Gaston Richard was not only among the first to be informed of the ‘revelation’ that Durkheim announced about his reading of William Robertson Smith in 1895. Among all the Durkheimians, Richard was alone in publicly declaring himself on the matter. The radical nature of his witness went far beyond the fact of calling into question the date as well as the subject of this ‘revelation’. For Richard, the constitution of Durkheim's religious sociology was ultimately ‘only a moment from a more ample study’ about obligation. The originality of his analysis derives as much from the fact of having seen the main source of Durkheim's inspiration in the neo-criticism of Charles Renouvier (parts 1 and 2) as from having criticized Durkheim's state-sociology, which was, if not the conclusion, then at least its political translation (part 3). Gaston Richard ne fut pas seulement aux toutes premières loges de la ‘révélation’ dont Durkheim fit part au sujet de sa lecture de William Robertson Smith, en 1895. De tous les durkheimiens, il fut encore le seul à s'y prononcer publiquement. La radicalité de son témoignage ira bien au-delà du fait de remettre en cause la date tout autant que l'objet de cette ‘révélation’ : pour Richard, la constitution de la sociologie religieuse durkheimienne ne fut en définitive ‘rien qu'un moment d'une étude beaucoup plus ample’ sur l'obligation. L'originalité de son analyse tient autant au fait d'en avoir vu la source d'inspiration majeure dans le néo-criticisme de Charles Renouvier (parties 1 & 2) que dans celui d'avoir critiqué la sociologie durkheimienne de l'État, qui en était sinon la conclusion, du moins la traduction politique (partie 3).
{"title":"‘La justice est pleine de charité’, ou la ‘révélation’ d'Émile Durkheim vue par Gaston Richard","authors":"C. Rol","doi":"10.3167/ds.2022.260104","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3167/ds.2022.260104","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Gaston Richard was not only among the first to be informed of the ‘revelation’ that Durkheim announced about his reading of William Robertson Smith in 1895. Among all the Durkheimians, Richard was alone in publicly declaring himself on the matter. The radical nature of his witness went far beyond the fact of calling into question the date as well as the subject of this ‘revelation’. For Richard, the constitution of Durkheim's religious sociology was ultimately ‘only a moment from a more ample study’ about obligation. The originality of his analysis derives as much from the fact of having seen the main source of Durkheim's inspiration in the neo-criticism of Charles Renouvier (parts 1 and 2) as from having criticized Durkheim's state-sociology, which was, if not the conclusion, then at least its political translation (part 3).\u0000\u0000\u0000Gaston Richard ne fut pas seulement aux toutes premières loges de la ‘révélation’ dont Durkheim fit part au sujet de sa lecture de William Robertson Smith, en 1895. De tous les durkheimiens, il fut encore le seul à s'y prononcer publiquement. La radicalité de son témoignage ira bien au-delà du fait de remettre en cause la date tout autant que l'objet de cette ‘révélation’ : pour Richard, la constitution de la sociologie religieuse durkheimienne ne fut en définitive ‘rien qu'un moment d'une étude beaucoup plus ample’ sur l'obligation. L'originalité de son analyse tient autant au fait d'en avoir vu la source d'inspiration majeure dans le néo-criticisme de Charles Renouvier (parties 1 & 2) que dans celui d'avoir critiqué la sociologie durkheimienne de l'État, qui en était sinon la conclusion, du moins la traduction politique (partie 3).\u0000","PeriodicalId":35254,"journal":{"name":"Durkheimian Studies/Etudes durkheimiennes","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44885999","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Damodardas Modi uses self-reflexive symbols. He called himself Watchman and weaved a campaign around it. This article sees Modi's campaign alongside Durkheim's The Elementary Forms of Religious Life: emergence of Modi's Watchman image as a totem, emergence of a clan of believers, collective effervescence, coming of a civilising hero, and Modi becoming a great god. The totem and the clan ‘disappeared’ on the last day of the elections. Only the great god remained to resurrect in millions of banners in public spaces saying: ‘Thank you, PM Modi’. This journey of this Dionysian election campaign with emotive symbols and meticulously planned spectacles built an illusion of a society with religion in its elementary form replacing the modern society for the election period.
