This article presents the sociological typology of crimes developed by Durkheim for his course in criminal sociology of 1892–1893, of which a complete set of notes by his nephew and student Mauss was found among descendants in 2018. It can be broken down into four types of crimes: ataxic (theft, vagrancy), altruistic (homicide), alcoholic (blows and wounds, insults), anomic (fraudulent bankruptcy, swindling). This original typology in many ways announced the typology of suicides that would appear in 1897, and shows Durkheim’s sociological theory at that time, while he was defending his thesis in 1893, at the end of that academic year. It sheds new light on the notions of regulation and integration and suggests the articulation between collective representations and social life, while Durkheim has not yet had his “revelation” (1894–1895). Cet article présente la typologie sociologique des crimes élaborée par Durkheim pour son cours de sociologie criminelle de 1892–1893 dont un jeu de notes complet de son neveu et étudiant Mauss a été retrouvé chez des descendants en 2018. Elle se décompose en quatre types ou espèces de crimes : ataxiques (vols, vagabondage), altruistes (homicides), alcooliques (injures et coups et blessures) et anomiques. Cette typologie inédite préfigure, sur de nombreux aspects, la typologie des suicides qui paraîtra en 1897, et donne à voir la théorie sociologique de Durkheim à cet instant, alors qu’il soutient sa thèse à la fin de cette même année universitaire. Elle éclaire d’un nouveau jour les notions de régulation et d’intégration, alors à l’état de gestation, et donne à penser sur l’articulation entre les représentations collectives et la vie sociale, alors que Durkheim n’a pas encore eu sa « révélation » pour mener à bien son programme de sociologie religieuse (1894–1895).
{"title":"La typologie des crimes de Durkheim dans ses Leçons de sociologie criminelle (1892–1893)","authors":"M.-A. Béra","doi":"10.3167/ds.2021.250109","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3167/ds.2021.250109","url":null,"abstract":"This article presents the sociological typology of crimes developed\u0000by Durkheim for his course in criminal sociology of 1892–1893, of\u0000which a complete set of notes by his nephew and student Mauss was\u0000found among descendants in 2018. It can be broken down into four types\u0000of crimes: ataxic (theft, vagrancy), altruistic (homicide), alcoholic (blows\u0000and wounds, insults), anomic (fraudulent bankruptcy, swindling). This\u0000original\u0000typology in many ways announced the typology of suicides that\u0000would appear in 1897, and shows Durkheim’s sociological theory at that\u0000time, while he was defending his thesis in 1893, at the end of that academic\u0000year. It sheds new light on the notions of regulation and integration and\u0000suggests the articulation between collective representations and social life,\u0000while Durkheim has not yet had his “revelation” (1894–1895).\u0000Cet article présente la typologie sociologique des crimes élaborée par Durkheim pour son cours de sociologie criminelle de 1892–1893 dont un jeu de notes complet de son neveu et étudiant Mauss a été retrouvé chez des descendants en 2018. Elle se décompose en quatre types ou espèces de crimes : ataxiques (vols, vagabondage), altruistes (homicides), alcooliques (injures et coups et blessures) et anomiques. Cette typologie inédite préfigure, sur de nombreux aspects, la typologie des suicides qui paraîtra en 1897, et donne à voir la théorie sociologique de Durkheim à cet instant, alors qu’il soutient sa thèse à la fin de cette même année universitaire. Elle éclaire d’un nouveau jour les notions de régulation et d’intégration, alors à l’état de gestation, et donne à penser sur l’articulation entre les représentations collectives et la vie sociale, alors que Durkheim n’a pas encore eu sa « révélation » pour mener à bien son programme de sociologie religieuse (1894–1895).","PeriodicalId":35254,"journal":{"name":"Durkheimian Studies/Etudes durkheimiennes","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41928925","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 1950, the cultural anthropologist Alfred Métraux, a student of Marcel Mauss, was appointed to head a new Race Bureau at UNESCO in Paris whose mission was to combat racism with the tools of social science. Métraux had worked in the Americas since the 1930s, and his appointment allowed French social scientists to join the global struggle to remove prejudice ‘from the minds of men’. To what extent did French scholars help shape Métraux’s efforts, given that at the time American sociologists and social psychologists dominated the study of race relations? Booklets commissioned by UNESCO and authored by French and American scientists in the early 1950s suggest that linguistic and conceptual barriers made cross-national discussions of race difficult, but not impossible. Thanks in part to Métraux’s campaign, the social scientific study of race relations in post-war France began earlier than is typically remembered.
