ABSTRACT
Exactly as human beings are ontologically fragmented and in flow, so are the cultures of the families and firms in which they play their games. Every project of change and culture, then, involves the creation of a cover-up of transcendence, a façade of meaning that simultaneously allows the actors to satisfy their self-interest and gives a general direction to the collective manifestations and choices of action. Perhaps more than justice, widely seen as required for the organizing, the institutionalization of affectivity works against many directions of culture because it erodes its bases of power. While acknowledging the fragmented nature of culture, the inevitability of conflict, and the role it plays in the generation of novelty and freedom, they put an end to the regress of the rules by assuming that order is preferable to disorder, organization to dis-organization, family and firm to non-family or non-firm.