{"title":"Modi's Journey from a Chowkidar (Watchman) to Great God","authors":"A. Raja","doi":"10.3167/ds.2022.260108","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3167/ds.2022.260108","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Indian Prime Minister Narendra Damodardas Modi uses self-reflexive symbols. He called himself Watchman and weaved a campaign around it. This article sees Modi's campaign alongside Durkheim's The Elementary Forms of Religious Life: emergence of Modi's Watchman image as a totem, emergence of a clan of believers, collective effervescence, coming of a civilising hero, and Modi becoming a great god. The totem and the clan ‘disappeared’ on the last day of the elections. Only the great god remained to resurrect in millions of banners in public spaces saying: ‘Thank you, PM Modi’. This journey of this Dionysian election campaign with emotive symbols and meticulously planned spectacles built an illusion of a society with religion in its elementary form replacing the modern society for the election period.","PeriodicalId":35254,"journal":{"name":"Durkheimian Studies/Etudes durkheimiennes","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49618380","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In his 1887 report about the positivist science of morals in Germany, Durkheim referred to two books: Der Zweck im Recht by Rudolf von Jhering and Die socialetische Bedeutung von Recht, Unrecht und Strafe by Georg von Jellinek. Despite the absence of commentary from Durkheim about this 1878 book from the ‘young’ Jellinek (later known as a master of public law), the analysis of this dissertation (rejected by the University of Vienna) shows that it contained a claim for a social-science-inspired understanding of crime and penalty and had some points of contact with Durkheim's argumentation, notably about the importance of religious feelings in the social reaction against crimes. The article proposes to deepen this comparison between Jellinek's and Durkheim's books with an investigation about their indirect sources.
{"title":"From Durkheim to Jellinek","authors":"Jean-Louis Halpérin","doi":"10.3167/ds.2022.260102","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3167/ds.2022.260102","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000In his 1887 report about the positivist science of morals in Germany, Durkheim referred to two books: Der Zweck im Recht by Rudolf von Jhering and Die socialetische Bedeutung von Recht, Unrecht und Strafe by Georg von Jellinek. Despite the absence of commentary from Durkheim about this 1878 book from the ‘young’ Jellinek (later known as a master of public law), the analysis of this dissertation (rejected by the University of Vienna) shows that it contained a claim for a social-science-inspired understanding of crime and penalty and had some points of contact with Durkheim's argumentation, notably about the importance of religious feelings in the social reaction against crimes. The article proposes to deepen this comparison between Jellinek's and Durkheim's books with an investigation about their indirect sources.","PeriodicalId":35254,"journal":{"name":"Durkheimian Studies/Etudes durkheimiennes","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44864925","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article examines Henri Hubert and Marcel Mauss's Essay on the nature and function of sacrifice, published in the second volume of L'Année sociologique edited by Durkheim. By focussing on the comparative method used by Hubert and Mauss to compare the civilisations of ancient India and Israel, we can trace how Durkheim gradually elaborated upon the sociology of religions and the subject of sacrifice. Two sociological concepts are used to analyse this intellectual exchange. First, the notion of ‘configuration’, following Norbert Elias, that is understood as a space of mutual dependence and interaction in which authors, journals, disciplines and academic institutions participate. Second, the notion of ‘a conversational space’, borrowed from Erving Goffman, that formed among Émile Durkheim, Marcel Mauss, Henri Hubert and Sylvain Lévi. We contend that the writing and thinking of sacrifice in Hubert and Mauss's essay was marked by the different backgrounds to which these four scholars belonged—three Jews and one Christian—while at the same time they were committed in the name of justice and equality to the defence of Captain Dreyfus, seen as an ‘expiatory victim’. Le but de cet article est d'étudier la fabrique de l'ouvrage d'Henri Hubert et de Marcel Mauss, Essai sur la nature et la fonction du sacrifice, paru en 1899 dans le deuxième volume de L'Année sociologique éditée par Émile Durkheim. On montre que ce mémoire est le résultat des échanges intellectuels entre Henri Hubert, Marcel Mauss, Émile Durkheim et Sylvain Lévi, ce dernier ayant fourni aux auteurs de l'essai une analyse du sacrifice védique qui structure leur modèle. On mobilise deux outils sociologiques : premièrement, la notion de configuration, empruntée à Norbert Elias et, deuxièmement, celle d'ordre conversationnel que l'on doit à Erving Goffman. On soutient que l'Essai sur le sacrifice témoigne d'une écriture de la différence à laquelle participent trois savants juifs et un savant de culture chrétienne, ces quatre personnes étant par ailleurs engagées dans la défense du capitaine Dreyfus au nom de la justice et de l'égalité.