{"title":"‘Nothing Is Less Universal than the Idea of Race’","authors":"Alice L. Conklin","doi":"10.3167/ds.2021.250105","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3167/ds.2021.250105","url":null,"abstract":"In 1950, the cultural anthropologist Alfred Métraux, a student of Marcel Mauss, was appointed to head a new Race Bureau at UNESCO in Paris whose mission was to combat racism with the tools of social science. Métraux had worked in the Americas since the 1930s, and his appointment allowed French social scientists to join the global struggle to remove prejudice ‘from the minds of men’. To what extent did French scholars help shape Métraux’s efforts, given that at the time American sociologists and social psychologists dominated the study of race relations? Booklets commissioned by UNESCO and authored by French and American scientists in the early 1950s suggest that linguistic and conceptual barriers made cross-national discussions of race difficult, but not impossible. Thanks in part to Métraux’s campaign, the social scientific study of race relations in post-war France began earlier than is typically remembered.","PeriodicalId":35254,"journal":{"name":"Durkheimian Studies/Etudes durkheimiennes","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46388702","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}
The phenomenon of sacrifice was a major problem in nineteenth-century social thought about religion for a variety of reasons. These surfaced in a spectacular way in a German trial in which the most prominent Jewish philosopher of the century, the neo-Kantian Hermann Cohen, was asked to be an expert witness. The text he produced on the nature of Judaism was widely circulated and influential. It presents what can be taken as the neo-Kantian approach to understanding ritual. But it also reveals the ways in which neo-Kantianism avoided becoming relativistic social science. In this case, it came to the edge and stopped. Cohen’s account is compared to the similar, but ‘empirical’, account of the same material in Marcel Mauss and Henri Hubert, which completed the transition.
{"title":"From Neo-Kantianism to Durkheimian Sociology","authors":"","doi":"10.3167/ds.2021.250106","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3167/ds.2021.250106","url":null,"abstract":"The phenomenon of sacrifice was a major problem in nineteenth-century social thought about religion for a variety of reasons. These surfaced in a spectacular way in a German trial in which the most prominent Jewish philosopher of the century, the neo-Kantian Hermann Cohen, was asked to be an expert witness. The text he produced on the nature of Judaism was widely circulated and influential. It presents what can be taken as the neo-Kantian approach to understanding ritual. But it also reveals the ways in which neo-Kantianism avoided becoming relativistic social science. In this case, it came to the edge and stopped. Cohen’s account is compared to the similar, but ‘empirical’, account of the same material in Marcel Mauss and Henri Hubert, which completed the transition.","PeriodicalId":35254,"journal":{"name":"Durkheimian Studies/Etudes durkheimiennes","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44605477","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 order to question the modernist common sense of mainstream sociology, epitomised today by the charge of methodological nationalism, this article offers an overall reading of Marcel Mauss’s The Nation. Conceived during the Great War and written mainly in 1920, Mauss’s work radically re-examined both the nation and nationalism from a regenerated sociological viewpoint centered on the relations between societies. Distinguishing between partial relations of exchange and total relations of encounter, Mauss came to discover the gift as a total social fact, seeing it as the traditional unconscious spring of the federative dynamics that had to be reactivated in Europe to associate its nations in a great ‘Inter-nation’ and avoid the risk of a new total war. The Nation, by reviving the original ambition of Émile Durkheim’s sociology to be a way rethinking and reshaping the concepts and institutions of modernity, helps us explore the contradictions and pathologies involved in the concept and history of the nation, in a situation currently marked by the return of nationalism and the quest for a social Europe.
