Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher (Critical Studies in the Humanities)

Emile Durlffieim Sociologist and Philosopher

Dominick LaCapra

Critical Studies in the Humanities Victor E. Taylor - Series Editor

The Davies Group, Publishers

Aurora, Colorado

11

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

Copyright© 1972 by Cornell University Revised edition copyright© 2001 by Dominick LaCapra All righ ts reserved. No part of the contents of this book may be reproduced, stored in an information retrieval system, or transcribed, in any form or by any means electronic, digital, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the express written permission of the publisher, and the holder of copyright. Submit all inquiries and requests to the publisher. Address all requests to: The Davies Group, Publishers PO Box 440 140 Aurora, CO 80044-0140 USA

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data LaCapra, Dominick, 1939Emile Durkheim : sociologist and philosopher I Dominick LaCapra. p. em. (Critical studies in the humanities) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 1-888570-60-1 (alk. paper) I. Durkheim, Emile, 1858-1917. 2. Durkheimian school of sociology. I. Series. HM465 .L33 2001 30 1' .092 dc21 2001028598

Cover photo Digital Vision Printed in the United States of America. Published 200 1. The Dav ies Gro up , Publishers. Aurora, Colorado. 1234567890

For Ruthie with gratitude

zv

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

Critical Studies i n the Humanities Victor E. Taylor, Series Editor This open-ended series provides a unique publishing venue by combining single volumes issuing fro m landmark scholarship with pedagogy-related interdisciplinary c o l lections of readings. This principle of cross-publishing, placing scholarship and ped agogy side by side within a single series, cre­ ates a wider horizon for specialized research and more general intellectual discovery. In the broad field of the humanities, the Critical Studies in the Humanities Series is committed to preserving key monographs, encouraging new perspectives, and developing imp ortant connections to pedagogical is­ sues. Proposal> for submission should go to the Series Editor, Victor E. Taylor, Department of English and Humanities, York College of Pennsylvania, York, PA 17405-7199. Sharyn Clough, Siblings Under the Skin: Feminism, Social justice and Analytic Philosophy Sander L Gilman, Nietzschean Parody: An Introduction to Reading Nietzsche D o m i n ick LaCapra, Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher Gregg Lambert, Report to the Academy (re: the NEW conflict ofthefaculties) Michael Strysick, E d . , The Politics of Community Dennis Weiss, Interpreting Man

Contents

.

Foreword

.

Vlt

Preface, 2001

1. Introduction

xz

1

2. Durkheim's Milieu

25

3. The Division ofSocial Labor

15

Quo Vadis

15

Mechanical and Organic Solidarity

79

Conscience Collective

83

Crime and Punshment

86

Traditional Differentiation

96

Theory ofChange

110

Residual Dou bts

114

Contract and Solidarity

118

Modem Social Pathology

122

4. Suicide and Solidarity The Object and Limitations ofSuicide

137 137

Anomie and Egoism

147

Altruism and Fatalism

160

Durkheim and weber

165

From Analysis to Refonn

170

5. Theory and Practice

179

Sociolog]J, History. and Reform

179

Corporatism

200

The Individual and Society

211

v1

6.

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

The Sacred and Society The Theory ofReligion Sociology and Epistemology Social Metaphysic

235 236 251 262

Epilogue

281

Selected Bibliography

285

Index

297

Foreword

In the past several decades, the dominance of critical theory i n int erdisc­ i p l inary scholarship has l e d to the reformulation of the basic propositions guiding research in the humanities and social sciences. While scholars i n various disciplines continue t o express their concern over the status of tradi­ tional forms of inquiry in response to the radical nature of critical theory, i t is important t o note that these theoretical incursions into traditional research methods h ave made possible p roductive reappraisals of key historical hgures and their contributions to intel lectual life. In Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher, Dominick La Capra, a leading theoretical historian, offers an important revi sed critical analysis of D urkheim's methodological and philo­ sophical pursuits, with an emphasis on the metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical problems inherent in fo rming constructs of the cultural and social spheres. While Durkheim's thought did not " i nfluence significantly, if at a l l , the writings of Roland Barthes, Gilles Deleuze, Jacques Derrida, M i c h e l Foucault, Julia Kristeva, Jacques Lacan, Jean-Fran<;:o i s Lyo tard and other recent thinkers . . . the tradition he helped initiate was quite important for such figures as Pierre Bourdieu, [Marcel .\1auss], Claude Levi-Strauss, and members of the Annales school"(ix). It is significant to note that in ad­ di tion to presenting Durkheim as a crucial resource for current theoretical sociologists, LaCapra's revised study situates Durkheim's major writings in relation to the current poststructuralist critiques of one of his central issues, "the role of reason i n life and its relation to normative limits and the senti­ ment of soli darity among members of society" (3). Emile Durkheim: Sociolo­ gist and Philosopher i s a theoretically charged reexamination of the historical and intellectual contexts that gave rise to a unique method of philosophical sociology, providing readers from a wide range of interests with an important critical reappraisal of Durkheim's life and writings. Victor E. Taylor, Series Editor

vm

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

Preface

:I

2001

While I have revised certain fo rmulations, added material , and updated a number of footnotes, I have retained much that appeared in the original edition of this, my first book. Still, there are times when supplementary statements and seemingly small changes of inflection may significantly transform meanings. In any case, I would maintain that the issues raised in the book still preoccupy us, especially on the level of basic or background assumptions. Perhaps the key ethical and political issue i n this respect is the actual and desirable interaction between legitimate limits and excessive overtures or transgressive initiatives - a recurrent issue that must alw ays be fu rther differentiated with respect to different sociohistorical contexts and groups. This is a crucial issue in the relation b e tween structuralism and poststructuralism, and it calls not for an either/or decision but fo r an analysis of complex relations and difficult choices in particular circumstances. Since the writing of this book, figures largely ignored, relatively un­ known, or still little published in the late sixties and early seventies have come to the forefront of French thought, and their work has elicited responses in int ellecrual circles around the world. They have effected a reordering of the canon of critical theory in a manner that we are only starting to rethink and in part redress. Durkheim's work did not influence significantly, if at all, the writings of Roland Barthes, G i lles De leuze, Jacques Den·ida, Michel Foucault, Julia Kristeva, Jacques La can, J ean-F ran<;:ois Lyotard and other re­ cent thinkers, although the tradition he helped initiate was quite important for such figures as Pierre Bourdieu, Claude Levi-Strauss, and members of the Annales school. And when this b o o k was first written, one did not see G eorges Bataille and others in and around the College de Sociologie as miss­ ing links between Durkheim and Mauss, on the one hand, and Levi-Strauss and his poststructural respondents, on the other. But one may nonetheless argue that a reconsideration of Durkheim and his p e rspective on social and ethical problems becomes more necessary in light of the emphases of Batail l e , Derrida, Foucault, and other recent figures. For the latter often

x

Emile Durkhcim; Sociologist and Philosopher

stress the role o f excess, undecidability, hyperbole , and transgression in a manner that calls for a counter-stress on the role of limits. One may also argue that Durkheim's concerns provide needed mediation between the liberal tradition that draws from Tocque ville and the exorbitant radicalism drawing from Foucault and other post structuralists-traditions that typi­ cally have little to do with each other. 1 Indeed, when one rereads Durkheim today,

one

is struck by a pronounced

feature of his thought-in one significant sense, a civic virtue-to which I would like t o call attention: his stylistic decorum and poise in addressing difficult if not intractable problems. While he may in certain respects be criticized for having too distant a perspective on the anomie disorientation he diagnosed, he may also be seen as attempting to embo dy, in his very style of writing and thought, the ethicopolitical vision he had for society -a rhetorical and dialectical enactment ci the ends he advocated for social a n d cultural life at large. This attempt to work through the problems he analyzed may have required a more complex approach, both stylistic and sociopolitical, indeed an approach that was itself more empa thically moved and even disturbed by the conflicted problems he perceived in the larger social context. However, there is also much to be said for the tense, flexible interaction between limits and chalknges to them that Durkheim desired in the larger society and to some extent performatively displayed in his own conception of problems. Such an emphasis may both serve as a counterf orce to all-or-nothing responses and have significant implications for the crucial social issues I try to address in this book. I thank Tracie Matysik for her assistance in preparing the index.

Nous On this problem se my History and Reading: Tocqz�n�zlk, Foualult, French Studies (Toronto: U niversi ty ofToronto Press, 200). See also my W+iting History. W+iting Trmmltl (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Pres, 2001}.

These books complement the present study in a variety of ways. See also The ColoJSociology 1937-39, ed. Denis Hollier (Minneapol is: University of

Minnesota Press, 1988).1

1

Introduction

Ifyou wish to mature your thought, attach yourselfto the scrupulous study ofa great master; inqu ire into a system until you reach its most secret workings. - Advice of Emile Durkheim to a disciple

The present study attempts to provide a comprehensive interpretation and assessment of the thought of Emile Durkheim. Largely, it falls within the venerable tradition of the t!tude d u systeme. O ften i t treads the dangerous b u t challenging line between haute vulgarisation and a history of a learned discipline. Its primary object i s to treat D u rkheim's thought as an i ntegral whole comprising sociological analysis, policy, and philosophy. Some reference is mad e to the work o f other memb ers of the An nee soci­ ologique school that formed around Durkheim as its acknowledged master. In many basic ways, the thought of members of this school was elaborated dialogical ly. And the periodical that became t h e s c h o o l's works hop was a collective product. Durkhei m's thought provided the elementary structure for a close working relationship and a fairly cohesive theoretical outlook. But fu l l justice could be rendered to memb ers of the An nie school only in a separate work. Marcel Mauss alone, who was perhaps inhibited in his scholarly production by a life spent i n the shadow of his more famous uncle, would require a full-length study to bring out the magnifl cent contributions which he managed to compress into the creative compass of relatively few published works. I sketch some pertinent features o f D u rkheim's biography and situate his experience within the matrix of his own society. While D u rkheim's thought was not merely symptomatic of his milieu, his ideas to a signiflcant extent arose in response to th e needs of the T h i rd Republic in France. I n fact, he often conceived his own society as a test case of the needs of modern soci ety in general.

2

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

Durkheim was the E rst to attemp t the institutionalization in social sci­ ence of what Auguste Comte had termed the era of specialization. Durkheim advised would-be disciples to choose a circumscribed area of enquiry. His founding of the famed periodical L'Amu!e sociologique was intended to further this aim. H e n ce there is m u ch to be gained from seemi ngly so superflcial a task as the examination of the tables of contents of the twelve volumes of the Annee published under Durkheim, for they embody a telling conception of the classifl catory cadres of sociology i n his mind. In the pages of the Annee and elsewhere, Durkheim's own preferred object o f i nvestigation was the relationship b e tween society and morality. His very E rst published article contained a programmatic announcement which exercised a constraining hold on his entire life's work: "Of all the various branch es of sociology, the science of ethics i s the one which attracts us by preference and which will command our attention E rst of all." L But Durkheim retained Comte's overall ambition of philosophical synthesis. He became increasingly convinced that specialized expertise and the profess ionalized p urge of dilettantism should not be effected at the ex­ pense of interdiscipli nary coordination a n d of t h e speculative imagination restrained, tested, and matured by patient i nvestigation. Like nearly all the members of his school, Durkheim was trained in philosophy, a preparation made necessary by the educational system of the time. And despite his earlier attempts to de£ ne sociology as an autonomous discipline, he became con­ vinced that all serious enquiry is founded in philosophy and that philosophy is related both to understanding and to action. It might be said that for Durkheim sociology had not only a scientific field to explore but also an exploratory vision and a civilizing mission. I n time, sociology culminated for him in a philosophical anthropology that drew the i nvestigator fro m methodology to epistemological and even metap hysical problems. Toward the end of his l i fe, Durkheim wrote to G e o rges D avy: " H av­ ing begun with philosophy, I tend to return to it, or rather I have found myself drawn back to it naturally by t h e nature o f the questions w h i ch I found in my path."2 In an important article written at about the same time, Durkheim expressed this need for a return to his philosophical origins in more impersonal terms: "Since our method has b een postulated upon the attempt to emancipate sociology from a philosophical tutelage which could only prevent it fro m being constituted as a positive science, w e have at times

Chapter 1

introduction

3

been suspected of a systematic hostility for philosophy in general or at least of a more or less exclusive sympathy for a narrow empiricism in which one has rightly seen only a lesser philosophy." But an anti-philosophical posi­ tion implied, for Durkheim, "a very unsociological attitude." In his mind, socio logy had "to pose as an axiom that questions which have held their place in history can never be outmoded; they can become transformed but cannot perish." Here Durkheim touched upon a conception of history itself neither as mere chronology nor as evolutionary development but as a complex, multidimensional process of displacement, or repetition with more or less controlled, yet at times disruptively traumatic, change. Thus he found it inadmissible that "even the most audacious problems which h ave agitated p h i loso p h e rs" cou l d ever fall i n to ob livi o n .3 He went on to conclude that "sociological refl ection i s called upon to prolong i tself by its natural progress under the form of philosophical refl ection; and everything permits the assumption that, considered i n this way, the problems which philosophy treats will present more than one unexpected answer. "4 Thus Durkheim conceived of his project i n terms of a rational coor­ dination of social an alysis, informed prescriptive reco m m endation, and philosophical speculation with special relevance for thought and action in modern society. He completed only a fragment of a synthetic philosophical work entitled "La Morale." But, in an important sense, all his thought was oriented toward this magisterial treatise on m o rality - his last will and testamen t - which he did not live t o complete. For the question running like a red thread through Durkheim's thinking was the role of reason in life and its relation to normative limits and the sentiment of solidarity among members of society. His ultimate concern with epistemology and metaphysic subsumed a certain conception of the social system and of morality as its inner motivati o n . In a crucial sense, Durkheim's thought was as much the culmination of classical philosophy as the initiation of modern social science. Indeed, this ambivalent status constitutes its peculiar fascination. Partial and highly s e lective readings of Durkheim have often resulted in grievous misinterpretations. But the attempt through exegesis to set the record straight b y seeing Durkheim whole is admittedly problematic. This i s b ecause of the seemingly ambiguous character of his thought itself. Durkheim i s one o f the best known and one of the least understood m aj o r social thinkers. The controversies that surround his thought bear upon es-