{"title":"Émile Durkheim et la sociologie des religions","authors":"Catherine Fhima, R. Lardinois","doi":"10.3167/ds.2022.260106","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3167/ds.2022.260106","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000This article examines Henri Hubert and Marcel Mauss's Essay on the nature and function of sacrifice, published in the second volume of L'Année sociologique edited by Durkheim. By focussing on the comparative method used by Hubert and Mauss to compare the civilisations of ancient India and Israel, we can trace how Durkheim gradually elaborated upon the sociology of religions and the subject of sacrifice. Two sociological concepts are used to analyse this intellectual exchange. First, the notion of ‘configuration’, following Norbert Elias, that is understood as a space of mutual dependence and interaction in which authors, journals, disciplines and academic institutions participate. Second, the notion of ‘a conversational space’, borrowed from Erving Goffman, that formed among Émile Durkheim, Marcel Mauss, Henri Hubert and Sylvain Lévi. We contend that the writing and thinking of sacrifice in Hubert and Mauss's essay was marked by the different backgrounds to which these four scholars belonged—three Jews and one Christian—while at the same time they were committed in the name of justice and equality to the defence of Captain Dreyfus, seen as an ‘expiatory victim’.\u0000\u0000\u0000Le but de cet article est d'étudier la fabrique de l'ouvrage d'Henri Hubert et de Marcel Mauss, Essai sur la nature et la fonction du sacrifice, paru en 1899 dans le deuxième volume de L'Année sociologique éditée par Émile Durkheim. On montre que ce mémoire est le résultat des échanges intellectuels entre Henri Hubert, Marcel Mauss, Émile Durkheim et Sylvain Lévi, ce dernier ayant fourni aux auteurs de l'essai une analyse du sacrifice védique qui structure leur modèle. On mobilise deux outils sociologiques : premièrement, la notion de configuration, empruntée à Norbert Elias et, deuxièmement, celle d'ordre conversationnel que l'on doit à Erving Goffman. On soutient que l'Essai sur le sacrifice témoigne d'une écriture de la différence à laquelle participent trois savants juifs et un savant de culture chrétienne, ces quatre personnes étant par ailleurs engagées dans la défense du capitaine Dreyfus au nom de la justice et de l'égalité.\u0000","PeriodicalId":35254,"journal":{"name":"Durkheimian Studies/Etudes durkheimiennes","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46434499","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
There is an immediate chronological link between Durkheim's criminology courses on crime and punishment, taught between 1892 and 1894, and his first course in religious sociology (1894–1895). Both are included in the cycles of ‘General Physics of Law and Morals’. Beyond this observation, the emphasis here is on six points that intellectually connect the two fields of study, always analyzed separately by the commentators of his work. Crime is in itself a means of revealing social solidarity, and the religion that carries it. The penalty is at the articulation between criminal law and religion. The evolution of penalty marks the progressive elimination of the religious substance of modern criminal laws. Durkheim outlines a theory of the sacred by reflecting on the respect and authority of the law. There are also suggestive digressions that link the tattoos of criminals to the institution of totemism. Finally, his typology of crimes is an opportunity to transform religion into an ‘explanatory variable’, rather than a ‘variable to be explained’. Il existe un lien chronologique entre les cours de criminologie de Durkheim sur le crime et la peine en 1892–1894 et son premier cours de sociologie religieuse, dit de la révélation (1894–1895), qui se succèdent sans transition. Les deux domaines s'inscrivent d'ailleurs dans les cycles de ‘Physique générale du droit et des mœurs.’ Au-delà de ce constat, cet article met l'accent sur six points qui relient intellectuellement les deux domaines d'études, toujours analysés séparément par les commentateurs de son œuvre. Le crime est en soi un moyen de révéler la solidarité sociale et la religion qui la porte. En outre, la pénalité est le lieu d'articulation entre le droit pénal et la religion. Quant aux les ‘lois de l'évolution pénale’, elles manifestent l'élimination progressive de la substance religieuse des droits criminels modernes. Durkheim esquisse dans sa sociologie criminelle une théorie du sacré en réfléchissant au respect et à l'autorité de la loi, qui est transcendante. On évoque également les digressions suggestives dans lesquelles il rattache les tatouages des criminels à l'institution du totémisme. Enfin, on montre que sa typologie des crimes est l'occasion de transformer la religion en ‘variable explicative’, plutôt qu'en ‘variable à expliquer’, ce qui ne manque pas de lui conférer une objectivité scientifique considérable.
