In its original formulation, Weber’s framework explains a social change but not a critical (i.e., reasoned) change. The spirit of capitalism, according to Weber, facilitated a social change, but this change emanated from one sphere (religion) and shaped—by way of unintended consequences— the realities of another sphere (economics). Here is the second element in Boltanski and Chiapello’s rendition of Weber’s framework: because the spirit of capitalism is historical, it also carries with it a critical potential. By understanding the structural transformations of capitalism as juxtaposed against the substantial role of the world of ideas, Boltanski and Chiapello conceptualize the transformations of capitalism as a response to the critique of capitalism.
The critique of capitalism, they suggest, is inherent to the nature of capitalism itself: “a need for the unlimited accumulation of capital by formally peaceful means” (Boltanski and Chiapello 2005, 4; emphasis mine) also requires capitalism to make itself politically legitimate. Boltanski and Chiapello see the spirit of capitalism as a form of “justification” (Boltanski and Thevenot 2006), which explains why a particular social constellation is universally beneficial. Justification means not simply a posteriori legitimation of the realities of capitalism (in the way that the notion of ideology implies) but also a priori limitations on its modus operandi. This need to provide justification for capitalism creates two conditions of possibility for critical engagement and social change: capitalism might fail in the tests of its justification (i.e., it would not live up to its own promises), and, in turn, a pressure will be created to transform it either through a demand for stricter adherence to its tests or through its wholesale transformation—that is, the creation of a new justification and, in effect, a new form of capitalism.
Capitalism<sub>,</sub> Technology<sub>,</sub> and the Digital Discourse
25