IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Nécessité et justification


  • Luc Boltanski


[fre] Comment interpréter les relations souvent tendues qu'entretiennent l'économie et la sociologie ? Face au caractère peu convaincant des accusations qui peuvent s'échanger entre ces deux disciplines, nous proposerons l'idée suivante : sous-jacent à ces oppositions disciplinaires se trouverait un problème, tout à fait central dans les sciences sociales, qui est celui de la relation entre, d'une part, des constructions qui éloignent de leur système d'interprétation les motifs moraux et, d'autre part, des constructions qui, au contraire, leur sont attentives et entendent tenir compte de la façon dont les personnes se justifient ou, à l'inverse, se livrent à la critique. Dans cet article, nous tracerons à grands traits les lignes de partage entre différents courants des sciences sociales en fonction de ce principe de division, et nous examinerons certains des problèmes qui se posent à chacun d'eux. Nous présenterons enfin des pistes visant à rendre possible l'intégration dans un même cadre des approches qui mettent plutôt l'accent sur le poids de la nécessité et des approches qui se veulent attentives aux exigences de justification. [eng] How to understand the frequently conflicting relationships between sociology and economy? Noticing that the accusations which are exchanged from one discipline to the other are most often unconvincing, we will propose the following interpretation: underlying these oppositions one can identify a problem, which lies ai the very heart of the social sciences. This problem is related to the tensions between, on the one hand, frames of analysis which don't take into account the moral motives put forward by the actors and, on the other hand, f rames which, at the opposite, are bent on integrating the way people justify themselves or develop criticisms. In this paper, we will outline the boundaries between different programs in the social sciences, according to that scheme of interpretation, and some of the problems which they are compelled to tackle. Finally, we will propose some paths aiming at integrating into a single frame the approaches which lay stress on a compelling necessity and the approaches which whish to bring attention to the moral justifications delivered by the actors themselves.

Suggested Citation

  • Luc Boltanski, 2002. "Nécessité et justification," Revue Économique, Programme National Persée, vol. 53(2), pages 275-289.
  • Handle: RePEc:prs:reveco:reco_0035-2764_2002_num_53_2_410405

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Data and metadata provided by Persée are licensed under a Creative Commons "Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0" License

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. FLEURBAEY, Marc & MANIQUET, François, 1998. "Optimal income taxation: and ordinal approach," CORE Discussion Papers 1998065, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    2. Marc Fleurbaey & François Maniquet, 2006. "Compensation and responsibility," Working Papers halshs-00121367, HAL.
    3. Mongin, P & d'Aspremont, C, 1996. "Utility Theory and Ethics," Papers 9632, Paris X - Nanterre, U.F.R. de Sc. Ec. Gest. Maths Infor..
    4. Fleurbaey, Marc, 1995. "Equal Opportunity or Equal Social Outcome?," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(01), pages 25-55, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. Carlos Ramirez, 2013. "‘We are being Pilloried for Something, We Did Not Even Know We Had Done Wrong!’ Quality Control and Orders of Worth in the British Audit Profession," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(5), pages 845-869, July.

    More about this item


    Access and download statistics


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:prs:reveco:reco_0035-2764_2002_num_53_2_410405. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Equipe PERSEE). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.