{"title":"The Gift of The Nation","authors":"Francesco Callegaro","doi":"10.3167/ds.2021.250103","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3167/ds.2021.250103","url":null,"abstract":"In order to question the modernist common sense of mainstream sociology, epitomised today by the charge of methodological nationalism, this article offers an overall reading of Marcel Mauss’s The Nation. Conceived during the Great War and written mainly in 1920, Mauss’s work radically re-examined both the nation and nationalism from a regenerated sociological viewpoint centered on the relations between societies. Distinguishing between partial relations of exchange and total relations of encounter, Mauss came to discover the gift as a total social fact, seeing it as the traditional unconscious spring of the federative dynamics that had to be reactivated in Europe to associate its nations in a great ‘Inter-nation’ and avoid the risk of a new total war. The Nation, by reviving the original ambition of Émile Durkheim’s sociology to be a way rethinking and reshaping the concepts and institutions of modernity, helps us explore the contradictions and pathologies involved in the concept and history of the nation, in a situation currently marked by the return of nationalism and the quest for a social Europe.","PeriodicalId":35254,"journal":{"name":"Durkheimian Studies/Etudes durkheimiennes","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48692315","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}
Over the past 20 years, numerous scholars have called upon social scientists to consider the colonial contexts within which sociology, anthropology and ethnology were institutionalised in Europe and beyond. We explain how historical sociologists and historians of international law, sociology and anthropology can develop a global intellectual history of what we call the ‘sciences of the international’ by paying attention to the political ideas of the Durkheimian school of sociology. We situate the political ideas of the central figures explored in this special issue—Émile Durkheim, Marcel Mauss, Bronisław Malinowski and Alfred Métraux—in their broader context, analysing their convergence and differences. We also reinterpret the calls made by historians of ideas to ‘provincialise Europe’ or move to a ‘global history’, by studying how epistemologies and political imaginaries continued by sociologists and ethnologists after the colonial era related to imperialist ways of thinking.
{"title":"Decolonising Durkheimian Conceptions of the International","authors":"","doi":"10.3167/ds.2021.250101","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3167/ds.2021.250101","url":null,"abstract":"Over the past 20 years, numerous scholars have called upon social scientists to consider the colonial contexts within which sociology, anthropology and ethnology were institutionalised in Europe and beyond. We explain how historical sociologists and historians of international law, sociology and anthropology can develop a global intellectual history of what we call the ‘sciences of the international’ by paying attention to the political ideas of the Durkheimian school of sociology. We situate the political ideas of the central figures explored in this special issue—Émile Durkheim, Marcel Mauss, Bronisław Malinowski and Alfred Métraux—in their broader context, analysing their convergence and differences. We also reinterpret the calls made by historians of ideas to ‘provincialise Europe’ or move to a ‘global history’, by studying how epistemologies and political imaginaries continued by sociologists and ethnologists after the colonial era related to imperialist ways of thinking.","PeriodicalId":35254,"journal":{"name":"Durkheimian Studies/Etudes durkheimiennes","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43431878","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}
Bronisław Malinowski sought throughout his career to make a scientific contribution to understanding and reforming the international order by making analogies with ‘primitive’ societies. His ethnographic material was important to Marcel Mauss’s internationalist project in The Gift, and can still provide lessons in internationalism. This article examines Malinowski’s ethnographic figuration of ‘the evolution of primitive international law’, and documents a set of intellectual exchanges between him and Mauss. This illuminates an unexpected avenue of Durkheimian influence on British social anthropology and situates Malinowski in contemporary imperial and internationalist debates. Despite Malinowski’s early criticism of Émile Durkheim’s account of ‘collective ideas’, his later writing shows the (unacknowledged) influence of Mauss’s understandings of obligation and intersocial exchange. Unearthing the terms of this exchange between Malinowski and Mauss helps to recover the central normative lesson of the former’s final book and his ethnographic work as a whole – namely, that sovereignty should be dethroned as an organising principle of international order in favour of intersocial exchange and the obligations it produces.