4

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

sential points, not details. 5 This state of affairs poses a formidable barrier for the uninitiated b u t genuinely i n terested reader attempting to acquire some insight into his thought and its relevance. Durkheim was a very vigorous advocate of the idea of a social science. Incongruously, the interpretation of the body of ideas in which he tried to lay the foundations of this science seems often to circumscribe it with a magic circle whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere. Since Durkheim's ideas are the object of highly divergent interpretati ons, it is important to make clear the basic interpretive schema that informs this study. Unfortunately, to begin a work with even a schematic "showing and telling" brings a loss of dramatic unity. The last act is given away in the first. And aesthetic u n i ty th reatens to be replaced by the tedious rigor of a syllogistic treatise. In the case of a thinker like Durkheim, i t is perhaps better to incur these risks than to be open to misunderstanding. Durkheim was a convinced and unrepentant rationalist. To characterize his own perspective, he rejected all current labels, including the Comtean and Spencerian fo rms of positivism. But he was willing to assert that "the sole appellat i o n which we accept is that of rati o n al i s m . Indeed our principle is to extend scientific rationalism to human conduct in showing that, con­ sidered in the past, i t is reducible to relations of cause and effect which a no less rational operation can transform into rules for the fu ture."6 Durkheim most opposed romantic irrationalism and renascent mysticism as intuitive or excessive responses to the complexities and disorientation of modern soci ety. His Les Regles de Ia methode sociologique ( The Rules of Sociological Method) was an attempt to do for the study of society what D escartes had d o ne for the study o f nature. His lifelong ambition was to reanimate and renovate classical rationalism until i t became a more fl exible, complex, generous, and informed medium of both thought and action. Reason for Durkheim had i ts full traditional sense: i t was a m o d e of analysis, criticism, prescription, and reconstruction in soci ety. Unintimidated by t h e applicat i o n of the sociology of knowledge to so­ ciology itself, Durkheim concluded that sociology was the product of two maj or historical and cultural forces: the manifestation of rationalism in the natural sciences and the concrete experience of disruptive crisis in modern societies. The role of reason in the study of nature intimated a promising fu ture for rationalism in social science. But the second and more existential

Chapter 1

introduction

5

cause was perhaps the more important. For Durkheim, social consciousness arose in response to the doubt, disorientation, and anomie anxiety caused by the breakdown of tradition. The role of rational consciousness was t o state as clearly as possible the causes of crisis i n society and the way to overcome them. Indeed the primary function of rational conscio usness for Durkheim was reparative: to respond to sometimes traumatic disruption and to replace what had been destroyed with new forms of life . Unlike certain reactionary conservatives, Durkheim did not present conscious thought as a cause of disintegration in modern society. H e defended conscio usness, and science, which was its highest expression, as the only effective instruments people had to guide them in reconstructing the social order. Durkheim was concerned with heal ing, not salvation. His fascination with medical metaphors attested to this fact. The sociologist was not the quasi-transcendental advocate of a messianism without a messiah, the prophet of an abstract, perennially futuristic, perhaps vacuous utopian ideal situated beyond human limi­ tations. He or she w a s the doctor who lucidly diagnosed the ills of society and prescrib ed rational remedies. The alliance of Durkheim's rationalism with his conception of the relation of theory to practice and h is di agnosis of modern society was well expressed i n relation to his own society when he delineated with his habitual combination of analytic rigor and moral fervor the reasons why sociology (in his sense) was born in France. H i s statement deserves to be quoted at length: This [the genesis of sociology in France] was due in the first instance to a marked weakening of traditionalism. When religious, political, and j uridical traditions have preserved their rigidity and authority, they contain all will toward change and by that token preclude the awakening of reflection. When one is brought up to believe that things must remain as they are, one has no reason to ask what they ought to be and, consequently, what they are. The second factor is what may be called the rationalist spirit. One must have faith i n the power of reason in order to dare an attempt to explain in accordance with its laws this sphere of social facts where events, b y their complexity, seem to resist the formulas of science. Now France fulfills these two conditions to the highest degree. She is, of all the countries of Europe, the one where the old social organization has been completely uprooted. We have made a tab ula rasa, and on this land laid bare we must erect an entirely

6

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

new edifl ce - an enterprise whose urgency we have felt for a century b u t which, continually announced and continually delayed, is hardly more advanced today than on the morrow of the French Revolution. Furthermore, we are and w e remain the land of Descartes. We have an irresisti b l e u rge to see things through deflned notions. No doubt, Cartesianism is an archaic and narrow form of rati onalism, and we must not rest content with it. But if it is necessary to transcend it, it is even more necessary to conserve its principle. We must fashion for ourselves more complex ways of thought, but we must keep this cult of distinct ideas, which is at the very root of the French spirit and at the root of all science. 7 Especially signifl cant in this p assage is the existential precedence ac­ corded to normative demand with respect to empirical e n q u i ty. It is when one feels and thinks that things ought to b e other than they are that one is justiflably motivated to inquire i n t o the way they i n fact are. Here research i s not merely the result of some autonomized, self-referential methodological i m p e rative. Equally signifl cant i s the experience of social and personal disruption, at times of traumatic proportions, i n relation to the rational attempt to create more desirable and livable social condi­ tions. The truly basic philosophical tension i n the thought of D urkheim was related to his rationalism. It involved his partial failure to transcend classical rationalism. D u rkheim's thought was caught up in a tension between the narrowly analytical and the d i a lectical h eritages transmitted to h i m through Charles Renouvier. With reference to the most important historical infl uences on Durkheim, one might simplistically label the narrowly analytical tendency of his thought a Cartesianized and socialized neo-Kantianism. The most obvious infl uence of neo-Kantianism was in his passion fo r dualistic antinomies or extreme b i nary oppositions. T h e more profo u n d influence, which fed i n to h i s d i a­ lectical attempt to reconcile or at least relate antinomies, was his ultimate affl rmation of a philosophy of fl nitude based upon a normative sense of limits. The treatise o n morality that Durkheim did not live to complete would have been a reformulation of Kan t's Critique of Practical Reason fl eshed out with the results of sociological reflection. The i n fl u e n c e of Cartesian ism was most obvious in Durkheim's rel i ance u p o n the antinomy between mind and matter. This antinomy was expressed

Chapter 1

introduction

7

in the idea of homo duplex - the dual nature of man - which was inter­ preted by Durkheim in terms of the opposition b e tween the organic and what h e called the sui generis or specifically social. By this interpretation, Durkheim arrived at the idea that mind was made up of a "sui generis realm of social facts . " S o cio logy was defined i n the first instance not by its perspective or method b u t by the supposedly autonomous status o f its object, which was identified with the object of idealistic philosophy. But the sociologistic revision of the idea of homo dup lex was only the most extreme example o f Durkheim's tendency to force "clear and distinct ideas" beyond conceptual analysis, or the elaboration of ideal types, into an analytical dissociation of reali ty. T h e n o t i o n o f the d i a l e ctical is m o s t o ften associated with the name of H egel, but before the limits of knowledge that Hegel attempted to transcend were reached, Kant himself so ught a nontotalizing mediation of antinomies. Kant, like Durkheim, is perhaps best seen as primarily a moral philosop her. His conception of religion, like that o f D urkheim, was related to the needs of practical reason. B u t i n his Critique ofjudgment, Kant saw t h e central position of aesthetics in its mediation of oppositions.8 And Kant's conception o f religion itself held out the promise of reso lv­ ing, or a t least mitigating, the tragic antinomies which divided people i n a w a y that w a s m o r e t h a n aesthetic because i t was, fro m his perspective, more than subjective. Durkheim d i d n o t recognize the i m p ortance of Kant's Critique of judgment. His studies of "primi rive" cultures did not open up to him the importance of aesthetics and the ways in which art, when not autonomized or made narrowly self-referential, might itself be more than a subj ective or p urely formal phenomenon. Nor did these studies fully reveal to him the limitations of a purely sociological view of religion. His interpretation of religion culminated in a vision of society as a rather disincarnate functi onal equivalent of divinity - somewhat a collective ghost i n a "morphological" mach i n e . The antipathy between positivism and idealism, which Talcott Parsons, in his Structure ofSociaiAction, took as the faulted foundation o f Durkheim's thought, is best seen as a facet of Durkheim's Cartesianized neo-Kantian­ ism. Indeed, the philosophical assumptions of b o th these methodological foci were idealistic or, in Durkheim's own term, "hyperspiritualistic." In

8

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

the context o f his idea of homo duplex, which identifl ed mind and society, positivism and idealism related to aspects of the ideal, autonomous object that society was for Durkheim. In Durkheim's early thought, positivism was most pronounced. I t was epitomized in the assertion in The Rules of Sociological Method that social facts were to b e treated like things. By this Durkheim did not mean onto logi­ cally to classify "social facts" among material things. But he did en join the sociologist to adopt a methodological attitude of extreme obj ectivism in the study of society. Perhaps the primary meaning of" social fact" for Durkheim was the institutional norm. Yet in the study of the genesis, structure, and functioning of institutions, Durkheim carried the analogical value of the natural sciences to a point at which he tended t o deny t h e speciflcity of a science of persons. Intentions were placed beyond the realm of scientifl c enquiry. The idea that emp athy served as a means of understanding i n the social sciences was rejected out of hand. And the specifl c nature of symbolic activity in society seemed to be both emphasized, at times idealis tically exaggerated, and denied, especially through misleading metaphors and methodo logical injunctions. Durkheim's early posi tivism presented society primarily as an "action system," and structure as the essence of social facts. Methodologically, i t focused upon two sorts o f causation (often conceived "mechanistically") : e ffl cient and functional. It attempted to determine h o w "social facts" were causally generated by antecedent conditions and how they functioned to produce certain consequences in the social system. Sociology, paradoxi cally, was to be restricted to a mechanistically causal explanation of the most external, reified, and d epersonalized aspects of the ideal things constitutive of social facts. T h e criteria of social facts were asserted to be exteriority and constraint. And Durkheim held to a rather dissociated, if not schizoid, idea of the relation of the inner to the ou ter, of"subj ective" experience and "objec­ tively" observable b ehavior. This was the source of his freq uently confusing pronouncem ents on the relati onsh i p of sociology t o psychology. Inn er, subjective experience was ascribed to the individual and often assumed to be objectively unknowable. Instead, Durkheim i n his early thought stressed the i m p ortance of "hard" data, "morphological" indices, legal codes, and statistical procedures. His idea of the relation between society and morality emphasized fo rmal o bligation and duty.

Chapter 1

introduction

9

Durkheim's early posi tivism at times culminated in an arid fo rmalism. Homo duplex was divided further into an "outer" social self defl ned by insti­ tutional norms and an "inner," hidden, neo-romantic or quasi-transcendental individual self of ineffable subjectivity. Sociology amounted to an objectivist study of the outer self and the structures that defined its external and con­ strained relations with other selves and the material environment. Durkh eim's early positivism may have stemmed in part from a mystified generalization of the nature of experience in a society characterized by certain displaced religious and i deological traditions and by extremely formal and markedly bureaucratic relations. In his own France, the state, the military, the church, and notably his own specific milieu - the state university system - were highly bureaucratized. And the typical personality of members of his hyper­ spiritualistic republican peer group displayed the dissociated combination of a formal, constrained exterior and a repressed well of inner spontaneity and private feeling. A historical watershed in the development ofD urkhei m's thought was the Dreyfus Aff.1.ir. It represented the breakthrough of community and idealistic spontaneity in a structurally h i debound French society. And Durkhei m's sub­ sequent thought tended to conceive of the individual in terms of the bodily organism and to stress the "inside" of shared values in the collectivity. Para­ mount was a concern for communal b onds, "collective representations," and the subj ective desirability of i n ternalized values, especially in their relation to symbolic cult and the sacred. But D urkheim often treated community, ideas, and ideals in abstraction from operative institutions and practical realities. Indeed, he at times envisioned ideals as the abstract objects of a vague, con­ templative mystique and as phantom-like monuments situated on the horizon of a hoped-for evolutionary development. And methodologically he insisted upon an objectivist study of ideologies and ideals that provided little insight into the relationship of the questioner to the questioned in social research or the relationship of theory to practice in social action. In h i s second a n d more dialectical tendency, Durkheim partially over­ came a Cartesianized neo-Kantianism. H e attempted to relate the elements and entities that he analytically distinguished. It is in the light of the more dialectical strand of his thought that i t i s fruitful to understand his con­ ception of the relation of philosophy to methodology and of theory to practice. The notion that provided orientation in this respect was D urkheim's

I0

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

guiding metaphor of a tree of social life. This metaphor served as a logical axis for the classifl cation of fo rms of human experience and entire social systems. The trunk of the tree corresponded to the transhistorical conditions of social and cultural life, while the branches represented different types of soci ety. In the light of this model (or some more sophisticated analogue) Durkheim's ideas were developed by his disciples, notably M arcel Mauss and Claude Levi-Strauss. It was no accident that Mauss was reading Hegel when he wrote his pivotal essay Le Don ( The Gift). Considered dialecti cally, social structure constituted one crucial dimen­ sion of human experience. But the broader problem was the comprehensive study of forms and levels of symbolically informed experience and their relations to anomie. I n h is core concept of anomie, Durkheim referred to the social and cultural - per haps what one might call the existential - po­ sition of people possessed o f (and frequently by) symbolism but devoid of substantively limiting norms and meaningful paradigms that give a viably coherent order to experience. Anomie disorientation, confusion, and anxiety were basic causes of breakdown and of new creati o n in society. The one question Durkheim never asked was whether the extreme ten­ dency to decompose reality analytically was itself symptomatic of the extreme dissociation of sensibility which he correlated with social pathology. Yet the concepts of normality and p athology represented the second elementary axis of Durkheim's thought which intersected the classifl catory axis of the tree of sociocultural life . Indeed these concepts are crucial in the attempt to situate Durkheim's thought in relation to a school which has frequently taken him as a fo unding father: structurofunctionalism (which has at least some resemblance to more recent forms of systems theory, for example, in the work of Niklas Luhman). This school h as of course many internal variants, which at times display signifl cantly different orientations. And the entire perspective has been attacked by proponents of a sociology of conflict as a theoretical excuse fo r a conservative ideology.9 On t h e questions b o t h of a structuralist methodology and the concepts of normality and pathology, Durkheim did not display the degree of sophis­ tication one might have expected of him. His ideas were rarely "clear and distinct." They were often more nebulous than is expectable in an initial, tentative, and exploratory statement. Allowing for this vagueness, one may nonetheless attempt to articulate certain basic elements of his thought.

