest work. Inventors and scientists are a valuable compromise between the two value regimes, because they bring together creativity, passion, and innovation. Furthermore, the creative industry is a well-known example of an interesting compromise between the industrial (i.e. efficiency) and inspired (i.e. creativity) orders of worth. The projective city and the inspired world can come to an agreement if they focus on uniqueness, individuality, creativity, innovation. Networks in the projective city are made up of individuals with their own desires and their will to create and this could be a valuable common ground between the two value regimes. However, the two orders of worth think differently about the meaning of individuality and creativity, but they could still form compromises if they work towards a common goal. Finally, the green world can overlap with the inspired world if the uniqueness of the environment and the sublimity of nature is being emphasized. Actors in the inspired world can be inspired by nature and would benefit to protect the uniqueness of the environment. The ability to create can also benefit the green world, because actors in the inspired world have to potential to find new and original ways to protect and sustain the environment.
1.2.4.2 Compromises involving the domestic world