{"title":"Malinowski and Mauss Exchanging Knowledge in Interwar Europe","authors":"Leo Coleman","doi":"10.3167/ds.2021.250104","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3167/ds.2021.250104","url":null,"abstract":"Bronisław Malinowski sought throughout his career to make a scientific contribution to understanding and reforming the international order by making analogies with ‘primitive’ societies. His ethnographic material was important to Marcel Mauss’s internationalist project in The Gift, and can still provide lessons in internationalism. This article examines Malinowski’s ethnographic figuration of ‘the evolution of primitive international law’, and documents a set of intellectual exchanges between him and Mauss. This illuminates an unexpected avenue of Durkheimian influence on British social anthropology and situates Malinowski in contemporary imperial and internationalist debates. Despite Malinowski’s early criticism of Émile Durkheim’s account of ‘collective ideas’, his later writing shows the (unacknowledged) influence of Mauss’s understandings of obligation and intersocial exchange. Unearthing the terms of this exchange between Malinowski and Mauss helps to recover the central normative lesson of the former’s final book and his ethnographic work as a whole – namely, that sovereignty should be dethroned as an organising principle of international order in favour of intersocial exchange and the obligations it produces.","PeriodicalId":35254,"journal":{"name":"Durkheimian Studies/Etudes durkheimiennes","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43870194","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}
*Full article is in FrenchEnglish abstract: This article discusses the relationships between sociology and psychology through the dialogue between Georges Dumas and Marcel Mauss about the expression of emotions during the 1920s. Firstly, the aim is to show the affinities of their engagements concerning the disputes between human sciences and philosophy. Secondly, from an analysis of their trajectories, the aim is to show that the positions taken in the debates are associated with the positions psychologists and sociologists took inside the academic field from 1900 to 1930. Finally, the article aims to show that the dialogue between Mauss and Dumas reveals a process of sociologization of psychology rather than a psychologization of sociology, which has produced criticism from psychologists aiming to regain their lost position and from sociologists from the new generation aiming to overcome Durkheimian sociology.French abstract: Il s’agit de discuter les rapports entre la sociologie et la psychologie à travers le dialogue entre Georges Dumas et Marcel Mauss au long des années 1920 sur l’expression des émotions et des sentiments. Le but est d’abord de montrer les affinités entre leurs engagements concernant les combats des sciences de l’homme contre la philosophie. Ensuite, à partir d’une analyse de leurs trajectoires, d’argumenter que leurs prises de position dans ce débat sont associées aux positions que les psychologues et les sociologues ont occupées dans le champ académique entre les années 1900 et 1930. Finalement, il s’agira de montrer que le dialogue entre Mauss et Dumas révèle la sociologisation de la psychologie plutôt que la psychologisation de la sociologie, et que les critiques faites à ce dialogue par les psychologues visent à regagner de l’espace perdu, alors que celles des sociologues de la nouvelle génération visent plutôt à dépasser la sociologie durkheimienne qui inspire ce dialogue.