Chapter I

Jntroduction

II

There was indeed an important i f insuffl ciently defl ned sense in which Durkheim's conception of the relationships among aspects of society was structural and functional in nature. He attempted to see things whole and in their actual and possible interactions with one another. More speciflcally, he identified science with the attempt to show how an object of investigation could be made to reveal systematic relationships, including the method in social madness. Very often, these relationships were hidden and could b e made manifest only through scientifl c investigation. Thus his conception of rationalism, as well as his belief i n the existence of important analogies between natural and social science, rested upon a notion o f !aws that com­ prised structural models, functional correlations, and tendential regulari ties. I n his own words, th ings social are "rational: by which one must simply understand that they are linked to one another by de£ nite relations called laws . " 1 0 On this basis, the most pertinent methodological similarity b etween natural and social science was the status of the comparative method and concomitant variation as the analogues in sociology of experimentation in the natural sciences. Related to the role of the comparative method was t h e use of statistical procedures in specifying the prevalence o f conditions of social life and the direct or indirect consequences of the functioning of social structures and symbolic systems. The implication of the existence of defl nite relations among social and cultural phenomena for rational prescription was the requirement that pur­ poseful intention work with a defl nite, complex, and often little known reality. Ignorance of typical relationships might frustrate human purpose through the generation of unintended consequences. The only specifl city of society, when compared with nature in this regard , was a greater range of what Comte had termed "modi£ able fatality." D u rkheim believed fl rmly that socio logy, in discovering the laws of social reality, would permit social agents "to direct with more refl ection than in the past the course of historical evolution; for we can only change nature, moral or physical, in abiding by its laws." Auguste Comte, Durkheim himself observed, "even remarked with insiste n ce that of all natural phenomena, social phenomena are the most malleable, the most accessible to changes, b ecause they are the most complex." Thus D urkheim could conclude that "sociology does not in the least impose upon man a pas­ sively conservative attitude; on the contrary, it extends the fl eld of our action by the very fact that it extends the fl eld of our science . "11

I2

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

One cannot understand the sense in which Durkheim was a rationalist or a conservative unless one understands his distinction between social normality and pathology. Yet this distinction, which was essential to all of Durkheim's work, has often been ignored, repressed, or rejected by commentators and disciples alike. One general problem, of course, was that Durkheim's ideas remained at the level of gross approximation. Here, where careful and rigorous conceptual analysis should have been a fo remost concern, Durkheim's ideas were little more than suggestive. And the very appeal to medicalized concepts, relying on bi ological analogies, threatened to obscure or naturalize the normative issues that were manifestly crucial fo r Durkheim. Nor did he ever try to apply the concepts of normality and pathology t o historical societies in a co m p rehensive and convinci n g way, distinguishing, for example, b etween kinds and degrees of normality and pathology. The chapter devoted to a sustained discussion of the normal and the pathological in The Rules of Sociological Method, a chapter which should have been the expression of Durkheim's intellectual powers at their most imp ressive, failed even to formulate the principles operative i n his own works. Instead of drawi ng together the various strands of his co n ception of social structure and moral ity, the chapter relied excessively upon b i ological analogies, of ten without indicating their relevance for social life . Except for the concluding section on crime, the discussion of the normal and the pathological in The Rules is probably the least successful piece of writing and thinking in all of D urkheim's work. Since the distinction between social normality and pathology was one of the fu ndamental postulates of Durkheimism, I shall try to make explicit what remained largely implicit in his writings. In this respect, I shall present Durkheim's conception of normality and p athology in as useful and sympathetic a manner as possible, although I find it preferable to avoid biol ogical or medicalized metaphors and to employ clearly normative concepts i n addressing, however con­ testab ly, ethical and sociopolitical issues. The concepts of social norm ality and pathology referred to paradigms o r models of social systems ( o r more delimited social settings) that had b o th methodological and normative status. As instruments of investigation, they enabled the formulation of problems within the overarching paradigm of the tree of sociocultural life and made possible the discovery of relations that might not be apparent to naive introspection or unguided empirical

Chapter I

Jntroduction

13

observation. Their basis was the core problem o f Durkheimian sociology as a whole: the dialectic of order and disorder, limits and excess, i n society and culture. And they informed D urkheim's idea of the relation of theory to practice. The characterization of a state of society as pathological implied a critique and a call to acti o n . Roughly speaking, the normal state was characterized b y a highly spe­ cifl c, desirable sort of functional integration in soci ety. In the normal state, conditions of social life were fl exibly controlled by limiting institutional norms. Norms were in turn legitimated by values consensually accepted as valid objects of commitment and solidarity b u t nonetheless challenged by a dynamic, possibly creative leaven of anomie. Given the transhistori­ cal conditions of social n o rm ality, t h e precise nature of the normal state varied with different types of society. To the extent that i t corresponded to the vital necessities of the various branches of the tree of sociocultural life, moral relativism was understandabl e and j ustifl ed. An undesirable condition of social pathology characterized states of society beset with varying sorts of internal contradiction and runaway excess. Like the normal phenomena of w h i ch they were the counterparts, pathological phe­ nomena differed in content according to social type. Symptoms of pathology on the most general level comprised social conflict in extreme, unregulated forms, but they also included excessively high or low rates of deviance. Symp­ toms were to be distinguished from causes, which resided in the faulted nature of the social system itself and its bearing on the lives of members of society. The concept of social pathology enabled Durkheim to combine a structuralist m e thodology with the recognition of chaos, irrationality, and conflict in social life. The most important requirement for analysis and prescription was to be obj ectively clear about the fundamental causes of pathology i n society and the most rational means of effecting a passage from pathology to normality. It also required a strong distinction between social and individual pathology, with excessive rates (in contrast to individual incidence) of the latter being ascribed to social causes, not perso nal idi osyncracies or faults. Moreover, there was nothing in Durkheim to support the belief that he defended penal sanc­ tions or systematic repression as the appropriate responses to symptoms of social pathology. On the contrary, he consistently invoked the principle that institutional change alone attacked the causes of social pathology. Of course a crucial, controversial question was what phenomena, even with respect to

14

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

rates and relations within the broader society, were seen as normal or patho­ logical in fact and in right. States of both pathology and normality were for Durkheim formally rational in the sense that phenomena in them could be made to reveal in­ telligible relations. There was method to social madness. It made sense, for example, that certain pathological states of society would be characterized by high rates of crime, suicide, and endemic violence. And means might b e suited t o ends that were themselves pathogenic. But D urkheim d i d n o t argue that anything that functioned in society was j ustifi ed - if by functioning i s meant formal adaptation or efficiency i n maintaining a status q u o . O n the contrary, only the normal state of society and fo rces adapted to its creation or mainten ance were justified o r substantively rational. In the normal state, conditions were "everything that they ought to b e . " In the pathological state, they "ought to be other than they are." 1 2 The normal state of society would h ave as the foundation of its structure a culturally relative variant of practical reason that would function as the sole possible b as is for the reconciliation of legitimate order and progress. Substantive rationality as the basic p r i n c i p l e of social structure was, m oreover, the o n ly foundation for commitment and solidarity in society as a whole. In the normal state of society, the comcience collective would be the shared psychological ground of practical reason and solidarity in the personalities of members of society: i t would b e obj ectively real and subjectively internalized a t the same time. The practical i m plications of Durkheim's ideas have b e e n the subject of i ntense controversy. Most often, Durkheim has been seen as a conser­ vative. In one important sense, this conception of D urkheim is correct. But Durkheim's broader rationalist dream w a s to transcend partisan ideological struggles and to forge a dialectical reconciliation of conservative, radical, and liberal traditions in m odern thought. Scientifi c sociology, in Durkheim's conception of i t , h a d this ambitious, perhaps unrealistic, rationalist dream as its foremost practical goal. One thing was b l i ndingly clear. Durkheim became i ncreasingly convinced that modern society was significantly pathological. In what sense was he a conservative? He was definitely not a reactionary traditionalist or, for that matter, a protofascist. He did not advocate the restoration of monarchy, feudal relations, aristocratic values, an established church, or medieval ver­ sions of corporatism. Nor did he share the cultural despair of conservative

Chapter I

Jntroduction

15

revolutionaries who felt an indiscriminate need to destroy all existing realities in order to clear the ground for a conservative utopia. 1 3 His thought reveals no parallel to the fascist combination of charismatic leader principle, elitism, mass mobilization, mystical nationalism, scapegoating of an out-group, and totalitarian integration of the in-group under racial (or other group) privi lege and party dictatorship. Despite their idealized aspect, moreover, his studies of "primitive" societies do not display the obscurantist sort of neolithic nostalgia that might make the individual a dupe of authoritarian political movements ostensibly holding forth the value of community. In his own France, the viewp oint of Charles M aurras and the Action Francraise, inspired by a reaction against the D reyfusard position and the republican form of government which Durkheim supported, was antithetical to his own outlook. Nor did Durkheim share with the authoritarian Comte, whom Maurras followed, a h i gh estimation of what Comte called the "Im­ mortal Retrograde School" of M aistre and Bonald. Comte, according to D urkheim, was his master in sociology. And the "organic" conception of society, which asserted the group to be "prior" to the individual, was shared by a sociol ogical tradition that included Maistre, Bonald, C o m te, and Durkheim. But D u rkheim departed fro m M aistre and Bonald, o n the one hand, and fro m Comte, on the other, in his prescriptions for modern society. When D urkheim referred to the reign of moral authority i n the normal society, he referred to the impersonal authority of norms compatible with autonomy and reciproci ty, not authoritarian h ierarchies or the elitist s ubordination of certain groups to other groups i n modern soci ety. And the rights of the individual were part and parcel of any legitimate modern social order. His primary sources i n this respect were Kant and the Rousseau whom Kant admired. Durkheim's rationalism served to obviate the anxiety­ ridden longing for order that had prompted Comte to propose a rigidly authoritarian system amalgamating cultural debris of the ecclesiastical past, propheti cally technocratic features, and idi osyncrasies of his own personal biography. For Durkheim, the institutional lessons of t h e past were relevant to the present only i f they were adapted to the conditions and values of the present, including democracy and the rights of the individual. M o reover, D u rkheim did not believe that any status quo might be pre­ sumed to embody the traditional wisdom of the ages that deserved to b e transmitted with only minor m odifl cation fro m generation t o generati on.

I6

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

This assumption applied i n variable ways only to the normal state of society and h a d at best only limited application even to a transformed m odernity in which there would continue to be a role for critical questioning. In a pathological state, this assumption converted conservatism from a living force into a tragicomic attitude detached fro m social realities and conducive to stereotyped reactions to situations of crisis. Durkheim was not a simple status quo conservative. He was what may be called a philosophical conservative. He desired the emergence and maintenance of a signifi candy stabilized state of society t h a t deserved to be the b as is of historical continuity and personal commitment. D u rkheim was not a p u re optimist. For him the perfect society was an impossible dream. B u t he d i d affirm the value of a state of society that was relatively harmonious and in which anomie was confi ned to marginal proportions. I n this "normal" state of society, the minds and hearts of people would be united, a n d freedom would be reconciled with a normatively ingrained sense o f limits. In the context of modern societies, Durkheim's conservatism was discr i m i n atingly radi cal a n d often future-ori e n ted. He d i d see elements i n modern soci ety that genuinely deserved to be continued, better coor­ diiuted, and strengthened: constitutionalism, individual rights, social sol­ idari ty, represen tative government, and a certain type of division of labor. B u t he also realized that in certain areas of m o dern l i fe the basic problem was the absence of legitimate traditions that might plausibly claim rational commitment and "sacred" respect. In these areas, Du rkheim - as analyst, prophet, and lawgiver - longed for the creation of institutions that would bridge the gap between reason and sentiment and open the way to a livable, stabilized social environment in which only the i n corrigibly criminal and the extraordinarily creative would not be b asically conservative. Unlike many conservatives in modern history, he d i d not reconcile himself to a position of tragic resignation or resentful grumbling in the face of rapidly changing realities that contradicted h is values. To achieve stab i l i zati o n , consensus, and fl exibly traditionalistic ends in critical areas of society marked by sig­ nificant, if "transitional," conditions of social pathology, he believed that structural reform was imperative. In a sense, Durkheim was a structural reformer selectively open to radical ideas s o that one day people might b e authentically conservative i n good conscience.