迪尔凯姆在1892年至1894年间开设的犯罪学课程——犯罪与惩罚——与他的第一门宗教社会学课程(1894年至1895年)之间存在着直接的时间联系。两者都包含在“法律和道德的一般物理”的循环中。除了这些观察之外，本书的重点是将这两个研究领域在智力上联系起来的六个要点，这些要点总是由他的著作的评论者分别分析。犯罪本身是揭示社会团结的一种手段，以及承载这种团结的宗教。刑罚是刑法与宗教的结合点。刑罚的演变标志着现代刑法中宗教实质的逐步消解。迪尔凯姆通过对法律的尊重和权威的反思，勾勒出一种神圣的理论。还有一些暗示性的离题，将罪犯的纹身与图腾崇拜制度联系起来。最后，他的犯罪类型学是将宗教转变为一个“解释变量”的机会，而不是一个“需要解释的变量”。在1892-1894年，迪尔凯姆的犯罪学课程和他的犯罪学课程，以及他的社会学和宗教研究课程，以及他的社会和宗教研究课程(1894-1895)，以及他的成功转型。这两个领域是'inscrivent ' d'ailleurs '，这两个周期是'体质'。“我认为，这篇文章符合我的观点，我的论点是:我的论点是:我的论点是:我的论点是:我的论点是:我的论点是:我的论点是:我的论点是:我的论点是:我的论点是:我的论点是:我的论点是:我的论点是:犯罪是一种社会团结，是一种社会团结，是一种宗教团结，是一种社会团结。当然，这是一种与宗教相结合的方式。Quant aux ' les les ' lois de l' samvolution psamnale '， le manifestl '。迪尔凯姆从社会学的角度来看，他认为犯罪是一种社会犯罪，他认为犯罪是一种社会犯罪，他认为犯罪是一种社会犯罪，他认为犯罪是一种社会犯罪。在关于薪金和薪金的问题上，“薪金和薪金的离题”表明，“薪金和薪金的离题”是指，“薪金和薪金的离题”是指，“薪金和薪金的离题”是指犯罪的离题。最后，在montre que sa pologie des crimes上，我们将“改变宗教的场合”改为“可变的解释”，plutôt qu'en“可变的解释”，我们将“qui ne manque pas de lui confencer one objectivit scientifique considable”。
{"title":"Crime et religion chez Durkheim","authors":"M. Béra","doi":"10.3167/ds.2022.260103","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3167/ds.2022.260103","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000There is an immediate chronological link between Durkheim's criminology courses on crime and punishment, taught between 1892 and 1894, and his first course in religious sociology (1894–1895). Both are included in the cycles of ‘General Physics of Law and Morals’. Beyond this observation, the emphasis here is on six points that intellectually connect the two fields of study, always analyzed separately by the commentators of his work. Crime is in itself a means of revealing social solidarity, and the religion that carries it. The penalty is at the articulation between criminal law and religion. The evolution of penalty marks the progressive elimination of the religious substance of modern criminal laws. Durkheim outlines a theory of the sacred by reflecting on the respect and authority of the law. There are also suggestive digressions that link the tattoos of criminals to the institution of totemism. Finally, his typology of crimes is an opportunity to transform religion into an ‘explanatory variable’, rather than a ‘variable to be explained’.\u0000\u0000\u0000Il existe un lien chronologique entre les cours de criminologie de Durkheim sur le crime et la peine en 1892–1894 et son premier cours de sociologie religieuse, dit de la révélation (1894–1895), qui se succèdent sans transition. Les deux domaines s'inscrivent d'ailleurs dans les cycles de ‘Physique générale du droit et des mœurs.’ Au-delà de ce constat, cet article met l'accent sur six points qui relient intellectuellement les deux domaines d'études, toujours analysés séparément par les commentateurs de son œuvre. Le crime est en soi un moyen de révéler la solidarité sociale et la religion qui la porte. En outre, la pénalité est le lieu d'articulation entre le droit pénal et la religion. Quant aux les ‘lois de l'évolution pénale’, elles manifestent l'élimination progressive de la substance religieuse des droits criminels modernes. Durkheim esquisse dans sa sociologie criminelle une théorie du sacré en réfléchissant au respect et à l'autorité de la loi, qui est transcendante. On évoque également les digressions suggestives dans lesquelles il rattache les tatouages des criminels à l'institution du totémisme. Enfin, on montre que sa typologie des crimes est l'occasion de transformer la religion en ‘variable explicative’, plutôt qu'en ‘variable à expliquer’, ce qui ne manque pas de lui conférer une objectivité scientifique considérable.\u0000","PeriodicalId":35254,"journal":{"name":"Durkheimian Studies/Etudes durkheimiennes","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42690651","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