{"title":"Georges Dumas et Marcel Mauss","authors":"Marcia Consolim","doi":"10.3167/ds.2020.24011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3167/ds.2020.24011","url":null,"abstract":"*Full article is in FrenchEnglish abstract:\u0000This article discusses the relationships between sociology and psychology through the dialogue between Georges Dumas and Marcel Mauss about the expression of emotions during the 1920s. Firstly, the aim is to show the affinities of their engagements concerning the disputes between human sciences and philosophy. Secondly, from an analysis of their trajectories, the aim is to show that the positions taken in the debates are associated with the positions psychologists and sociologists took inside the academic field from 1900 to 1930. Finally, the article aims to show that the dialogue between Mauss and Dumas reveals a process of sociologization of psychology rather than a psychologization of sociology, which has produced criticism from psychologists aiming to regain their lost position and from sociologists from the new generation aiming to overcome Durkheimian sociology.French abstract: \u0000Il s’agit de discuter les rapports entre la sociologie et la psychologie à travers le dialogue entre Georges Dumas et Marcel Mauss au long des années 1920 sur l’expression des émotions et des sentiments. Le but est d’abord de montrer les affinités entre leurs engagements concernant les combats des sciences de l’homme contre la philosophie. Ensuite, à partir d’une analyse de leurs trajectoires, d’argumenter que leurs prises de position dans ce débat sont associées aux positions que les psychologues et les sociologues ont occupées dans le champ académique entre les années 1900 et 1930. Finalement, il s’agira de montrer que le dialogue entre Mauss et Dumas révèle la sociologisation de la psychologie plutôt que la psychologisation de la sociologie, et que les critiques faites à ce dialogue par les psychologues visent à regagner de l’espace perdu, alors que celles des sociologues de la nouvelle génération visent plutôt à dépasser la sociologie durkheimienne qui inspire ce dialogue.","PeriodicalId":35254,"journal":{"name":"Durkheimian Studies/Etudes durkheimiennes","volume":"24 1","pages":"144-174"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44869944","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}
*Full article is in FrenchFrench abstract: La Doctrine de Durkheim, texte écrit par Halbwachs en 1918, nous éclaire sur la filiation intellectuelle qui les relie l’un à l’autre. En effet, il met en évidence un intérêt qui va s’avérer durable dans l’oeuvre d’Halbwachs : la sociologie de la connaissance, dans la droite ligne de ce que Durkheim présente dans la conclusion des Formes élémentaires de la vie religieuse. Or si Halbwachs insiste sur la portée de l’oeuvre de Durkheim en matière de sociologie religieuse dans le domaine de la connaissance, c’est aussi le seul point sur lequel il se permet dans le texte d’adjoindre un développement personnel, preuve supplémentaire qu’il lui accorde de l’importance. Il est d’accord avec Durkheim pour affirmer que la connaissance consiste en un ensemble de classifications dont l’origine est sociale, et qu’ainsi la pensée conceptuelle répond au même besoin que la pensée capable déjà de classer, des primitifs, si bien qu’entre leur pensée logique et la nôtre, la différence n’est que de degrés et pas de nature. Il s’accorde aussi à dire, à la suite de Durkheim et Mauss, que l’évolution fait passer de classifications totémiques à des classifications spatiales, et à la pensée conceptuelle contemporaine, mais selon lui sans qu’on en sache beaucoup plus sur le passage du 2e au 3e stade de cette évolution. Aussi Halbwachs esquisse-t-il, en guise de complément, un élément de réponse pour combler ce vide, et, ce faisant, révèle une sensibilité qui annonce ses travaux futurs. Aux catégories de la pensée (espace, temps, causalité etc.) déjà étudiées par Durkheim, il ajoute celles de changement et d’individu, dont il va faire usage dans ses travaux ultérieurs pour expliquer ce mouvement de civilisation qu’est le passage des sociétés rurales aux sociétés urbaines.