Chapter I

Jntroduction

17

Durkheim i s j ustly remembered as a severe critic of utilitarianism and classical liberalism. But fro m the lib eral tradition he did accept the idea that the highest values of modern soci ety include the rights of the individual and parliamentary control. He also defended a specifl c sort of plu ralism - what might be called a normative pluralism. He did not present the competition of self-interested groups as the desirable end state of modern society. This would amount to a substitution of sociological utilitarianism for the individualistic utilitarianism of the past - a sociological utilitarian­ ism that was often compatible with individual isolation and self-seeking. Durkheim's concrete goal was the formation of co-op erative communal groups controlled by norms under the aegis of the democratic state. This was the basis of his defense of secondary groups mediating relations be­ tween the individual and the state, notably in the form of a revitalized corporatism resp ectful of individual liberties. What he radically rejected in classical lib eralism was the anti-communal ideology that associated uni­ versal h u m an rights and personal dignity with atomistic individualism and self-centered egoism, especially in possessively economic forms. He came to see u n l i m i ted growth, profit m a x i m ization, and u nregulated econo m i c relations as crucial causes o f modern social pathology. I t might b e said that Durkheim identifl ed the "economic rationality" of the economists with a prominent case of social irrationality. For h i m , the individual referred to by the principles of the French Revolution w a s n o t the acquisi tive calculator or possessive individualist who looked upon life as an exercise i n pre-empting things with a sovereign "mine." Ultim ately, Durkheim came to argue that the valuable core of individualism was a humanistic, responsible autonomy that complemented the commitment to community and reciprocity rooted i n the conscience collective. The most problematic elements i n Durkheim's practical ideas stemmed fro m features of his thought which Karl Mannheim identifl ed as charac­ teristic of liberal hum anitarianism . 1 4 These elements severely compromised D u r k h e i m's structural reformism and his p h ilosophical conservatism . They may be reduced to fo ur tendencies: ( 1 ) the tendency, especially in his early thought, to provide an i ns u fficiently concrete penetration into the real confl icts, tensions, and ambiguities of social life; (2) the tendency through­ out h i s thought to neglect the problem of means of realizing the ends he advocated; ( 3 ) the tendency, especially in his increasingly pronounced social

18

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

metaphysic, to indulge i n a vague, contemplative vision of ideals stand­ ing above social realities; and ( 4) the tendency to rely on an evolutionary optimism which envisaged a p rogressive approximation of these ideals in some unspecifl ed future. These tendencies might well have been embodied in a revisionist at­ titude toward Marx, as they were to some extent in the thought of Eduard Bernstein. In Durkheim, however, they were conjoined with what might be called a ritual avoidance of M a rx Y For very often the absence of Marx or, conversely, the hidden presence of Marx as a silent pariah interlocutor haunted D urkheimism. When he did address himself to Marx's thought, Durkheim attempted to situate Marxism as an ideology while ignoring Marx's theoretical contri bution. T h i s attitude toward Marx exacerbated s o m e of the greatest defects of Durkheim, especially his i nadequate treatment of the role of the economy, of classes, and of group confl ict in social life. One problem to which D urkheim never convincingly addressed himself was central: whether a M arxist-type analysis (especially a critical theory of a market-based com­ modity system) was in significant measure still relevant to the understanding of enduring problems i n society under advanced industrialism, and, if it was, how i t could be related to the issues which for Durkheim were paramount. This was a problem that remained even if the conception of class confl ict and its revo l u tionary potential in the specifl c form in which Marx presented i t was becoming increasingly irrelevant. (It is also a problem that has acquired increased salience since the collapse of existing communist states and the triumphalist celebration of a seemingly fated conjunction of capitalism and liberal democracy bound up with market forces.) Like Marx, Durkheim tried to integrate a critique of political economy, German speculative philosophy, and the French socialist tradition in a com­ prehensive theory of the genesis and functioning of modern society. Again, like Marx, he of ten perceived history - especially modern history - as the story of social pathology. And, in contrast to theorists with a "value-neutral" conception of social science, Durkheim saw a link between theory and prac­ tice. But his antipathy toward Marx prevented a balanced estimate of Marx's achievement and of the actual role off actors through which M arx explained the historical process. Durkheim fel l far short of the profound feeling for tragedy which dramatically informed Marx's reading of history, and which gave an heroic cast to his idea of a dialectical "overcoming" of the burdens of

Chapter I

Jntroduction

19

the past. Unlike Marx, moreover, Durkheim rarely displayed a telling sense of the concrete with which to bring to life (and temper with life's nuances) his analytical models and statistical surveys ; and he rarely was able to grasp imaginatively the developmental possibilities o f a complex set of interacting factors in society as a whole over time. One finds no Eighteenth Brumaire among Durkheim's works. Marx had both an incisive sense o f history and an almost cannibalistic sense of irony. D urkheim's more abstract and staid approach lacked these cutting edges. Significantly, D urkheim shared Marx's ideological blindness to questions of gender and assumed a basically traditional role for women in society even when his own analyses indicated the possibility of a critique of dubiously gendered relations. "Man" in Durkheim, as i n Marx, can often be read literally as well as metonymically. The M arx whom Durkheim especially abhorred was the Marx who advocated class confl ict and violent revolution in modern society. In contrast with Marx, D urkheim viewed modern society - and particularly his own France, which was always his center of reference - as suffering from severe but transitional symptoms of pathology and offering the possi b i l ity of social justice without recourse to violent revolution. This primary focus upon the conception of modern society as passing through a pathological state of rapid transition on the way to normality was crucial for the shape of D urkheim's thought as a whole. For Durkheim, modern society was experiencing, not death throes, b u t prolonged and disruptive birth pangs. Marx had mixed his metaphors and mistaken the nature and direction of modern society. If Marx was both too pessimistic in his idea of the historical evolution of the industrialized West toward collapse (at least in terms of the precise pro­ cesses he emphasized) and too optimistic i n his messianic faith in sociocultural regeneration after apocalyptic upheaval, Durkheim combined extreme pes­ simism about the potential of the individual "left to himself" with extreme optimism concerning the ability of modern society to resolve the severe problems presented to it in the course of h istory. This false optimism, which vacillated between the mechanistically sober and the euphorically inflated, generated in D u rkheim an air of complacency that was alleviated only by genuine concern and a devotion to social action. D urkheim often seemed able to snatch the spirit o f normality fro m the j aws of anomie. Despite his sensitivity to possible abortive miscarriages i n the development of modern

20

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

society, he had an almost religious faith i n the evolution of modern society, on the whole and i n good time, toward justice and reason. If D urkheim's social idealism at times included elements of political nai"vete, h e at least recognized problems in the modern status quo that certain of his epigoni preferred to overlook. And the least questionable aspect of his faith in a strain­ ing toward normality and social sanity in modern life was the assumption that the reformer with constructive intentions - even when h e or she fai led to be moved by the spirit - might be constrained to accept optimism as somewhat a social duty. A final remark should indicate the general conception of Durkheim's thought which informs this study. The idea of sociology as a life science i m p l i ed for Durkheim a fidelity to the living. In h is last major work, which treated the vanishing religion of Australian aborigines, Durkheim seemed to be very far from his initial i nspiration. In one sense, the very opposite was true. In the opening pages of Les Formes t!lt!mentaires de Ia vie religieuse ( The Elementary Forms ofthe Religious Life), Durkheim asserted: Sociology raises other problems than h istory and ethnography. It does not seek to know the bygone fo rms of civilization with the sole end of knowing and reconstituting them. Instead, like every posi rive science, it has as its object the explanati o n of a present reality, near to us and thus able t o affect our actions: This reality is man and, more precisely, the m a n of tod ay, fo r there is n o n e other whom we are m o re interested in knowing. T h us, we w i l l not study t h e very archaic religion that is our subject fo r the sole pleasure of recounting i ts b izarre and singular features. If we have taken archaic religion as our object of research, i t i s because i t appeared to u s more a p t than any other i n allowing us to understand the religious nature of man, which is to reveal to us an essential and permanent aspect of h u m a n nature. 1 6 The theoretical goal of The Elementary Forms was to arrive at a general notion of culture and society through an intensive analysis of religious sym­ bolism and its relation to solidarity. But the more specific object preoccupying Durkheim was his idea of the "moral mediocrity" of modern society and his desire to learn something of basic value from the "savages" b efore their forms of life were uprooted by a civilization whose mode of advance was often symp­ tomatic of its moral mediocrity. At times this intention of the moraliste led

Chapter I

Jntroduction

21

Durkheim to perceive "primitive" societies through a superficial type of benign reverse ethnocentrism: he focused upon abstracted features in "primi tive" life which he felt were missing in modern society b u t vital to all normal society. His analysis of religious belief and ritual in "primitive" societies reduced these phenomena to selected aspects which accorded most with his lifelong moral concern with creating legitimate institutions in modern society and his latter­ day sensitivity to the universal need for signifi cant community. The Elementary Forms was the summa of Durkheim's written works. In a larger context, i t was but the preface to his might-have-been chef-d'oeuvre, "La Morale," which Marcel Mauss accurately characterized as the "but de son existence, fond de son esprit" (the goal of his existence, the substance of his mind). 17 A curious abstractness reaching out with el usive feeling for human solidity in values and moral solidarity in people; a Cartesianized, socialized, and so mew hat mystified neo-Kantianism of a rabbi manque who had stoically imperturbable good will - these were often the most apparent qualities of D urkheimism.

22

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

Notes

1. 2.

3. 4.

5.

"Cours de science sociale: Le�ton d' ouverture," Rwue internationale de f 'enseignement, XV ( 1 8 8 8 ) , 4 5 . Letter t o Georges Davy; quo ted in Davy, "Durkheim," Revue ftanr;aise de s ociologie, I ( 1 960 ) , 1 0 . "Sociologie religieuse et theorie de Ia connaissance," Reuue de mhaphys ique et de morale, XVII ( 1 909), 755-756. Ibid. , p . 7 5 8 . A superficial review of the major orientations and d i ffi culties of some of the most important interpretations ofDurkheim will give the reader a sense of the problem. In his monumental The Structure of Social Action (first pub. 1 93 7 ; Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1 949), Talcott Parsons presented Durkheim's thought as caught in an unresolved tension between early positivism and latter-day idealism as it tortuously worked its way toward convergence with other vol­ untaristic theories of social action. (Parsons' ideas formed the basis for the treatment of Durkheim in H. Stuart Hughes's infl uential Consciousness and Society [New Yo rk: Knopf; 1 9 58] .) In his Es sais de sociologie (Paris: S irey, n.d.), Georges Gurvitch saw in Durkheimism a denial of social science itself in the attempt to construct a "metamorality." According to Gurvitch, Durkheim transfi gured society into a modern contender for the traditional role oflogos. In his idea of the relation of sociology to philosophy, Durkheim was like Columbus, who discovered America while sailing for the Indies. G urvitch denied the validity of the integral bond between methodology and philosophy in Durkheim's idea of social science. With typical virtuosity, Claude Levi­ Strauss has termed himself an "inconstant disciple" of Durkheim and has treated his thought over the years with a combination of wholesale praise and retail criticism. Still, his thought, like that of Pierre Bourdieu, would not be conceivable without the role of Durkheim and the Annie school. Yet Ray­ mond Aron, whose interpretive skill is often beyond comparison, gave what seemed to be a counsel of despair. In his Eta pes de Ia pensee s ocio!ogique (Paris : Callimard, 1 967), h e observed, after a s eriatim commentary on the texts, that he had fo und himself fo rced to resort frequently to direct quotation, not to illustrate substantive points of an argument but, o n the contrary, because he felt "a certain difficulty in entering into Durkheim's way of thought, no doubt because of a lack of sympathy necessary fo r understanding" (p. 360) . In his important Emile Durkheim: His LUe and Work (London: Penguin, 1 973) , which appeared at about the same time as the original edition of the

Chapter I

6. 7. 8. 9.

1 0. 11. 12. 13. 1 4.

1 5.

