How do we distinguish socially legitimate singularities (differences, dissimilarities, extravagances, etc.) from disturbing figures of disorder (deviations, pathologies, anomies, etc.) who activate the “invisible hand of intervention” (psychologists, doctors, social workers, sociologists, etc.)? What are the normative conditions of astonishment, concern, and indignation that mobilize sociologists (and other “logists”)? How do we switch from the series “observe, understand, and let be” to “worry, analyze, and intervene”? We will develop our argument in five steps: 1) distinguish two elementary forms of the conditions of attention (resemblance and analysis) when it comes to apprehending an unknown phenomenon; 2) sketch the characteristics of a space of order in terms of liminal functions (possible–impossible, thinkable–unthinkable, etc.) and interfaces (human–nonhuman, conforming–deviant, etc.); 3) problematize the “obviousness” of the new space of order around emotion and intersectionality; 4) describe how “the invisible hand of intervention” distinguishes the statuses of “abnormal” (pathology, problem, deviance, etc.) and “anomalous” (difference, dissimilarity, diversity, etc.) to “classify” the different phenomena; and, finally, 5) list some contemporary characteristics of our “sociological way of reading” the “problematic social” universe, that is, our specific way of “paying attention” to the social.