{"title":"Les deux catégories cachées de La Doctrine de Durkheim","authors":"Jean-Christophe Marcel","doi":"10.3167/ds.2020.240109","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3167/ds.2020.240109","url":null,"abstract":"*Full article is in FrenchFrench abstract: \u0000La Doctrine de Durkheim, texte écrit par Halbwachs en 1918, nous éclaire sur la filiation intellectuelle qui les relie l’un à l’autre. En effet, il met en évidence un intérêt qui va s’avérer durable dans l’oeuvre d’Halbwachs : la sociologie de la connaissance, dans la droite ligne de ce que Durkheim présente dans la conclusion des Formes élémentaires de la vie religieuse. Or si Halbwachs insiste sur la portée de l’oeuvre de Durkheim en matière de sociologie religieuse dans le domaine de la connaissance, c’est aussi le seul point sur lequel il se permet dans le texte d’adjoindre un développement personnel, preuve supplémentaire qu’il lui accorde de l’importance. Il est d’accord avec Durkheim pour affirmer que la connaissance consiste en un ensemble de classifications dont l’origine est sociale, et qu’ainsi la pensée conceptuelle répond au même besoin que la pensée capable déjà de classer, des primitifs, si bien qu’entre leur pensée logique et la nôtre, la différence n’est que de degrés et pas de nature. Il s’accorde aussi à dire, à la suite de Durkheim et Mauss, que l’évolution fait passer de classifications totémiques à des classifications spatiales, et à la pensée conceptuelle contemporaine, mais selon lui sans qu’on en sache beaucoup plus sur le passage du 2e au 3e stade de cette évolution. Aussi Halbwachs esquisse-t-il, en guise de complément, un élément de réponse pour combler ce vide, et, ce faisant, révèle une sensibilité qui annonce ses travaux futurs. Aux catégories de la pensée (espace, temps, causalité etc.) déjà étudiées par Durkheim, il ajoute celles de changement et d’individu, dont il va faire usage dans ses travaux ultérieurs pour expliquer ce mouvement de civilisation qu’est le passage des sociétés rurales aux sociétés urbaines.","PeriodicalId":35254,"journal":{"name":"Durkheimian Studies/Etudes durkheimiennes","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43644364","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}
*Full article is in FrenchFrench abstract: En dépit de l’ostracisme de Durkheim à leur égard, les représentants de la science sociale issue de Le Play n’ont pas ignoré son oeuvre et l’ont commentée – même si laconiquement – dans leurs périodiques, d’une part, La Réforme sociale, d’autre part, La Science sociale et ses dérivés. Les leplaysiens restés dans l’orthodoxie du maître nourrissent – de la Division du travail social aux Fondements élémentaires de la vie religieuse – les mêmes griefs à l’encontre de Durkheim. Volontiers polémiques, ils refusent sa conception du fait social qui, « supérieur et antérieur à l’individu … s’impose à lui avec une force coercitive prépondérante » (Clément, 1915). Leurs critiques perdent cependant de leur virulence après la mort de Durkheim, au fur et à mesure que la sociologie s’avère une science durable dont le projet devient irréfutable. Du côté des partisans de la science sociale renouvelée par Henri de Tourville, l’appréciation de Durkheim est différente. Plus tardive, elle porte sur l’objet de la sociologie et sur la méthode prônée par l’auteur des Règles. Aux yeux des tourvilliens, celui-ci n’emprunte pas, à tort, la « voie royale » de la science sociale : l’enquête par observation directe, et néglige l’outil de coordination des faits sociaux qu’est la nomenclature mise au point par Tourville. Dès lors, les résultats auxquels aboutit Durkheim, par exemple dans les Fondements, sont sujets à caution (Descamps, 1912). La critique des tourvilliens est d’autant plus vive qu’elle se nourrit d’un dépit : Durkheim ne fait aucun cas de leurs travaux (Périer, 1913). Le débat qu’ils auraient