ABSTRACT
In the previous chapter, I established the first elements required for a “ grammar” of appropriation.1 I highlighted the social and organisational arrangements through which employees can consider themselves to be the owners of profit, be recognised as such and thus demand their share. However, this grammar alone does not enable an understanding of the effective forms of appropriation. It makes an undeniable contribution to our understanding of the rivalries and issues at stake in the bonus distribution process. The plurality of methods of appropriation show that there is nothing natural, unavoidable or uniform about appropriation. Nevertheless, I cannot stop at this pluralist, indeed relativist conclusion; rather, I must tackle the question of why one method of appropriation may dominate the others.
