I’m a little concerned that after reading this two sentence paragraph:
Again, and not to overstate the case, what characterizes this reading of society is the existence of principles of justice, of the idea of legitimate (and by implication of illegitimate) action and so, of necessity, of rules governing market, or better exchange behavior, that are themselves not based on, or rooted in, the relations of exchange themselves (supply and demand, existing prestige orientations, and so on). Hence the existance of rules (already beyond the game, metarules, which is precisely what makes the principles of legitimation rules of justice) that are in a sense outside of society, which is, in turn, what has given them their authority (as oposed to the purely coercive propery rules that are only immament to society and it’s exchange relations).
this morning at the library my reaction was: “Exactly!”
Internalized values, justice, legitimation, sacred, authority: all the same conversation.