souhaité engager n’aura lieu que post mortem, grâce à Bouglé et ses élèves du Centre de documentation sociale (Aron, Polin) qui joueront le jeu, dans les années trente, de la confrontation entre sociologie et science sociale.English abstract: Despite the ostracism he maintained towards them, Le Play’s social science continuers did not ignore Durkheim’s work and commented on it – even if laconically – in their journals. The LePlayists loyal to the master’s orthodoxy raised the same grievances against Durkheim throughout his academic life. They refused to accept his conception of the social fact as superior and prior to the individual, imposing itself on him with a coercive force. Their criticisms, however, were less virulent after Durkheim’s death, as sociology proved a sustainable science whose project had become irrefutable. With the dissident LePlayists, the view is different. Emerging later, it dealt with the object of sociology and the method advocated by the author of the Règles. From the Tourvillians’ point of view, Durkheim’s sociology does not adopt the best path for social science (investigation by direct observation), and neglects its process of coordination of social facts (the nomenclature developed by Tourville). Consequently, Durkheim’s results are questionable. The debate the Tourvillians wanted to have with Durkheim
*全文摘要：尽管迪尔凯姆排斥他们，但来自游戏的社会科学代表并没有忽视他的工作，并在他们的期刊《社会改革》和《社会科学及其衍生物》中对其进行了评论，即使是简洁的评论。Leplaysian仍然信奉大师的正统，从社会分工到宗教生活的基本基础，他们对迪尔凯姆怀有同样的不满。他们乐于争论，拒绝接受他的社会事实概念，即“高于个人，先于个人……以压倒性的强制力强加给他”（Clément，1915）。然而，在迪尔凯姆死后，他们的批评失去了毒力，因为社会学被证明是一门持久的科学，其项目变得无可辩驳。至于亨利·德·图尔维尔（Henri de Tourville）复兴的社会科学的支持者，迪尔凯姆的评价是不同的。后来，它涉及社会学的主题和规则作者倡导的方法。在图尔维尔人看来，这并没有错误地遵循社会科学的“皇家道路”：通过直接观察进行调查，并忽略了协调社会事实的工具，即图尔维尔制定的命名法。因此，迪尔凯姆得出的结果，例如基本结果，值得怀疑（Descamps，1912）。对图尔维利安人的批评更加尖锐，因为它是由一种怨恨滋养的：迪尔凯姆不重视他们的工作（Périer，1913）。由于Bouglé和他在社会文献中心（Aron，Polin）的学生在20世纪30年代玩了社会学和社会科学之间对抗的游戏，他们本想参与的辩论只会在死后进行。英文摘要：尽管他一直受到排斥，但勒普拉的社会科学延续者并没有忽视迪尔凯姆的工作，并在他们的期刊上对此进行了评论，即使是简洁的评论。忠于大师正统的教士们在迪尔凯姆的学术生涯中对他提出了同样的谴责。他们拒绝接受他对社会事实的概念，认为社会事实高于个人，并以强制力将自己强加给个人。然而，他们的批评在迪尔凯姆死后没有那么严厉，因为社会学证明了一门可持续的科学，而这门科学的项目已经变得不可磨灭。对于持不同政见者，观点是不同的。后来出现，它与社会学的目标和规则作者倡导的方法相冲突。从图尔维尔人的角度来看，迪尔凯姆的社会学没有采用社会科学的最佳路径（通过直接观察进行调查），并忽略了其协调社会事实的过程（图尔维尔制定的命名法）。因此，迪尔凯姆的结果值得怀疑。图尔维利亚人希望在死后与迪尔凯姆进行辩论，感谢布格和他在社会文献中心的学生，以及他们在20世纪30年代对迪尔凯姆社会学和社会科学的承诺。
{"title":"Durkheim vu par les collectifs leplaysiens (1893–1926)","authors":"A. Savoye","doi":"10.3167/ds.2020.240108","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3167/ds.2020.240108","url":null,"abstract":"*Full article is in FrenchFrench abstract:\u0000En dépit de l’ostracisme de Durkheim à leur égard, les représentants de la science sociale issue de Le Play n’ont pas ignoré son oeuvre et l’ont commentée – même si laconiquement – dans leurs périodiques, d’une part, La Réforme sociale, d’autre part, La Science sociale et ses dérivés. Les leplaysiens restés dans l’orthodoxie du maître nourrissent – de la Division du travail social aux Fondements élémentaires de la vie religieuse – les mêmes griefs à l’encontre de Durkheim. Volontiers polémiques, ils refusent sa conception du fait social qui, « supérieur et antérieur à l’individu … s’impose à lui avec une force coercitive prépondérante » (Clément, 1915). Leurs critiques perdent cependant de leur virulence après la mort de Durkheim, au fur et à mesure que la sociologie s’avère une science durable dont le projet devient irréfutable. Du côté des partisans de la science sociale renouvelée par Henri de Tourville, l’appréciation de Durkheim est différente. Plus tardive, elle porte sur l’objet de la sociologie et sur la méthode prônée par l’auteur des Règles. Aux yeux des tourvilliens, celui-ci n’emprunte pas, à tort, la « voie royale » de la science sociale : l’enquête par observation directe, et néglige l’outil de coordination des faits sociaux qu’est la nomenclature mise au point par Tourville. Dès lors, les résultats