Introduction

23

present book, Steven Lukes employed a combination of analytic philosophy in the parsing of Durkheim's concepts, neopositivistic empiricism in the chronological reco unting of diverse biographical and contextual facts, and synoptic content analysis in the reading of texts . The result is an encyclope­ dic compendium fi lled with useful information but not itself informed or motivated by a sustained, thought-provoking argument. See also the essays in Emile Durkheim: Critical Assessments , ed. Peter Hamilton (London: Rout­ ledge, 1 990) and Debating Durkheim, ed. \V'. S. F. Pickering and H. Martin (London: Routledge, 1 9 94). L e s Regles de Ia methode sociologique ( 1 5t h ed.; Paris: Presses U niversitaires de France, 1 96 3 ) , p. ix. "La Sociologie e n France a u XIXe siecle," Reuue bleue, 4th series, X I I I ( 1 900), 65 1 . 0 n this problem, see Herbert Marcuse, Eros and CiZJilization (Boston: Beacon Press, 1 9 5 5 ) , chap. ix. Robert K . Merton's discussion probably remains the most concise and useful examination of functional analysis i n socio logy. Merton stresses the impor­ tance o f the concept of "dysfunction" for the study of social conflict (Social Theory and Social Structure [rev. ed.; Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press of Glencoe, 1 9 64], chap. i; repr. as chap. iii of On Theoretical Sociology [New York: Free Press, 1 967] ) . It would be interesting to relate Durkheim's conception of anomie to recent approaches to trauma. On the latter issue, see my Writing History, Writing Trauma (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2 0 0 1 ) and His tory and Reading: TocqueZJille, Foucault, French Studies (To­ ronto: University ofToronto Press, 2 0 0 0 ) . l ndeed trauma is an often socially based, psychological dimension of extreme disorien tation on which Durkheim touched but which he did not extensively explore. "La Sociologie en France au XI Xe siecle," p. 649. "Sociologie et sciences sociales," in De Ia methode d ans l e s sciences (Paris: Alcan, 1 9 0 9 ) , p. 2 6 6 . L e s Regles de Ia methode sociologique, p. 4 7 . See Fritz Stern, T h e Politics of Cultural Desp air (first p u b . 1 96 1 ; Garden Ci ty, N . Y. : Doubleday, 1 96 5 ) . Ideology and Utopia (New Yo rk: Harcourt, Brace, 1 93 6 ) , p p . 2 1 9-229. Durkheim's attitude was in marked contrast to Max Weber's open reckoning with Marx. It is significant that Durkheim and Weber indicated no knowledge of each other's work. See Edward Tiryakian, "A Problem fo r the Sociology of Knowledge: The Mutual Unawareness of Emile Durkheim and Max Weber," A rchiZJes europeennes de sociologie, VII ( 1 966) , 3 3 0 - 3 3 6 . Tiryakian correctly notes the reaso n why Durkheim and Weber should have been interested in

24

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

each other's work, e. g., their conviction concerning the importance o f religion i n social lif e. But, in accounting for their "mutual unawareness," he stresses the role of exogenous factors such as opposing national allegiances. He does not investigate the relation of serious intellectual differences to "mutual unaware­ ness" or, perhaps, mutual avoidance. One basic difference was on the issue of the ethical neutrality of social science. One might hazard the generalization that, on subjects extending fro m epistemology to politics, the differences between Durkheim and Weber were between a thinker who was traditional, philosophically conservative, optimistically reformist, and sometimes naive and one who was modern, heroic, irreducibly tragic, and at times fatalistic. (Tiryakian, in his Sociologism and E·dstentialism [Englewood Cliffs, N .J . : Prentice-Hall, 1 9 62] , gives a thoughtful, i f brief, analysis o f Durkheim's thought, stressing the importance o f his conception of the relation between society and morality.) Alvin Go uldner, i n his generally insi ghtful introduc­ tion to Socialism (New York: Collier Books, 1 96 2 ) , makes two exaggerated assertions that are opposed, if not contradictory, to one another. Go uldner sees Durkheim as attempting to build a bridge between the traditions of Comte and Marx in sociology. But he also presents Durkheim as concerned with the "fi ne-tuning" of modern society. I would maintain that at least some bases for integrating Durkheim and Marx do exist but that Durkheim himself did relatively little to b uild upon them. This was true, for example, of the problem of relating anomie to class or, more generally, group conflict. But to characterize Durkheim's idea of needed reforms as "fi ne-tuning" is extreme. Durkheim increasingly believed that the problems besetting modern society were severe. One might well argue that his proposed reforms were excessively vague or inadequate for solving the problems he perceived. But they were basic, at least in certain respects. It i s true, however, that Durkheim believed modern society would naturally evolve in the direction o f "normal­ ity," certainly without violent revolution. 1 6. Les Formes elementaires de Ia vie religieuse (first pub. 1 9 1 2 ; 4th ed.; Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1 98 0 ) pp. 1 -2 . 1 7 . " I n Memoriam: L'Oeuvre inedite de Durkheim et de ses collaborateurs, " Amzee sociologique, n . s . , I ( 1 9 2 3 ) , 9 . ,

2

Durkheim's Milieu

Once one has established the existence ofan evil, what it consists ofand on what it depends, when one knows in consequence the general characteristics of the remedy, the essential thing is not to draw up in advance a plan which foresees everything; it is to get resolutely to work. - Suicide

To historicize D urkheim' s ideas by restricting their range to his own im­ mediate experience and social context would obviously be to lose sight of their broader relevance. But it is inform ative for reasons of h istorical perspective to situate Durkheim in his own social milieu. And the effort is prompted by Durkheim's tendency to take his own society as a test case of the needs of modern society in general. The broadly ethical and philosophical impetus behind D urkheim's thought must be in the forefront of any approach to his ideas. For him the problem of a just social order in modern society presented itself very much in the light of rational specification of the principles of the French Revolution in terms which would enable people to humanize and absorb the industrial revolution. The moral mission of sociology itself was to provide, through an analytic and comparative study of institutions and values, orientation in reaching this goal. By and large, Durkheim's life was a subdued and intellectualized passion devoted to this task - scientific and moral at the same time. Durkh eim was born i n 1 8 5 8 in the town of Epinal, in the province of Lorraine, and died in 1 9 1 7 . Ceded to the Germans in 1 87 1 , the Alsace-Lor­ raine region housed both the most trad itionalist enclave of French Jewry and one of the most ardent centers of F rench patriotism. It was returned to F ranee only at the end of the First World War.

26

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

Durkheim grew up at a time when the Jewish ghettos of eastern France were rapidly breaking up. 1 The disintegration of these communities posed the threat of social unsettlement and personal disorientation which Durkheim later was t o analyze i n terms of anomie. To this problem was added the loss of patrie for those suffering the consequences of the Franco-Prussian War. The early death of his father imposed upon the young Durkheim the responsibilities of a chefdefomille. According to familial tradition, D urkheim was destined to follow in his father's footsteps by becoming a rabbi. Of course, h e was not to follow l iterally the wishes of his family. He was never to make an express commitment to any established religious institution. But those who found an agnostic temperament in Durkheim identified religious sentiment with orthodox belief in a personal deity or with otherworldly transcendentalism - questionable i dentifications that Durkheim took pains to dispel in his own defi nition of the religious phenomenon. The relation between religion and society that Durkheim tried to establish theoretically had an analogue in the personality of this founder of modern sociology. The one theme that recurs in the reminiscences of his friends is the profound religiosity and t h e sense of mystique running like an undercurrent in h is dialectical rigor and rationalism. As his close friend G e o rges Davy recalled: "This convinced rationalist always kept, on the fringe o f the orthodoxy of his milieu, a sort of fundamental religiosity which took on the allure of mysticism when, with the impassioned ardor of a prophet, he expounded his doctri n e . " 2 And here is the testimony of the fo under of the Revue de nu!taphysique et de morale, Durkheim's good friend Xavier Leon: "This face and this body of an ascetic, the glowing light of a look profo undly buried in the orbit of his eye, the timbre and the accent of a voice animated by an ardent faith that i n this heir of the prophets burned with the desire to forge and temper the conviction of listeners . " l One sequence of events in Durkheim's life stood out with special prom­ inence. Durkheim was not known for his sense of humor or taste fo r irony. In part, t h e lack was due to th e intell ectual purity, classical restrai nt, and moral incentive of his thought. But Durkheim's outlook was also indicative of a straitlaced tendency to identify seriousness of purpose with solemnity. Davy has remarked that Durkheim's austere conception oflife "perhaps even went to the point of preventing him fro m enjoying without scruples any pleasure except the Spinoza-like j oy which is brought by enthusiasm for an

Chapter 2

Durkheim 's Milieu

27

idea."4 The sole recorded instance of humor and irony i n Durkheim's life was self-directed, and i t i nvolved religi on. In a rare pun, Durkheim played upon the ambiguity of the French word chaire ("academi c's chair," "church pulpit"). Passing in front of Notre Dame Cathedral, Durkheim turned to a colleague, Celestin Bo ugie, and remarked, "It's from a chair like that, that I ought to be speaking."5 Durkheim's life seems dominated by a strong sense of discipline that kept the man together while the academic moved steadily from rung to rung up the professional ladder and ultimately to a professorship at the Sorbonne. As a young man, however, Durkheim experienced a number of crises that revealed how he combined a strong mind with a fragile and anxious spirit. Under the influence of a Cath o l i c i n s tructress, fo r exam ple, he underwent a passing i nfatuation with mysticism. 6 In Paris, h e prepared for the Ecole Normale Superieure at the Lycee Louis-le-Grand and lived at the Pension J auffret, where he formed his lifelong friendship with Jean Jaures. But his life at the pension was full of anguish and left him w ith bad memories.7 He was admitted to the Ecole Normale after having failed two years in succession to place high e n ough in the entrance exam i n ation. Durkheim en tered the Ecole Normale in 1 87 9 . "Lanson, S. Reinach and Levy- Bruhl had j ust been graduated. Bergson, Jaures and Belot had entered the year b efore. Rauh and Maurice Blonde! were to be admitted two years later. Pierre Janet and Go b l o t entered along with Durkheim. It is not an exaggeration, the refore, to say that a veritable philosophical renaissance was germinating at the Ecole Normale . " 8 But once he was finally in the Ecole, Durk h e im's attitude was highly ambivalent. In his last year a grave illness which may have been psychosomatic in origin compromised his chances for the agregation, in which he was nonetheless received next to last.'1 In retrospect, Durkheim felt that the Ecole Normale was a "scientific and social milieu of exceptional value," and he sent his son there. 10 He retained a lasting respect for two of his professors: the historian Fustel de Coula nges and the p h ilosopher E m i l e Boutroux. To Fustel, who preceded Durkheim in the advocacy of the comparative method and the conception of the importance of religion i n social life, Durkheim dedicated his Latin thesis on their common intellectual ancestor, Montesquieu. To Boutroux, who impressed Durkheim most by his "penetrating and obj ective way of reconstituting and rethinking systems, renewing and fo unding scientifically

28

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

before his students the history of philosophy, " 1 1 D urkheim dedicated his thesis on "The Division of Labor." At a deeper psychological level, however, Durkheim did not fl nd the Ecole Normale altogether to his liking. The impressionistic humanism and dilettantism which he had found repulsive in cagne (the high school class preparing students fo r the Ecole Normale examination) were dominant traits of the Ecole itself. More important, he instinctively drew back from the supercilious snobbery and defensive air of noblesse o blige in an overly self-conscious intellectual elite. His intelligence, sober and avid for substantial truth, held in horror the literary persifl age and ironic tone so often to be fo und in the conversation of the students at the Ecole Normale [ normaliens] . . . "I h ave seen h i m ( M . Holleaux recounts) wish ardently for the end of the school year, for vacation time, the moment when he would be able t o live again among 'good simple people' (this was his ex­ pression) . Absolutely simple, he detested all affectations. Profo u n dly serious, h e hated banter [/e ton Ieger] . .

If many of D urkheim's character traits recall the austere Kant, others bring to mind Rousseau. One of the happiest times of his school years was when he went into the streets to mingle with the effervescent populace during the July 1 4 festivi tiesY The sense of communal warmth was a force which was i ncreasingly to break through the Cartesianized neo-Kantian su rface of his thought, through its cold veneer o f devotion to du ty. At the Ecole Normale, moreover, Durkheim formed several lasting and genuine friend­ ships. His friend Maurice Holleaux remarked that "few people really knew him. Few realized that his severity covered almost feminine sensitivity and that his heart, a stranger to facile effusions of sentiment, enclosed a treasury of tender goodness." 1 3 Lines later written b y Durkheim himself about his good friend Octave Hamelin could be applied to the attitudes of D urkheim's friends toward their relationship with Durkheim himself. Hamelin had died prematurely in an absurd attempt to save the lives of unknown drowning people in spite of the fac t that he was unable to swim. Durkheim edited and made ready fo r p u b l i cation the book on Descartes w h i ch Hamelin never completed. In words that evoke the sanctity of intimacy in friendship, Durkheim wrote of

Chapter 2

Durkheim 's Milieu

29

Hamelin: "As a man, we think that he belongs entirely to his friends, who p i ously keep the cult of his memory. We would almost believe that we had defiled his memory if we were to allow the public to penetrate the intimacy of an existence which always Aed acclaim and which even hid itself from the looks of others with a sort of jealous care. " '4 After leaving the Ecole Normale, Durkheim was granted a period of relative respite to gather himself and h i s thoughts together. In accordance with the traditional French practice that has to a signifi cant extent passed out of existence, he began teaching at the secondary level b efore moving on to the u niversi ty. If the primary and secondary levels in France repre­ sented not stages in the educational process as much as different systems of education h i g h l y stratified according to social class, t h e secondary and the upper levels were strongly i ntegrated with each other. Indeed, certain intellectual leaders of the time , such as Alain, preferred to remain at the fycee level fro m a conviction that it was the locus of more authentic teach­ ing. From 1 8 8 2 to 1 8 8 7 , Durkheim taught at the fycees of Sens, Saint­ Qu entin, and Troyes. In 1 8 8 5 - 1 8 8 6 , he took a year off fro m teaching in provincial fycees to study in G ermany. ' 5 T h i s trip was u n dertaken after a conversation with Louis Liard, the Director of Higher Education (Directeur de l 'Enseignement Superieur), a lifelong s u p p o rter of Durkheim. But i t w o u l d b e a mistake to think that Liard showed any special o r conspirato­ rial favoritism toward Durkheim. Rather, he saw in Durkheim a thinker whose convictions and ideas coincided with his own deep commitment to the renovation of the French educational system under the auspices of the Republic. Liard had been struck in his o w n youth by the decadence of e d u cation under the Second Empire, and he shared the belief of many republican leaders that educational i n feriority had been a key factor in France's defeat at the hands of the Germans. Thus Liard's fu rtherance of Durkheimian sociology, while not a unique event in his actively i n nova­ tive life as an administrator, was related to his idea of the institutional and moral needs of the Republic. In G e rmany, Durkheim studied social science and its relation to ethics, primarily under the guidance of Wilhelm Wu ndt. He was considerably impressed by the efforts of Albert Schaeffl.e and the "socialists of the chair" to devise reforms of the economy in accordance with the demands of social ethics. Yet he almost cut his visit short in order to return precipitately to

