When Orders of Worth Clash: Negotiating Legitimacy in Situations of Moral Multiplexity

J. Reinecke, K. van Bommel, A. Spicer

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

How is moral legitimacy established in pluralist contexts where multiple moral frameworks co-exist and compete? Situations of moral multiplexity complicate not only whether an organization or practice is legitimate but also which criteria should be used to establish moral legitimacy. We argue that moral legitimacy can be thought of as the property of a dynamic dialogical process in which relations between moral schemes are constantly (re-)negotiated through dynamic exchange with audiences. Drawing on Boltanski and Thévenot’s ‘orders of worth’ framework, we propose a process model of how three types of truces may be negotiated: transcendence, compromise, antagonism. While each can create moral legitimacy in pluralistic contexts, legitimacy is not a binary variable but varying in degrees of scope and certainty.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)33-72
JournalResearch in the Sociology of Organizations
Volume52
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2017

Fingerprint

legitimacy
transcendence
antagonism
compromise
Legitimacy
Negotiating
organization

Cite this

@article{73398d757e324041843676d78a5f139f,
title = "When Orders of Worth Clash: Negotiating Legitimacy in Situations of Moral Multiplexity",
abstract = "How is moral legitimacy established in pluralist contexts where multiple moral frameworks co-exist and compete? Situations of moral multiplexity complicate not only whether an organization or practice is legitimate but also which criteria should be used to establish moral legitimacy. We argue that moral legitimacy can be thought of as the property of a dynamic dialogical process in which relations between moral schemes are constantly (re-)negotiated through dynamic exchange with audiences. Drawing on Boltanski and Th{\'e}venot’s ‘orders of worth’ framework, we propose a process model of how three types of truces may be negotiated: transcendence, compromise, antagonism. While each can create moral legitimacy in pluralistic contexts, legitimacy is not a binary variable but varying in degrees of scope and certainty.",
author = "J. Reinecke and {van Bommel}, K. and A. Spicer",
year = "2017",
doi = "10.1108/S0733-558X20170000052002",
language = "English",
volume = "52",
pages = "33--72",
journal = "Research in the Sociology of Organizations",
issn = "0733-558X",
publisher = "Emerald Publishing Limited",

}

When Orders of Worth Clash: Negotiating Legitimacy in Situations of Moral Multiplexity. / Reinecke, J.; van Bommel, K.; Spicer, A.

In: Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 52, 2017, p. 33-72 .

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - When Orders of Worth Clash: Negotiating Legitimacy in Situations of Moral Multiplexity

AU - Reinecke, J.

AU - van Bommel, K.

AU - Spicer, A.

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - How is moral legitimacy established in pluralist contexts where multiple moral frameworks co-exist and compete? Situations of moral multiplexity complicate not only whether an organization or practice is legitimate but also which criteria should be used to establish moral legitimacy. We argue that moral legitimacy can be thought of as the property of a dynamic dialogical process in which relations between moral schemes are constantly (re-)negotiated through dynamic exchange with audiences. Drawing on Boltanski and Thévenot’s ‘orders of worth’ framework, we propose a process model of how three types of truces may be negotiated: transcendence, compromise, antagonism. While each can create moral legitimacy in pluralistic contexts, legitimacy is not a binary variable but varying in degrees of scope and certainty.

AB - How is moral legitimacy established in pluralist contexts where multiple moral frameworks co-exist and compete? Situations of moral multiplexity complicate not only whether an organization or practice is legitimate but also which criteria should be used to establish moral legitimacy. We argue that moral legitimacy can be thought of as the property of a dynamic dialogical process in which relations between moral schemes are constantly (re-)negotiated through dynamic exchange with audiences. Drawing on Boltanski and Thévenot’s ‘orders of worth’ framework, we propose a process model of how three types of truces may be negotiated: transcendence, compromise, antagonism. While each can create moral legitimacy in pluralistic contexts, legitimacy is not a binary variable but varying in degrees of scope and certainty.

U2 - 10.1108/S0733-558X20170000052002

DO - 10.1108/S0733-558X20170000052002

M3 - Article

VL - 52

SP - 33

EP - 72

JO - Research in the Sociology of Organizations

JF - Research in the Sociology of Organizations

SN - 0733-558X

ER -