CON • TEXT - Arkitektur- og designhøgskolen i Oslo - AHO

D E N K U L T U R E L L E S K U L E S E K K E NThe Common GoodThe theory lists several choices in regards to what is labelled the HigherCommon Principle — the view of what constitutes the common good andhow to best achieve this goal. The Model of situated judgement: “…primarily recognizes the existence of persons-in-acts characterized bydifferent positions and chances” (Boltanski and Thévenot 2000:211). Thistheory of situated judgement does not claim to describe all aspects of thesocial and as such present itself as a complete social theory. It offers oneview, on one aspect of the social: “… one of the regimes that are capable ofcontrolling the moves on which social activity is based (Boltanski andThévenot 2000:209). Social activity can be harmonious or ambiguous. Abreak from normal — a situation — will set in motion criticism to try tocontrol the situation in a way that will bring it back to harmony. The differentparties will present different justifications towards different desired states ofharmony. In DKS it has a specific frame in a specific location/institution andat a certain time. Still, the modes of justification and Orders of worth areuniversal. The values brought into play, or the professional justification inDKS; “… poses universality as a horizon searched after by agents”(Boltanski and Thévenot 2000:209). In their search for stability they searchfor a common platform. The understanding of what that platform should bemight be very different. To communicate outside of your own understandingof the situation, you have to relate to a common conception of the world andworthy values.Boltanski and Thévenot have approached the problem by saying that it is notalways necessary to ascribe power motives or economic gain as the finaldestination to an action. It will factor in, but the final aim might be a highermotive. In their work On justification: Economies of worth (2006), Boltanskiand Thévenot present an; “… instrument with which to analyse the operationspersons perform when they resort to criticism, when they have to justify thecriticism they produce, when they justify themselves in the face of criticismor collaborate in the pursuit of a justified agreement” (Boltanski andThévenot 2000:208). They want to use their model in analysing situationswhere people express disagreement in non-violent confrontations. At sometime the disagreement will end in a more or less lasting agreement. Themodel has, as its point of origin, market theory. The authors’ objective is toshow, through the model, that capitalism as a value set might have severaltraits that transcend the self-interest of the individual. There is a reference toa higher principle in every argument where a party is called upon to justifythemselves, even within capitalism. “What we are saying is that the personsin the market are moral beings, in the sense that they are capable of takingabstractions from their particularity in order to agree on external goods,74