30

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

France because of an overly scrupulous fear that he would not b e able to derive from his stay i n Germany all that h e expected. 1 6 Despite his anxiety, publication of two articles based on his period of study i n Germany brought Durkheim to the attention of the broader publi c Y The year 1 8 87 marked the institution in France of the first university course in social science. It was to be taught by Durkheim at the University of Bordeaux. The proposal for this course was in all probability initiated by Alfred Espinas, the author of Les Societes animales and himself a professor at Bordeaux, and it had the support of Louis Liard. 18 The ministerial decree, dated July 20, 1 8 87, bore the signature of Eugene Spuller, who ten years earlier had brought before the Chamber of Deputies the projet de lo i of Jules Ferry on the reform of h igher educati o n . Just before the appointment a t B ordeaux, Durkheim h a d married. Ac­ cording to his friend Davy, "His choice could not have been happier both for himself and for the atmosphere of his work . " 1 9 The nature o f Durkheim's marriage is a biographical topic deserving of further research, for we know little about it. I suspect that Davy's statement endearingly covers a rather trad itional relati onship in which the wife p layed a role one might perhaps i n fer from Durkheim's treatment of (or significant silences concerning) women in his published texts: a subordinate role, at times a telling absence, in virtue of which women were confined to gendered activities assumed to be in better keeping with their nature and aptitudes. In any case, his wife apparently had primary conjugal responsibility in caring for the children and the household while Durkheim was active as a scholar and a professional. His wife's maiden name, portentously, was Dreyfus, but she does not seem to have been related to the famous Dreyfus whose defense Du rkheim would later take up. With her D urkheim had two children, a boy and a girl. In a letter to M arcel Mauss (who once described Durkheim as "the pro­ fessional conscience personified"),2 0 Durkheim wrote that he had "passed his first year of teaching at the Faculty in a trance of unsuccess."2 1 But, once agai n , Durkheim was b e i ng excessively uneasy. At about the age of t h i rty, he started to acquire the security and stability that were probably necessary for him to control his feelings of anxiety and begin a period of enormous productivity and creativity. The first ful l professorship and university chair i n social science were created for Durkheim at Bordeaux i n 1 89 6 . In 1 902 , he received a call to

Chapter 2

Durkheim s Milieu

3I

Paris as a replacement for his fellow educator and friend Ferdinand Buis­ son, who had been elected to the Chamber of Deputies. He was given Buisson's chair in the Science of Education in 1 9 06. As Durkheim's disciple Maurice Halbwachs later phrased it, sociology was not admitted directly to the Sorbonne "but was introduced into it through the narrow gate of pedagogy. " 2 1 Indeed, throughout his career Durkheim devoted from one­ third to two-thirds of his teaching time to pedagogy. He did not look upon this as a waste of time, for he approached education sociologically, as an institution having the crucial function o f socializing the child into the larger soci ety. By special decree in 1 9 1 3 , the title of his chair at the Sorbo nne was changed to the Science of Education and Socio logy. Comte's neologism, barbarically combining Greek logos and Latin societas, finally gained official recognition in the University of France through the instrumentality of a thinker who questioned the preponderant role of the classics in traditional French education. Durkheim was awarded the Legion d'h omzeur but was denied access to the Institut de France. Davy remarks that he received news of both events with the same detachment. 2 3 He had achieved the essential; t h e superfluous was unnecessary. In Durkhei m's works, sociology underwent its "identity crisis." Hence his tendency to assert militantly and even overstate his point of view. In his own France, his attempt to fo und a discipline was so successful that his sociology emerged i n time as somewhat a "collective representation." As an historian sensitive to the importance of social theory observed almost a decade after Durkhei m's death: Such indeed has been the infl uence of Durkheim i n our University that he seems to have monopolized sociology. The latter in our mind is so closely b o und up with the work of Durkheim that we have almost become unable to realize that it can have an existence beyond his works and those o f his disciples. In our discussions, in o u r manuals, Durkheimian sociology and sociology tout court seem to be more and more synonymous. 24 Durkheim's intellectual life coincided with the fo unding and estab­ lishment of the Third Republic, whose initial and more optimistic phase came to a tragic end, like Durkhei m's life itself, with the traumatic shock of World War I . The events which heralded the coming of the Republic

32

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

- the debacle of the Franco-Prussian War, followed by the agony of the Paris Commune - were i nterpreted by many republican leaders as evidence of the internal instability of the Second Empire rather than as inauspicious indices of continuing foreign and domestic problems.25 Despite the almost mystical optimism engendered by the mere durability of the first long-lived democratic republic in French history, Durkheim himself placed at least the recurrent domestic upheavals in France in the larger context of the industrial revolution and the turbulent wake of the French Revolution. As he observed of Saint-Simon's long-range, structural theory of European and especially French history, which presented the Revolution of 1 78 9 as a phenomenon which had destroyed certain vestiges of the o l d order b u t which h ad miscarried i n t h e creation of the new: [After the Revolution] royal authority was re-estab lished. But these revivals of the past did not constitute a solution. So the problem is posed on the morrow of the Revolution, at the start of the nineteenth centu ty, in the same terms as on the eve of 1 7 8 9 , only it has become more pressing. The denouement is more urgent i f one does not wish to see each crisis produce another, exasperation the chronic state of society, and finally, disintegration more or less the result. Either completely restore the old system or organize the new. It is precisely this that is the social problem. As we view it, it cannot be posed with greater profundity? 6 In the excellent j u dgment of David Thomson, "The Third Repub­ lic . . . was at heart an attempt to reconcile the confl icting fo rces of modern France."27 The republican ideal of a j ust modern consensus healing the wounds of history found no more ardent proponent than Durkheim.2 8 In his i naugural lecture at Bordeaux, Durkheim stated his i n tensely moral goal in no ambiguous terms: Our society must restore the consciousness of its organic unity . . . . No doubt these ideas will become truly effi cacious only if they spread out into the depths of society, b u t for that it is fi rst necessary that we elaborate them scientifically in the u ni versity. To contribute to this end to the extent of my powers will be my principal concern, and I shall h ave no greater happiness than if I succeed in it a little.29

Chapter 2

Durkheim 's Milieu

33

The realities of the Third Republic were o f course less elevated, and its operational consensus proved to be purely negative. Astute, if cynical, observer-participants like Adolphe Thiers were able to see this fro m the very beginning. The m o n archist Right, which in the 1 870s had proved unable to settle upon a compromise fo rmula reconciling the houses of Bourbon and Orleans, accepted the Republic faute de mieux. After the Dreyfus Af­ fair, resistance fro m the Right b e came increasingly militant. The far Left was equ ally unable to propose a constructive alternative to existing policies. Between these two extremes, most of those who agreed upon a democratic and republican form of government did so with the tacit assumption that politics would not disturb the basic configuration of vested interests in society. Symboli cally, the French legislature held its meetings i n a "house without windows." French labor legislation remained the most backward of the "advanced" industrial societies. And French society continued to be highly gendered and stratifi ed, with little equality of opportunity, less equality of reward, and no positive consensus on the legitimate n ature of the social structure or political regime. The b oundaries of invidious distinction between socially distant and uncooperative cl asses continued to b e defined with rhe Cartesian rigor so accurately described b y Tocqueville in his Ancien regime. The youthfu l promise of the Republic turned i n creasingly into the senile reality of a detached, deadlocked democracy superimposed upon a stalemated society.30 In this context, there was little chance of developing social and p o litical institutions which could viably control the disruptive effe cts of the industrial revolution: memories of the great Revolution cre­ ated expectations which heightened unrest. The precise nature of the economy and of its impact upon society in Durkheim's France is a complex subject that engages experts in debate. In the famous dictum o f ] o h n Clapham, France underwent industrialization without having a full-fl edged i n dustrial revolution.3 1 The rate of economic change in France until the 1 9 50s was not comparable t o that of G e rmany or England, but the degree of disparity has o ften been exaggerated. Durkheim tended to see the problem of industrialization within the broad context of modern society as a whole. B u t , during his own lifetime, the rate of change i n F ranee itself, especially in the concentration of indus tty, was probably more rapid than it had ever been, and its effects were quite perceptible to the sensitive observer. I n fact, the unbalanced nature of the

34

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

economic transformation i n France exacerbated problems common to all industrial societies. The one area of modern l i fe in which the family retained extensive social control in France depended on the role of the bourgeois family firm in the economy.32 In the large sector of the economy dominated by relatively small family firms, production was restricted and prices were kept high to defend the social position and honor of the family unit. Thus workers were deprived even of the gains they might have expected fro m increases i n productivity and t h e imperatives of mass consumption i n a privately owned and operated economy.33 In a famous critique of the Annee sociologique school, A. L. Kroeber stressed the repugnance of the Durkheimians for field work.34 E. E. Evans-Pritchard took up this plaint and extended its scope: "One sometimes sighs - if only Tylor, Marett, Durkheim and the rest of them could have spent a few weeks among the people about whom they so freely wrote!"35 Whatever the justice of this sentiment with respect to Australian aborigines or American Indians, it overlooked the fact that a sociologist like D urkheim did have a direct "field" experience of one massive phenomenon in world history: the transformation of modern societies through industrializati on.36The attempt to make sociological sense of the complex events he beheld firsthand was basic to Durkheim's De La Division du travail social and Le Suicide, and it remained a fundamental issue in his Les formes elementaires de la vie religieuse. Within the context of his own society, D urkheim's intent was to eliminate the basic causes of social "pathology" and propose ways to achieve a positive consensus through the viable realization of values adequate to the conditions of modern social life. Although his own sphere of immediate concern was largely confined to the educational system, D u rkheim did not believe that reforms restricted to the initiatives of an educational and scientific estate were sufficient. He undoubtedly shared Gambetta's b elief that a democratic repub­ lic could not endure "without distributing education with both hands."37 But Durkheim recognized clearly that uncoordinated partial responses to major social problems would in all probability aggravate pathological conditions instead of alleviating them. Changes i n education and in the social attitudes of educators could be effective only in conjunction with changes of a basic structural nature in the primary source of social problems in modernity- the economic and occupational spheres. Durkheims corporatist proposals were addressed to this problem.

Chapter 2

Durkheim 's Milieu

35

A measure of positive consensus stemming fro m similar social origins and philosophical convictions did characterize the educational leaders who formed D urkheim's immediate reference group. One fact emerges when one examines the b ackgrounds of key figures in the educational system who, like Durkheim, were genuinely committed to working toward the creation of a social and political order based u p o n republican ideals. I n disproportionately signifi cant numbers, they were self-made men fro m marginal s o c i a l groups i n traditionally Catholic a n d status-conscious France. These men were afforded the opportunity to rise to positions of prominence in the nation through the involvement of more traditional elites i n the vicissitudes of the Second Empire, the futile maneuverings of pro - m o n archists in the 1 870s, and, most i m p o rtant, the allegiance of traditional elites to anti-republican ideologies. With the achievement of established positions, these newer men assumed an attitude of" reasonable" reformism that, especially after the Dreyfus Affair, was i ncreasingly open to the infl uence of mysti que. Durkheim and certain of his collaborators on the Annee sociologique were of Jewish a n cest ry. We have already n o ted Durkheim's rabbinical heritage, which was shared by his nephew Marcel Mauss. We know, moreover, the primary scientifi c importance Durkheim attributed to the Annee sociologique: " B ecause it embraces the entire domain of science," Durkheim wrote, "the Annee has been able, better than any special work, to impart the sentiment of what sociology must and can become."38 B u t aside fro m its scientific importance and its r o l e i n the Republic, t h e A n nie school fo rmed "almost a spiritual family united by the bond o f a common method and a common admiration for its maitre. "39 This "little society sui generis, the clan of the Annee sociologique,"40 seemed to represent in the minds and h e arts of its members a prototype of what the professional group could be in modern society - a supplementary kinship, a truly soli­ dary corps combining community and a mutual respect fo r individuality. As Marcel Mauss recalled: " T h e A n n ee was not sim ply a publication and the work of a team. Around i t we formed a 'group' i n all the force of the term . " 41 In sharp contrast with the psychoanalytic movement, the A nnee school was not marked by extreme sibling rivalry and revolts against the symb olic father. (It was also less compli cated and representative of the larger society than the psychoanalytic movement, for example, in that i t

36

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

contained no women and generated n o significant internal challenges to D urkheim's authority.) For its members the Annie seemed almost to b e an intemporal moment p arfait. Jules Ferry, perhaps the foremost figure i n educational reform under the Third Republic, d i d not quite fit into the pattern of the "marginal man." From the upper-bourgeois Protestant establishment in the Vosges, he mar­ ried (late in life) a woman fro m the Protestant patriciate of Mulhouse. But the men with whom he surrounded himself were largely fro m smaller Protestant families, and they were more impregnated than the rather bu­ reaucratic "cold fi sh" Ferry with the pietist spirit fo und in Kant himself. Of the men assisting Ferry, especially significant was the trinity of Ferdinand Buisso n , J u l es Steeg, and Felix Pecaut.42 These three came to France fro m Switzerland. Steeg and Pecaut had been Protestant m i n isters, and Buisson a teacher. Ferry appointed Buisson ("my very dear friend, the apple of my eye") Director of Primary Education. His role in the Republic has b een described as that of "lay high priest."43 In 1 8 9 8 he was elected president of the Ligue pour Ia D efense des Droits de ! ' H o m m e (League for the D efense of the Rights of M an ).44 This voluntary association, of which Durkheim was an active memb er, had been founded by Clemenceau during the D reyfus Afir to combat the anti-Dreyfusards. Buisson had been appointed in 1 8 9 6 to the chair in the Science of Education at the Sorbonne, where he was replaced upon his election to the Chamber of Deputies i n 1 902 b y Durkheim. Jules Steeg also became a deputy, and finally Inspector G eneral of Pub­ lic Instruction. Into the task of developing a program of moral and civic instruction in the school system, he poured his immense store of spiritual e nergy. Like Durkheim, he was the author of w orks o n moral education. Prominent among his contrib utions to this favorite genre of the period was a Cours de morale a !'usage des instituteurs. Perhaps the most interesting figure i n this group was Felix Pecaut. He was the exemplar of neo-Kantian morali ty, liberal Protestantism , t h e culte de la patrie, and a democratic civic spirit. H e was appointed by Ferry to head the ecole normale for institutrices at Fontenay-les-Roses, one of the schools designed to free the women of France fro m the i nfl uence of the Church. Fontenay-les-Roses has been described as "the sweet lay convent where Pecaut was the fl sher of souls."45 Pecaut was the author of a very interest-

