Abstract
This chapter identifies collegiality as the organizational form underlying commons in all their manifestations, especially by using personalized relationships as tools for self-management among peers. It then examines an empirical example of articulation of collegiality with the default organizational form characterizing contemporary societies, i.e. technocratic bureaucracy. The setting is a Catholic Diocese in which priests think of themselves as autonomous and professional peers able to self-manage and self-discipline, but in which the bishop is nevertheless the absolute master of his institution. This articulation reveals the forms taken by the political negotiation of a balance between ‘bottom up collegiality’ and ‘top down collegiality’, the latter being shaped by bureaucracy to co-opt collegial and participative forces. This negotiation shows how collegiality and bureaucracy drive each other’s evolution in morphogenetic dynamics that have long helped institutions such as the Catholic Church manage the diversity of its religious orientations, thus saving it from disintegration. In highly bureaucratized, unequal, threatened and digitalized societies, however, this morphogenesis of organizational forms and political negotiation can transform the self-discipline that peers recognize as legitimate into exogenous forms of collective responsibility, first through unobtrusive parametrization of new and emergent commons, and then –once the latter have become transparent for ruthless elites– as violent forms of social control.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
“There is absolutely nothing ‘democratic’ about collegiality. When the privileged classes had to guard themselves against the threat of those who were negatively privileged, they were always obliged to avoid, in this way, allowing any monocratic, seigneurial power that might count on those strata to arise” (Weber 1978:362; see also Musselin 1990).
- 2.
- 3.
- 4.
See Lazega (1992, 2014a) about the specificity of this social rationality, i.e. actors’ reflexive and critical ability to contextualize their behaviour using appropriateness judgements that endogenize social structure and allow for building a real rapport with institutions, becoming institutional entrepreneurs experimenting with new solutions to the dilemmas of collective action.
- 5.
- 6.
For the sake of clarity, Fig. 10.1 is built on the advice network among priests, but the other relationships measured in the diocese reflect the same underlying pattern, although in a more complexified way (Wattebled 2004; Lazega and Wattebled 2011). Centrality is measured as eigenvector centrality, a measurement that weighs the centrality of the person by the centrality of the contacts choosing that person. Highly central priests in this picture are priests who are sought out for advice by priests who are themselves sought out for advice. This measure represents with relatively good precision the pecking order between the priests as observed ethnographically.
- 7.
For an example of how bureaucratization of the future new commons could take place, recall ‘social digitalization’ as an indicator and substantive part of contemporary social morphogenesis, and see the use of devices such as body captors and network profiles and their influence on institution building (Lazega, Lazega 2015a, in Archer (ed.) Generative Mechanisms Transforming the Social Order).
- 8.
A purely online group is an effective way to organize for groups that are not limited / organized by a common locality, as when young innovators meet up to think up new codes in many areas (even in biology), work on projects together and start a business. These are not the same as commons with strong locality.
References
Al-Amoudi, I. (2014). Morphogenesis and normativity: Problems the former creates for the latter. In M. S. Archer (Ed.), Late modernity: Trajectories towards morphogenic society (pp. 193–220). London: Springer.
Al-Amoudi, I., & Latsis, J. (2014). The arbitrariness and normativity of social conventions. British Journal of Sociology, 65(2), 358–378.
Archer, M. S. (1995). Realist social theory: The morphogenetic approach. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Archer, M. S. (2013). Introduction. In Social morphogenesis. New York: Springer.
Archer, M. S. (2015). Introduction: Other conceptions of generative mechanisms and ours. In M. S. Archer (Ed.), Generative mechanisms transforming social order. Cham: Springer.
Archer, M. S. (2016). Anormative regulation in the morphogenic society. In M. S. Archer (Ed.), Morphogenesis and the crisis of normativity. Dordrecht: Springer.
Baylis, T. A. (1989). Governing by committee: Collegial leadership in advanced societies. Albany: SUNY Press.
Béraud, C. (2006). Le Métier de prêtre. Approche sociologique. Paris: Les Editions de l’Atelier.
Bosk, C. (1979). Forgive and remember: Managing medical failure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bourdieu, P., & Saint Martin de, M. (1982). La sainte famille. L’épiscopat français dans le champ du pouvoir. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, 44, 2–54.
Charles, F. (1986). La génération défroquée. Paris: Cerf.
Coriat, B. (Ed.). (2015). Le retour des communs et la crise de l’idéologie propriétaire. Paris: Les Liens qui libèrent.
Courcy, R. (1999). La paroisse et la modernité – lieu fondateur et arguments actualisés. Archives de sciences sociales des religions, 107, 21–39.
Donégani, J. M. (1993). La liberté de choisir: pluralisme religieux et pluralisme politique dans le catholicisme français contemporain. Paris: Presse de la fondation nationale des sciences politiques.
Donégani, J. M. (2000). Identités religieuses et pluralité des rapports au monde. In P. Bréchon, B. Duriez, & J. et Ion (Eds.), Religion et action dans l’espace public (pp. 211–224). Paris: L’Harmattan.
Freidson, E. (1986). Professional powers. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gannon, T. M. (1971). Priest/minister: Profession or not profession? Review of Religious Research, 12(2), 66–79.
Gannon, T. M. (1979a). The impact of structural differences on the catholic clergy. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 18(4), 350–362.
Gannon, T. M. (1979b). The effect of segmentation in the religious clergy. Sociological Analysis, 40(3), 183–196.
Gellard, J. (1977). Pouvoirs et stratégies dans l’administration d’un diocèse. Recherches en sciences religieuses, 65(4), 505–542.
Goudet, B. (1997). Qui parle ? Approche phénoménologique et analyse des formes et statuts de parole dans une assemblée synodale interdoyennés. In J. Palard (sous la dir.), Le gouvernement de l’Église catholique – Synodes et exercice du pouvoir (pp. 207–228). Paris: Cerf.