auxquels aboutit Durkheim, par exemple dans les Fondements, sont sujets à caution (Descamps, 1912). La critique des tourvilliens est d’autant plus vive qu’elle se nourrit d’un dépit : Durkheim ne fait aucun cas de leurs travaux (Périer, 1913). Le débat qu’ils auraient souhaité engager n’aura lieu que post mortem, grâce à Bouglé et ses élèves du Centre de documentation sociale (Aron, Polin) qui joueront le jeu, dans les années trente, de la confrontation entre sociologie et science sociale.English abstract:\u0000Despite the ostracism he maintained towards them, Le Play’s social science continuers did not ignore Durkheim’s work and commented on it – even if laconically – in their journals. The LePlayists loyal to the master’s orthodoxy raised the same grievances against Durkheim throughout his academic life. They refused to accept his conception of the social fact as superior and prior to the individual, imposing itself on him with a coercive force. Their criticisms, however, were less virulent after Durkheim’s death, as sociology proved a sustainable science whose project had become irrefutable. With the dissident LePlayists, the view is different. Emerging later, it dealt with the object of sociology and the method advocated by the author of the Règles. From the Tourvillians’ point of view, Durkheim’s sociology does not adopt the best path for social science (investigation by direct observation), and neglects its process of coordination of social facts (the nomenclature developed by Tourville). Consequently, Durkheim’s results are questionable. The debate the Tourvillians wanted to have with Durkheim","PeriodicalId":35254,"journal":{"name":"Durkheimian Studies/Etudes durkheimiennes","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42324417","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}
Jean-Christophe Marcel, M. Bera, Jean-François Bert, François Pizarro Noël
This journal owes its origins to Philippe Besnard, and his initiative in creating from his base in Paris the internationally circulated Bulletin d’études durkheimiennes, produced by him over many years (1977–1987). In going on to become Durkheim Studies in 1988, it remained an internationally distributed bulletin, but now mainly in English and organized in the USA under the direction of Robert Alun Jones. It migrated once again in 1995, to develop as a bilingual journal, Durkheimian Studies / Études durkheimiennes, organized from Britain under a team headed by Bill Pickering and Willie Watts Miller. With this volume we are honoured to assume the editorship of Durkheimian Studies / Études durkheimiennes and in doing so want to acknowledge the legacy of our predecessors.
{"title":"Editorial","authors":"Jean-Christophe Marcel, M. Bera, Jean-François Bert, François Pizarro Noël","doi":"10.3167/ds.2020.240101","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3167/ds.2020.240101","url":null,"abstract":"This journal owes its origins to Philippe Besnard, and his initiative in creating from his base in Paris the internationally circulated Bulletin d’études durkheimiennes, produced by him over many years (1977–1987). In going on to become Durkheim Studies in 1988, it remained an internationally distributed bulletin, but now mainly in English and organized in the USA under the direction of Robert Alun Jones. It migrated once again in 1995, to develop as a bilingual journal, Durkheimian Studies / Études durkheimiennes, organized from Britain under a team headed by Bill Pickering and Willie Watts Miller. With this volume we are honoured to assume the editorship of Durkheimian Studies / Études durkheimiennes and in doing so want to acknowledge the legacy of our predecessors.","PeriodicalId":35254,"journal":{"name":"Durkheimian Studies/Etudes durkheimiennes","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43453457","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：