Chapter 2

Durkheim 's Milieu

37

ing article on Durkheim, which seized with penetration the contemporary import of D urkheim's theory of religion that was of special interest to men like himself: The secret finality [of rites] was not to be expressions of faith b u t t h e means b y which t h e moral experience i s created a n d re-created . . . . In the heart of religion, one always fi nds the multiform experience of the moral conscience . . . . In our time we have asked o urselves if a morality without religion could j ustify i tself in the eyes of reason and especially i f it could take hold of men's hearts. To this troubled question, Durkheim answers that there is only one morality, created by society, but which may be thought either theological�y or positive&, that is with reference either to G o d or to s o ciety . . . . The d i fference is in the form of the representation, not in its object . . . . And how could posi rive morality fai l to act upon men's hearts, since at the basis of religion, there is unknown t o it the action upon individual consciences of the collective conscience?46 Two men were above all others i nstru m e n t a l 11 the d i ffu s i o n of Durkheimian sociology and social philosophy throughout the educational system: Louis Liard and Paul Lapie. In addition to the contexts in which he has already been mentioned, Liard had a hand in the introduction of Durkheimism in secondary schools before World War I . Furthermore, he invited Durkheim to lecture at the Ecole Normale Superieure to candidates for the agregation. From these lectures came the posthumously published Evolutio n p t!dagogique en France ( 1 9 3 8 ) . Paul Lapie came under Durkheim's infhtence as a professor at B o rdeaux, and he subsequently became an active member of the Annee sociologique school. He continued Durkheim's work as Director of Primary Education, rector of the Academy of Paris, and edi­ tor of the Revue p edagogique. After World War I , his great innovation was the introduction of Durkheimian sociology into the curriculum of insti­ tuteurs i n the state normal schools. Thus Durkheim's ideas could b e fou n d at all levels o f t h e educational system. A critic o f the r i m e observed: "The requirement that M. Durkheim's sociology be taught in the two hundred normal schools of France is among the gravest perils to w hich our country is subjected."47 Even the s h arp and witty Th ibaudet remarked, in his Re­ p ublique des proftsseurs:

38

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

The introduction of the teaching of sociology i n our normal schools for imtituteurs by Paul La pie, upright and militant layman [laique ], the lineal descendent o f the Buisson, Pecaut, and Steeg of the Re­ public, m a rked a m ost i m p o rtant date on the sundial of republican spiritual power. Through this measure, the state, in its schools, fur­ nished to imtituteurs what the Church in its seminaries fu rnished to the adversaries of the imtituteurs: a theology. Lapie beli eved that the instituteurs would react criti cally to this teaching. Not at all. They reacted theologically. 48 To appreciate the element of truth in Thibaudet's characterization of the fu nction o f D u rkheimism among imtituteurs, one need only read the actual statement of a teacher who enunciated the lesson he derived fro m Durkheim: '"D urkheim? ' certain people sneer. 'That no longer catches on. Speak to us of neo-Thomism.' I'm not disturbed by this attitude. The vain resurrection of old medieval catechisms will long h ave disappeared when Durkheimism will still be standing."49 The personalities and ideas of the professor-philosopher-administrators Liard and Lapie show the extent of their afflnity with Durkheim. 50 Louis Liard is often credited with h aving made over the universities i n France almost single-handedly. In his Souvenirs d' unepetite enfance, Liard described with warmth his adolescence i n Falaise, Normandy: his love for churches b u i l t in the M iddle Ages, the wooden houses dating fro m t h e flfteenth century, the ruins of the castle of the dukes o f N o rmandy, and above all the old college built in the shadow of the ancient fortress. His own instituteurs instilled i n him a taste for study through their selfl ess devotion to a calling devoid of personal ambition and a concern for getting aheadY In 1 8 6 6 (with the same promotion as Buisson), Liard entered the Ecole Normale Superieure and became a disciple of Jules Lachelier, and, through him, of Renouvier. Liard's thesis, " G eometrical Definitions and Empirical Definitions," was an excellent expression of the Cartesianized neo-Kantian­ ism of the Republic; i t was dedicated to Lachelier. Another work, Positive Science and Metaphysics ( 1 8 7 8 ) , centered on the idea that "to negate the reality of the ideal is to negate our own reali ty. " Liard went o n to argue i n very Durkheimian fashion that "the social fu nction of metaphysics i s to keep up the faith in an ideal and to arrest two contrary but equally deadly errors: the weakening of activity and utilitarian fever."52

Chapter 2

Durkheim 's Milieu

39

Under the Second Empire, Liard bad been so militantly republican that he was dismissed fro m his E rst teaching position and kept constantly under the surveillance of the imp erial police. When he became, like Durkheim and La pie after him, a professor at Bordeaux, h e was overwhelmed by the parlous state of higher education. In his Histoire de l'enseignement superieur (History of Higher Education), he described how courses were opened up to the general public i n order to E ll seats for which there were not enough students. The audience recruited in this way was a curious medley of bon bourgeois with nothing to do and beggars in search of a warm place for a few hours. Liard's taste for organization manifested itself at B o rdeaux, where he not only recast the structure of his own courses b u t also drew up plans for the new Faculty of Medicine a n d Pharm acy. H e fo llowed "always t h e same method: a priori determination of the n e e d s o f each Faculty i n order to deduce the proper installations." In L iard's own words, "The method of my administrative work has always been the Cartesian method."53 At the request o f Ferry, the post of Director of Higher Education which was vacated in 1 8 8 4 was fllled by Liard. " ' Yo u will make the French universi­ ties,' Jules Ferry h ad t o l d hi m . That was exactly what he wanted t o do."54 Subsequently ( 1 902- 1 9 1 7 ) , Liard was rector of the University of Paris, a position in which Lapie was to succeed h i m . If the method of his ad­ ministrative work was Cartesian, its guiding principle was a variant of D urkheim's "organic solidarity. " From the lowest to the highest level and through o u t all departments and faculties, the University of France was to be characterized by solidaristic cooperation among its d i fferentiated parts in order to ensure "the realization of a superior fu nction - the intellectual and moral l i fe of the nation."55 Like Durkheim, Liard had been left fatherless very early i n life. His m o ther, of old Norman stock, was tender and austere, and lived constantly with the idea of death. She had even selected the wood for her coffl n . "She taught her son that one thing was worse than death. Watching a funeral p rocessi o n pass by in fro n t of them , she said: 'I would rather see you bur­ ied than see you fail to do your duty' ."56 After a life of duty and devotion to a cause, Liard experienced World War I as an unbearable shock which hastened his death. He consented to being con£ ned to bed on! y when "the categorical imperative commanded h i m to retire." In 1 9 1 7 , he died of "total exhausti on. "57

40

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

The son o f an instituteur, Paul Lapie retained throughout his l i fe the mystique of the e d u ca tor's calling with which h i s father had imbued him. Andre Fontaine recalled that when Lapie was first appointed a �ycee pro­ fessor, Fontaine had remarked: "I d o n't know what Lapie's career will be, but I see him very well in the position of Liard . . . . At that time as always I b e l i eved Liard to b e the greatest university leader we have ever h a d . "58 As a professor at B o rdeaux and as a high administrative official, La pie continued to seek the society of humble imtituteurs, and h e genuinely shared their serieux de la vie. H e combined the typical republican personality traits of a n austere exterior and repressed sentiment: for him too the categorical imperative was a sort of symbolic father. F elix Pecaut recalled the impact on republican intellectuals of Lapie's editorial i n the Revue p edagogique entitled 'Soyons durs' ['Let's Be Hard' ] . Hard on o urselves - that goes without saying."59 On the desk in his offi ce Lapie kept a photograph of Victor Brochard, a blind paralytic teacher who continued to give his courses until his death. La pie made trips to The Hague to honor the memory of perhaps his favorite philosopher, Spinoza. His thesis was entitled "The Logic of the Will." In it, he defended the proposition that the will in the service of reason always tends toward j usti ce and self-sacrifi ce. He rejected the utilitarian cor­ relation of reason, will, and self-interest. Under the influence o f D u rkheim a t B o rdeaux, La pie became attached t o the idea that logic and social ethics had to be sociologically fed by facts and comparative analyses. He went on to write Timisian Civilization , Women and the Family, Fo r Reason (on the rationalist function of secular education), and, after the D reyfus Af­ fair, justice through the State. I n the last work, La pie argued that the role of the state was n o t to increase its own power or to maximize individual economic activity. It was to assure the reign of j ustice. Judicial authority was the very prototype oflegitimate public authority i n the struggle against injustice. This doctrine implied the necessity of an economic "magistracy" of the state to fur ther social justice. A tireless worker, Lapie "was hard to the point of dying fro m it, and when he finally consented to being confined t o bed, it was never t o rise again." 6 0 O n his deathbed, La pie uttered the sentence: "This bed tyrannizes over me."61 O n e of the last t i m es L a p i e left home in s p i t e of severe i l lness was to go to the Societe Franc;:aise de Philosophie t o hear a report o n the teaching of French i n B u e n o s Aires.

Chapter 2

Durkheim s Milieu

4!

A personality type emerges almost o f its own accord from these sketches of republican educators and intellectuals who were D u rkheim's peers. B u t a b i t more attention must b e p a i d to their attitudes and ideas. Within the relatively stabilized context of the Third Republic, Durkheim and his peers constituted a reform group that sought structural consensus without resort to violent revolution. The Weltanschauung of republican leaders was a n amalgam of liberal democracy, neo-Kantian spiritualism, and "an immense and grave patriotism, a passionate and somewhat sad attachment to a patrie which they wished to make more beautiful, greater, more worthy, and more self-conscious than i t is. "62 The Rep ublic was n o t only the bureaucratic provider o f careers t o satisfy all legitimate ambitions; i t was to provide "a great a n d efficacious lesson in m o ra l digni ty. "63 T h e moral philosophy of Kant, which was dominant among republican intel­ lectuals, had received its more Cartesian, readily assimilable, and socially relevant formulation in the works of Charles Renouvier. Indeed, the i d e as of Renouvier played for the short-lived democratic republic of 1 8 4 8 a role similar to the ideas of Durkheim in the Third Republic. For what i t was wo rth, a co n t e m p o rary mot had it t h at " Durkh e i m i sm is sti ll Kantianism but reviewed and completed by Comteanis m . " 64 The resultant was a crystallization of the archetypical idea of the repub­ lican institution that would assure social consensus and solidarity through a coordination of the educational system, the occupational sphere, and the state under the supreme auspices of a humanistic, universalistic p u b l i c philoso phy. Within t h i s ideological context, o n e can see clearly emerging an ecumenical spirit in religion and philosophy as well as a reorientation of liberal Protestantism i n the direction of civic consciousness, community spirit, and even a socially, morally, and aesthetically grounded interest in ritual. Moral philosophy increasingly became the religion of mass democ­ racy and its conception of the essence of all religion. The Enlightenment nexus of philosophe and citizen replaced the medieval u n i o n of priest and king and, one might add, t h e m o re pri m i tive b o n d between poet and sorcerer. The pedagogical effect was the perception of moral education as the common core of all education. And sociology, for Durkheim, had an intimate relation to p edagogy insofar as sociology was a ground work for moral education. D urkheim took as h i s own special task the attempt to

42

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

"discover the rational substitutes for these religious notions which for so long h ave served as the vehicle for the most essential of moral ideas. "65 B u t a rational conception of morality could n o t merely cut away religious beliefs. The one Comtean dictum Durkheim always upheld was the idea that one should destroy only what one could replace. This dictum dis­ tanced him from a variant of anarchism prevalent at his time and quite important i n French intellectual and cultural history down to the pres­ ent.66 Although Durkheim at fi rst conceived his project as an attempt to present moral forces in their "rational nudity . . . without recourse to any mythological intermedi ary," his idea of rationalism was later expanded to include a type of mythology which, in his eyes, complemented reason instead of contradicting it. Society itse lf, in his thought, e m e rged at times as an object of belief or even a mythical enti ty. Within the republican institution and its rationalist cult, the function of the teacher as a consensus builder became central. As Durkheim saw it, the teacher's mission was to select and disseminate "those principles which in spite of all divergences are from this time on the b asis of our civiliza­ tio n , i m p l i citly or explicitly co m mo n to a l l , and which few would dare to deny: respect for reason, for science, for the ideas and sentiments which are the b asis of our democratic m orali ty. "67 The aura of mystique which enveloped this conception of the educator's function i s diffi cult to convey. In a magnifi cent phrase o f C anivez, the classroom was "le lieu de discours retenus" (the place for hushed discourse).68 For Durkheim, as fo r s o many other republican intellectuals, the teacher gathered u p in his chalk-marked hands the lingering strands of the sacerdotal traditi on: What constitutes the authority w h i c h colors s o readily the word of the priest is the elevated idea h e has of his mission; for he speaks in the name o f a god in whom h e believes and to whom he feels closer than the crowd of the profane. The lay teacher can and must have something of this sentiment. He too is the o rgan of a great moral person who transcends him: this is society. Just as the priest is the interpreter of his god, so the teacher is the interpreter of the great moral ideas of his time and country.69 Thus t h e unique, sym b o l i cally charged contribution of D u rkheim to republican ideas was the elaboration of a relatively consistent theory of