What was the nature of the ‘revelation’ and of the appreciation of William Robertson Smith that, in 1907, Émile Durkheim dated to 1895? This article tracks new developments in his thought after 1895, including an emphasis on creative effervescence. But there was also continuity, involving a search for origins that used the ethnology of a living culture to identify early human socioreligious life with totemism in Australia. It is this continuity, at the core of his thought after 1895, which helps to bring out the nature of his ‘revelation’ and of his homage to Robertson Smith. It also highlights a problem with his start from an already complex Australian world, yet without a suitable evolutionary perspective available to him. However, a modern re-reading can reinstate Durkheim's interest in origins, in a story of hominin/human evolution over millions of years.
{"title":"The ‘Revelation’ in Durkheim's Sociology of Religion","authors":"W. Miller","doi":"10.3167/ds.2022.260107","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3167/ds.2022.260107","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000What was the nature of the ‘revelation’ and of the appreciation of William Robertson Smith that, in 1907, Émile Durkheim dated to 1895? This article tracks new developments in his thought after 1895, including an emphasis on creative effervescence. But there was also continuity, involving a search for origins that used the ethnology of a living culture to identify early human socioreligious life with totemism in Australia. It is this continuity, at the core of his thought after 1895, which helps to bring out the nature of his ‘revelation’ and of his homage to Robertson Smith. It also highlights a problem with his start from an already complex Australian world, yet without a suitable evolutionary perspective available to him. However, a modern re-reading can reinstate Durkheim's interest in origins, in a story of hominin/human evolution over millions of years.","PeriodicalId":35254,"journal":{"name":"Durkheimian Studies/Etudes durkheimiennes","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46805850","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
First, we return to the question of ‘revelation’ that has never been taken as an object of research. There has always been reluctance to take it seriously. However, Durkheim changed his thematic and theoretical perspectives from 1897, focusing on religious facts. Second, we explain how to treat revelation as a ‘thing’, as an object of research, insisting on the exegetical method by positioning ourselves prior to the emergence of ‘revelation’ (1895) to identify the paths that were decisive for Durkheim. All the articles in the special issue follow this approach. Third, we show how Durkheim went about ‘treating religious facts as things’, via the comparative method: by comparing the objectification of religion in other disciplines (history, law, psychology, philosophy), to arrive at a sociological synthesis; by comparing religious facts (and especially sacrifice) within different religions. The six articles in the special issue demonstrate the importance of the comparative method in social science. They ought to be compared with each other. Dans un premier temps, nous revenons sur la question de la révélation en rappelant qu'elle n'a jamais été traitée comme un objet de recherche à part entière. Il y a toujours eu des réticences à la prendre au sérieux. Pourtant, dans les faits, à partir de 1897, Durkheim a bien changé d'optiques, thématique et théorique, en ne s'intéressant plus qu'aux faits religieux. Dans un second temps, nous expliquons comment traiter la révélation ‘comme une chose’, en insistant sur la méthode exégétique, en se positionnant en amont de la révélation (1895), pour repérer les cheminements décisifs de Durkheim. Tous les articles du dossier suivent cette voie. Dans un troisième temps, nous montrons comment Durkheim s'y est pris pour ‘traiter les faits religieux comme des choses’1, via la méthode comparative : en comparant l'objectivation du religieux telle qu'elle était proposée par les autres disciplines (histoire, droit, psychologie, philosophie, ethnologie…), puis en comparant les faits religieux (et spécialement le sacrifice) entre différentes religions. Les six articles du dossier démontrent l'importance de la méthode comparative en science sociale. Ils doivent eux-mêmes être comparés entre eux.
