In Part 1 of this wide-ranging interview Tony Lawson first discusses his role in the formation of IACR and how he relates to the generalized use of the term ‘Critical Realism’. He then provides com...

In this article, we describe how Louis-Joseph Lebret’s work, propelled by his human-centred spirituality, contributed to the development of an approach aimed at the transformation of social and eco...

Les partisans de l’épistémologie historique ont souligné la manière dont les concepts nommés font partie des caractéristiques les plus fondamentales d’une science réussie. Les progrès de la compréhension, notamment par le développement de projets dont l’orientation est critique, peuvent être considérablement stimulés par la transformation d’aspects clés en concepts nommés, étant donné l’attention que ces derniers ont tendance à recevoir. Je me concentre ici sur un phénomène analytique qui, à mon sens, mérite de faire l’objet d’un concept nommé dans les (...) sciences sociales modernes. Je pense qu’une telle évolution serait bénéfique pour la discipline de l’économie moderne prise en particulier. En réalité, le phénomène en question a déjà fait l’objet d’un concept nommé en économie, et ce il y a plus de 100 ans. Il était associé à l’étiquette « économie néoclassique ». L’étiquette a survécu, tout comme le phénomène pour lequel elle a été, à juste titre, introduite. Mais l’étiquette et l’étiqueté se sont tous deux séparés, la première étant utilisée par la suite de manière essentiellement incohérente et le second persistant sans être articulé et de ce fait essentiellement non reconnu. Ainsi, il s’agit également d’explorer la manière dont tout cela s’est passé et de se demander s’il y a quelque chose à tirer de cette histoire. (shrink)

In this article I draw upon the social ontologies developed by John Searle, Roy Bhaskar, Margaret Archer and Tony Lawson in order to distinguish between power and leadership. To do so, I distinguish the different organizing principles behind natural phenomena, collective phenomena and institutional phenomena, and argue that an understanding of those different organizing principles is essential to a clearer conceptualization of power and leadership. Natural power and cultural power, as I argue, depend upon the organizing principles of natural phenomena, (...) and differ depending on whether those organizing principles have been transformed by humans, in which case it becomes cultural power, or not, in which case it simply is natural power. Leadership emerges with the ability of making other humans share mental states through collective intentionality. Institutional power, in contrast, is connected to the creation of a deontology of rights and obligations that provide what Searle calls desire-independent reasons for action. (shrink)

The connections between Adam Smith and Catholic Social Teaching raise several questions. The principle of subsidiarity adopted in CST, according to which higher associations should not replace subordinate organizations on what the latter can do, seems to be in line with the idea that governmental intervention in the market sphere should be restricted to the minimum required, in line with what is typically seen as Smith’s view. But the principle of the common good would also recommend intervention from political authorities (...) in order to ensure that the common good is achieved. Here I shall argue that this question must be addressed taking into account another principle of CST, the principle of solidarity, and also the basic principle of CST, regarding human dignity. To do so, it is necessary to understand how the various principles of CST spring from the notion of imago Dei in CST, which is behind the notion of human dignity. This leads to a relational conception of human beings which can be fruitfully articulated with Smith’s moral philosophy and political economy. (shrink)