Granfield, P. (1988). Légitimation et bureaucratisation du pouvoir dans l’Église. Concilium, 217, 109–117.
Hess, C., & Ostrom, E. (Eds.). (2007). Understanding knowledge as a commons: From theory to practice. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Hervieu-Léger, D. (2003). Catholicisme, la fin d’un monde. Paris: Bayard.
Lazega, E. (1992). Micropolitics of knowledge. New York: Aldine-de Gruyter.
Lazega, E. (1993). Collégialité et bureaucratie dans les firmes américaines d’avocats d’affaires. Droit et Société, 23(24), 15–40.
Lazega, E. (1994). Analyse de réseaux et sociologie des organisations. Revue Française de Sociologie, 35, 293–320.
Lazega, E. (2001). The Collegial phenomenon: The social mechanisms of cooperation among peers in a corporate law partnership. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lazega, E. (2003). Rationalité, discipline sociale et structure. Revue Française de Sociologie, 44(44), 305–330.
Lazega, E. (2006). Capital social, processus sociaux et capacité d’action collective. In A. Bevort & M. Lallement (Eds.), Capital social: Echanges, réciprocité, équité (pp. 213–225). Paris: La Découverte.
Lazega, E. (2012). Sociologie néo-structurale. In R. Keucheyan & G. Bronner (Eds.), Introduction à la théorie sociale contemporaine. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Lazega, E. (2013). Network analysis in the ‘Morphogenetic Society’ project: A neo-structural exploration and illustration. In M. S. Archer (Ed.), Social morphogenesis (pp. 167–186). Dordrecht: Springer.
Lazega, E. (2014a). Appropriateness and structure in organizations: Secondary socialization through dynamics of advice networks and weak culture. In D. J. Brass, G. (Joe) Labianca, A. Mehra, D. S. Halgin & S. P. Borgatti (Eds.), Volume on Contemporary perspectives on organizational social networks (Vol. 40, pp. 381–402), Research in the sociology of organizations. Bingley: Emerald.
Lazega, E. (2014b). ‘Morphogenesis Unbound’ from the dynamics of multilevel networks: A neo-structural perspective. In M. S. Archer (Ed.), Late modernity: Trajectories towards morphogenic society (pp. 173–191). Cham: Springer.
Lazega, E. (2015a). Body captors and network profiles: A neo-structural note on digitalized social control and morphogenesis. In M. S. Archer (Ed.), Generative mechanisms transforming the social order (pp. 113–133). Dordrecht: Springer.
Lazega, E. (2015b). Synchronization costs in the organizational society: Intermediary relational infrastructures in the dynamics of multilevel networks. In E. Lazega & T. Snijders (Eds.), Multilevel network analysis for the social sciences. Dordrecht: Springer.
Lazega, E. (2016). Joint ‘anormative’ regulation from status inconsistency: A multilevel spinning top model of specialized institutionalization. In M. S. Archer (Ed.), Morphogenesis and the crisis if normativity. Dordrecht: Springer.
Lazega, E., & Mounier, L. (2002). Interdependent entrepreneurs and the social discipline of their cooperation: The research program of structural economic sociology for a society of organizations. In O. Favereau & E. Lazega (Eds.), Conventions and structures in economic organization: Markets, networks, and hierarchies (pp. 147–199). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Lazega, E. & Wattebled, O. (2011, November). Deux définitions de la collégialité et leur articulation: le cas d’un diocèse catholique. In Sociologie du Travail, 52/4: 480–502. English version: Two definitions of collegiality and their inter-relation: The case of a Roman Catholic diocese. 53 (Supplement 1), e57–e77
Musselin, C. (1990). Structures formelles et capacités d’intégration dans les universités françaises et allemandes. Revue Française de Sociologie, 31, 439–461.
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Palard, J. (1985). Pouvoir religieux et espace social. Le diocèse de Bordeaux comme organisation. Paris: Cerf.
Perrow, C. (1986). Complex organizations: A critical essay (3rd ed.). London: McGraw-Hill.
Sainsaulieu, R. (1977). L’Identité au travail. Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.
Schilling, T. P. (2002). Conflict in the catholic hierarchy: a study of coping strategies in the Hunthausen affair with preferential attention to discursive strategies. Utrecht: Labor Grafimedia BV.
Selznick, Ph. (1949). TVA and the grass roots: A study in the sociology of formal organization. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Vallier, I. (1969). Comparative studies of roman Catholicism: Dioceses as strategic units. Sociology Compass, 16(2), 147–184.
Villemin, L et Caillot J. (2001). Mission de l’Église qui envoie. Prêtres diocésains, mars-avril, 1395, 161–189.
Waters, M. (1989). Collegiality, bureaucratisation and professionalization: A Weberian analysis. American Journal of Sociology, 94(5), 945–972.
Wattebled, O. (2004). Discipline sociale entre prêtres: Bureaucratie et collégialité dans un diocèse français. Doctoral thesis, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Lille 1, France.
Weber, M., [1920] (1978) edition. In G. Roth & C. Wittich (Eds), Economy and society, Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Willaime, J. P. (1986). L’autorité religieuse et sa pratique dans la situation contemporaine. Lumière et vie, 35(180), 37–52.
Willaime, J. P. (1992). La précarité protestante: Sociologie du protestantisme contemporain. Genève: Labor et Fidès.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lazega, E. (2017). Networks and Commons: Bureaucracy, Collegiality and Organizational Morphogenesis in the Struggles to Shape Collective Responsibility in New Sharing Institutions. In: Archer, M. (eds) Morphogenesis and Human Flourishing. Social Morphogenesis. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49469-2_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49469-2_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-49468-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-49469-2
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)