{"title":"Il faut traiter les faits religieux comme des choses","authors":"M.-A. Béra","doi":"10.3167/ds.2022.260101","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3167/ds.2022.260101","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000First, we return to the question of ‘revelation’ that has never been taken as an object of research. There has always been reluctance to take it seriously. However, Durkheim changed his thematic and theoretical perspectives from 1897, focusing on religious facts. Second, we explain how to treat revelation as a ‘thing’, as an object of research, insisting on the exegetical method by positioning ourselves prior to the emergence of ‘revelation’ (1895) to identify the paths that were decisive for Durkheim. All the articles in the special issue follow this approach. Third, we show how Durkheim went about ‘treating religious facts as things’, via the comparative method: by comparing the objectification of religion in other disciplines (history, law, psychology, philosophy), to arrive at a sociological synthesis; by comparing religious facts (and especially sacrifice) within different religions. The six articles in the special issue demonstrate the importance of the comparative method in social science. They ought to be compared with each other.\u0000\u0000\u0000Dans un premier temps, nous revenons sur la question de la révélation en rappelant qu'elle n'a jamais été traitée comme un objet de recherche à part entière. Il y a toujours eu des réticences à la prendre au sérieux. Pourtant, dans les faits, à partir de 1897, Durkheim a bien changé d'optiques, thématique et théorique, en ne s'intéressant plus qu'aux faits religieux. Dans un second temps, nous expliquons comment traiter la révélation ‘comme une chose’, en insistant sur la méthode exégétique, en se positionnant en amont de la révélation (1895), pour repérer les cheminements décisifs de Durkheim. Tous les articles du dossier suivent cette voie. Dans un troisième temps, nous montrons comment Durkheim s'y est pris pour ‘traiter les faits religieux comme des choses’1, via la méthode comparative : en comparant l'objectivation du religieux telle qu'elle était proposée par les autres disciplines (histoire, droit, psychologie, philosophie, ethnologie…), puis en comparant les faits religieux (et spécialement le sacrifice) entre différentes religions. Les six articles du dossier démontrent l'importance de la méthode comparative en science sociale. Ils doivent eux-mêmes être comparés entre eux.\u0000","PeriodicalId":35254,"journal":{"name":"Durkheimian Studies/Etudes durkheimiennes","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46579975","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article examines how the counter-revolutionary writer Joseph de Maistre (1753–1821) theorizes the notion of sacrifice. For de Maistre sacrifice understood as punishment is foundational to all societies. Durkheim used many of this author's works without citing them. At the time Durkheim was teaching his criminal sociology course on punishment and responsibility as well as preparing his course on religion dealing with ‘revelation’. It is possible to explain his interests by the fact that de Maistre appears in Durkheim's core readings for theoretical ‘juncture’ that featured authors concerned with the articulation between questions of penal law and of religious phenomena. This provides additional evidence that for Durkheim religion is at the origin of the definition of the crime and of the establishment of the punishment. Cet article examine comment l'essayiste contre-révolutionnaire Joseph de Maistre (1753–1821) théorise la notion de sacrifice: pour lui, le sacrifice est compris comme une peine et il est à l'origine de toutes les sociétés. Or Durkheim fit usage de plusieurs de ses livres sans jamais les citer. Alors qu'il dispensait son cours de sociologie criminelle sur la peine et la responsabilité, et préparait sans doute aussi le cours sur la religion, dit ‘de la révélation’, il emprunta l'essai sur le sacrifice de de Maistre. On peut expliquer cet intérêt par le fait que De Maistre fait partie des lectures spéciales de ‘charnière’ théorique, qui renvoient à des auteurs se situant à l'articulation des questions de droit pénal et des phénomènes religieux repérés par Durkheim. On peut aussi, en conséquence, y voir une preuve de plus que, pour Durkheim, la religion est à l'origine de la définition du crime et de l'établissement de la peine.
