Denise versus Jean‐Jacques

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to evaluate to what extent Denise Rousseau's psychological contracts in organizations and Jean‐Jacques Rousseau's social contract present superficial or profound similarities. Having localized more precisely the lines of gaps between both works, “transgressive” research directions are proposed to enrich each of both thoughts of contracts.Design/methodology/approachThis work consists in an analysis in the sense of Descartes, dividing conceptual difficulties into smaller and smaller parts. More precisely, that analysis is a semiotic one, as defined by linguist Hjelmslev, considering each step of the analysis a “level” and assessing the depth of similarities between two works: On the Social Contract and Psychological Contracts in Organizations. The parallel study of both works consists in analyzing the “grammar of use” of concepts at each level, establishing semantic comparative tables. This digging into parallel strata of sense is metaphorically considered as the tectonic study of two continents of thought.FindingsIt is established that common ideas and concepts are similar up to the depth of level three but radically differ at level four. At level one, nine main common ideas and concepts are raised. Analysis at level two allows considering those superficial similarities as nine more profound homologies in the sense of Greimas and Courtes. At level three, two different groups of homologies are established, binding, on the one hand, an isomorphism between spheres of contracting and, on the other hand, an isomorphism between substances of contract. At level four a deep tectonic fault is unveiled between Jean‐Jacques' and Denise's thought of contract: the sovereignty/exchange gap. This fault corresponds to two universal different syntaxes of subjects and objects defined by Greimas: the participative communication vs closed circulation of the objects of value.Research limitations/implicationsThis analysis is based on a corpus of two major works. However, every grammar of use relies on the study of a finite corpus.Social implicationsThe liberal assimilation of every social contract to exchange dynamics is radically denied by such work. The challenge of raising “sovereignty‐like” dimension in psychological contracts is all the more so critical since those contracts are pervasive in organizational and social life.Originality/valueThis paper proposes rigorous criteria for every trans‐cultural and trans‐disciplinary use of concepts in an original manner. A comparative “geology of thought” is made possible through semiotic instruments.