{"title":"De L'éclaircissement sur le sacrifice de Joseph de Maistre à la ‘révélation’ de Durkheim","authors":"Flavien Bertran de Balanda, M.-A. Béra","doi":"10.3167/ds.2022.260105","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3167/ds.2022.260105","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000This article examines how the counter-revolutionary writer Joseph de Maistre (1753–1821) theorizes the notion of sacrifice. For de Maistre sacrifice understood as punishment is foundational to all societies. Durkheim used many of this author's works without citing them. At the time Durkheim was teaching his criminal sociology course on punishment and responsibility as well as preparing his course on religion dealing with ‘revelation’. It is possible to explain his interests by the fact that de Maistre appears in Durkheim's core readings for theoretical ‘juncture’ that featured authors concerned with the articulation between questions of penal law and of religious phenomena. This provides additional evidence that for Durkheim religion is at the origin of the definition of the crime and of the establishment of the punishment.\u0000\u0000\u0000Cet article examine comment l'essayiste contre-révolutionnaire Joseph de Maistre (1753–1821) théorise la notion de sacrifice: pour lui, le sacrifice est compris comme une peine et il est à l'origine de toutes les sociétés. Or Durkheim fit usage de plusieurs de ses livres sans jamais les citer. Alors qu'il dispensait son cours de sociologie criminelle sur la peine et la responsabilité, et préparait sans doute aussi le cours sur la religion, dit ‘de la révélation’, il emprunta l'essai sur le sacrifice de de Maistre. On peut expliquer cet intérêt par le fait que De Maistre fait partie des lectures spéciales de ‘charnière’ théorique, qui renvoient à des auteurs se situant à l'articulation des questions de droit pénal et des phénomènes religieux repérés par Durkheim. On peut aussi, en conséquence, y voir une preuve de plus que, pour Durkheim, la religion est à l'origine de la définition du crime et de l'établissement de la peine.\u0000","PeriodicalId":35254,"journal":{"name":"Durkheimian Studies/Etudes durkheimiennes","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47785591","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article concerns Émile Durkheim’s critique of the Action Française as expressed in his seminal articles of 1898, which was an important moment in the Dreyfus Affair, where Durkheim’s active engagement serves to challenge a still widespread view of him as a latter day traditionalist and positivist, He developed epistemological and political arguments against this proto-fascist movement, which have implications for his accounts of nationalism and internationalism.
{"title":"Durkheim, the Action Française and the Question of Nationalism","authors":"Sue Stedman-Jones","doi":"10.3167/ds.2021.250102","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3167/ds.2021.250102","url":null,"abstract":"This article concerns Émile Durkheim’s critique of the Action Française as expressed in his seminal articles of 1898, which was an important moment in the Dreyfus Affair, where Durkheim’s active engagement serves to challenge a still widespread view of him as a latter day traditionalist and positivist, He developed epistemological and political arguments against this proto-fascist movement, which have implications for his accounts of nationalism and internationalism.","PeriodicalId":35254,"journal":{"name":"Durkheimian Studies/Etudes durkheimiennes","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44842921","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article investigates German-speaking scholarship’s reception of the programme of scientific sociology that Durkheim presented in The Rules of Sociological Method. It highlights intra-European historical dynamics and academic hierarchies. References to national, cultural, disciplinary and theoretical frames of reference are clearly discernible in the ways the Rules have been read and Durkheim has been mapped. First, his reception was embedded in a complex geometry of power between two nation states during a historical period of competitive nationalism. Second, it was affected by the way he was perceived within networks of academics who occupied unequal geo-cultural positions inside and across nation states. At times, the special location assigned to him as a Jewish intellectual played an important role. Third, his positioning as a positivist within the specific epistemological structuring of sociology is key to understanding how he was perceived east of the Rhine.
{"title":"Frenchman, Jew, Positivist","authors":"","doi":"10.3167/ds.2021.250107","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3167/ds.2021.250107","url":null,"abstract":"This article investigates German-speaking scholarship’s reception of the programme of scientific sociology that Durkheim presented in The Rules of Sociological Method. It highlights intra-European historical dynamics and academic hierarchies. References to national, cultural, disciplinary and theoretical frames of reference are clearly discernible in the ways the Rules have been read and Durkheim has been mapped. First, his reception was embedded in a complex geometry of power between two nation states during a historical period of competitive nationalism. Second, it was affected by the way he was perceived within networks of academics who occupied unequal geo-cultural positions inside and across nation states. At times, the special location assigned to him as a Jewish intellectual played an important role. Third, his positioning as a positivist within the specific epistemological structuring of sociology is key to understanding how he was perceived east of the Rhine.","PeriodicalId":35254,"journal":{"name":"Durkheimian Studies/Etudes durkheimiennes","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46608884","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：