Chapter 2

Durkheim s Milieu

43

morality as the institutional and ideological basis o f solidarity in society. Not all republican intellectuals who constituted D u rkheim's privileged audience agreed w ith this conception of morality. The fine fleur of French neo-Kantian spiritualism subjected Durkheim to a constant b arrage of criticism, including face-to-face encounters i n the Societe Fran c;:aise de Philosophie. This reaction t o Durkheim manifested the tenuous basis of consensual pub lic philosophy among educators in a country like France, where despite - or perhaps b ecause of - the extremely centralized and bureaucratized educational system, thinkers have a penchant for dialectical disagreement if only for the sake of m arginal differentiation. Durkheim's celebrated "Determination du fai t moral" of 1 90 6 (included in his Sociologie et philosophie) provoked an exte nsive "oui, mais" type of discussion that cov­ ered approximately one hundred densely printed pages of the Bulletin de !a Societe Fram;aise de Philosophie. The evocation of his own lycee education by the last o f Durkheim's truly militant disciples i n France, Armand Cuvillier, is signifi cant in this respect. Instead of concentrating on the social context of morality i n D urkheimian fashion, his philosophy professor, the gadfly G ustave Belot, would direct h is "sarcasms against the 'conscience collective,' which he called 'l'i nconscience collective,' and against those states of primi tive conformism where 'everybody admits what n o one has really thought' ."70 The criticisms of Durkheim by his contemporaries were often cogent and induced by the ambiguities of Durkheim himself, which at times were great enough to qualify him as whipping boy in introductory philosophy classes. Subsequent criticisms have often unknowingly recapitulated ideas of Durkhei m's own peers. Indeed, the charge of sophistry had sufficient staying power to receive an echo in Raymond Aron's 1 9 67 analysis of D u rkheim's thought.7 1 But something more must have been involved in the reluctance of Durkheim's contemporaries to separate his b asic point of view fro m the terminological husk in which it o ften was conveyed. The fundamental reason was that members of the republican elite were often committed to spiritual and moral variants of extreme individualism that at times implied a secularized Protestant metaphysic. The relationship b e tween the individual and the ideal was conceived on the model of a n un­ mediated nexus having little to do with solidarity in society. This tendency was manifested in the infl uential metaphysic of Bergson's Two Sources of Religio n and Morality ( 1 9 3 2 ) , written partially i n reaction to Durkheim's

44

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

Elementary Forms o[the Religious L�fe ( 1 9 1 2) . And one fou n d the taste for the individualism of an inwardness transcending society even in the doc­ tri n e of Alain, with its practical reformulation of the Cartesian mind-body dualism. Alain presented the role of the individual in society as a negative conformism which said "yes" with the body to external constraints, b u t an eternal, soul-saving "no" with the spirit. Such notions generated resistance to Durkheim's idea that society was a solidary whole greater than the sum of its p arts and to the analytic concepts which made theoretical sense of this idea: social structure, conscience collective as its psychological ground i n the personality, norm, a n d type. Durkheim, in brief, tended to shift Kant's noumenal sphere in the direction of the conscience collective of society and to situate the transcendental ego as a subject com m un icating with other subjects in society. Indeed, secular debates a b o u t t h e individual and society (like later debates about the sign and meaning) tended to displace religious anxieties about the relation (or nonrelation) b etween the transcendent and the immanent status of the sacred. The horrifi ed reaction to Durkheim's initiative of a thinker who was perhaps the best technical philosopher of his time i n F r a n c e set the to n e . I n a letter to Durkheim's o w n philosophy professor Emile Bou troux, Jules Lachelier wrote of an earlier theorist of solidarity: Yo u must have read in the Revue philosophique a very curious article of Marion on the prehistoric fami ly. All that, as I told you the other evening, is fri ghtening, and when it h as really co m e to pass, we must insist that it has not come to pass, that history is an illusion and the past a projection and that there is nothing true except the absolute. There we have perhaps the solution of the problem of the miracle: it is the legend which i s true and history which is false.72 The intellectual and academic cause a!lebre of Durkheim's own day, which opposed h i m to a prominent figure of the Republic, moved on a level less elevated than that of the absolute and of ten less interesting than that which separated history and legend. This was his notorious debate with G abriel Tarde, which, like the great debates in the scholastic tradition that it evoked, divided students into two hostile intellectual camps. In contrast with Durkhei m's focus upon social structure and impersonal processes in history, Tarde's stress was on the spontaneity and inventiveness of the in-

Chapter 2

Durkheim s Milieu

45

novative individual.73 Yet - as Charles Blonde! has shown i n detail i n his Introduction a ia psychologie collective - the heat of personality and dia­ lectic frequently prevented Durkheim and Tarde fro m realizing the extent to which their problems were complementary. In fact, the thought of the early Durkheim and ofhis o p p o n ent Tarde (who died in 1 904) represented two halves of a divided entity - the exteriority and constraint of fo rmal institutions and the repressed emotion and inwardness of the individual personality. Only after Tarde's death did Durkheim seem to recognize the "pathogenic" nature of this dichotomy i n its extreme forms and propose a model of the "normal" society that combined normative discipline with spontaneous commitment, and the internalization of norms with a margin of a n o m i e that allowed for individual creativity. The substantive issues involved in the Durkheim-Tarde debate were com promised by a severe personality confl ict. Tarde himself was very much the grasshopper to the neo-Kantian ant i n Durkheim. His career pattern and style of thought were quite different fro m those of D urkheim. In contrast with D urkheim, who regularly ascended through the "normal" institutional channels to a professo rship at t h e Sorbonne, Tarde m oved laterally fro m t h e extra-academic vantage p o i n t of a high place in t h e French magistracy and salon s o ciety into the penthouse of the French scholarly world: the Col­ lege de France. His more fl amboyant way of life had its counterpart in the carefree, essayistic, and almost impressionistic style of the works in which he developed his i d e a of the role of the individual in society. As Charles Blonde! has aptly put it: [Tarde] does not have the superstition of order and logic: h e writes notes, articles, and, gathering them together, he inserts a few j o ints and makes of the whole a book. A certain dilettantism gives h i m t h e ability to smile a n d dictates to him the m o s t alert a n d piquant fo rmu las on the gravest subjects: "Obedience to duty offers two advantages: it absolves you often of the need for foresight [p revoy­ ance] and always of the need for success. "74 If the controversies opposing Durkheim to republican intellectuals seem in retrospect to h ave the air of family quarrels, the opposition m anifested on the Right was more serious and deeply rooted. The Right i n Durkheim's France was a complex phenomenon which an outstanding analytic histo-

46

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

rian of the period has treated in terms of "anti-revolutionary fo rces which were negative enough to want to go back to the years b efore 1 7 89, and the counter-revolutionary forces, which accepted some fr uits of the Revolution but reacted against certain o f its historical consequences ."75 The more intransigent and doctrinaire antirevolutionary fo rces fou n d their theoretical forebears i n traditionalists l i k e Maistre and Bonald. These conservatives a o u trance, who formed, i n Com te's famo u s phrase, the "Im­ mortal Retrograde School" of social theory, became (at times along with Comte himself) the inspiration for later reactionary movements such as the Actio n Franc;:aise. Charles M a urras, the founder of this movement, was of course a self-styled disciple of Comte. Born in the opposition to the Dreyfusard victo ty, the Action Franqaise not only m o b i lized forces hostile to D urkheim's Republic ("Ia gueuse" - "the slut" - the favorite epithet of Maun·as) but also eventually became a m ainstay of the Vichy government. The Third Republic of Durkheim's time was, moreover, the locus not only of the traditional currents ofJ acobin and liberal patriotism o n the Left and of anti-D reyfusard "integral nationalism" on the Right but also of a newer a n d m o re radical nationalism which began to m anifest itself about 1 90 5 and reached its prewar climax in 1 9 1 1 . For a historian of this movement, it was the result of one-upmanship in patriotic asser­ tions ( from which only the Socialist Party managed to refrain), and it was socially based in the lower middle classes of Paris b efore spreading to the provinces after the Agadir incident 76 Thus to some extent the protofascist nationalism which was to feed the "league" movement after World War I had its origins in the prewar period. T h o s e who placed D u rk h e i m i n the tra d i t i o n o f such c o n servative t h inkers as M ai s t r e and B onald - n o t to s p e ak of f ascjsm - were n o t only totally insensitive t o D urkhe im's own h j s t o r ical context b u t p ro n e to mistake s u p e rficial analogjes for p rofound h i s t o r i cal conti­ n u i t i es . l7 C e r ta i n ly, D urkh e i m stressed s u c h t h e m e s a s c o m m u n i ty, a u t h o r jty, a n d t h e desi rab i l ity o f a s i gn i fi c a n t m e as u re o f h i s t o r i cal c o n t i n u i ty. B u t in h i s t h o ug h t t h e y were related to a refo r m i s t p r o j ­ ect. T h e s u b s t antive c ontext i n t o w h i c h D u r k h e j m i ntegrated t h e s e t h e m e s w a s that of r e p u b li ca n d e mo c r a cy a n d i n di v i d u a l auton o m y p e r mi t t j n g free acceptance o f n o r m ative structures involving, n o t rigid h i erarchy, b u t p a r t i c i p a t i o n a n d representatjon. T h e intellectual

Chapter 2

Durkheim s Milieu

47

fea t o f D urkheim w a s to attempt to disengage certain general, i f n o t universal, v a l u e s s u c h a s community a n d t h e n e e d for s o c i a l discipline from reactionary h istorical longings a n d to reconcile t he s e values w i t h s p e c i fically modern needs, thereby averting s u ch "sociological monstrosities" as later emerged i n fascis m . T h e one p ar t i al but sig­ n i ficant e x c e p t i o n to t h is generalization is D u r k h e i m's treatment ( o r n o ntreatment) o f i s s u e s relating to gender, sexual relations, and t h e role o f w o m e n w h er e h i s i d e a s remained b as i cally traditional a n d h e resisted o r avoided p o s s ib ilities o f analysis and c r i t i q u e suggested b y other dimensions o f h i s t h o u g h t . T h e counterrevolutio nary movement i n D urkheim's France took the forms of liberalism and B o n apartism in politics and of liberal Cat h o l icism in religion. More pragmatic in tenor than the antirevolutionary movement, it resisted only selected aspects of the Revolution, whose social and eco­ nomic impli cations were opposed by liberalism, and democratic and liberal implications by Bonapartism. Liberal Catholics demanded the right of the disestablished Church to run its own schools. Since any extensive analysis would be beyond the scope of this study, it is sufficient to note that the more liberal demands (manifested in Pope Leo Xl l l 's call for ralliement of Catholics to the Republic and Marc S angnier's social idealism) received little implementation in the Church in D urkheim's time. The alliance of the far Right and the Catholic Church, which continued the reactionary alliance of throne and altar, confronted the newly formed Republic with extremist obduracy. It was met in kind, with the predictable result that both sides tended to escalate their demands in a bitter syndrome of action and reac­ tion. "Church and State were torn apart, not neatly separated: and poli tical b itterness was fed with new fu el."78 The threat from the far Right b efore the Dreyfus Affair was aggravated by the fact that the mili tary and upper echelons of the state bureaucracy (including the Conseil d'Etat at the highest level) were staffed in significant numbers by men of reactionary leanings. As Alain put it, with some exag­ geration, i n 1 906: " I n France, there are a great number of radical voters, a certain number of radical deputies, and a very small number of radical ministers: as for the chefi de service, they are all reactionary. The person who understands this well holds the key to our politics."79 The ultimate clash between the Right (merging the forces of the Church, the Army, the upper

48

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

bureaucracy, and anti-Semitism) and the Republic (momentarily coalescing the forces of the Left) was of course the Dreyfus Affair. David Thomson has summarized the core issue in this confrontation, which appeared as an apocalyptic moment of truth to all the adversaries: The fact that Dreyfus was a Jew, and that his condemnation led to a wider drive by the authoritarian mili tarists and clericals to exclude not merely Jews but Protestants and Republicans from positions of military and admin istrative power, raised the issue in dramatic fo rm. It was a clash of rival absolutisms - a challenge of intolerance which bred an equally severe intolerance amongst the Radicals and Freemasons, the anti-clericals and Socialists. Democracy had clearly to be a social and political order based on common citizenship and civilian rights within the Republic: or else it would b e replaced by an authoritarian, hierarchic order, dominated by Church and privileged ruling classes in Army and Civil Service. French logic interpreted the confl ict in these clear terms, and the battle began.3 0 A crucial long-range problem involved in the ideological confrontation of the Right and the Republic was the control of education. "The separation [of Church and State] was only the negative part of an ideal of which the positive part, or rather the counterpart, implied the reunion of the school and the State . "8 1 The effort of the Republic to purge the Church from the educational system engendered the related problems of teachers, curriculum, and moral education. The clergy and its spiritual infl uence had to be re­ placed. We have noted Durkheim's priestly conception of the lay teacher - the "b lack Hussar" of the Republic, in Charles Peguy's telling phrase. With respect to the curricu lum, it is important to recognize the historical correlation of classical education and conservatism in Durkheim's France. This association led a contemporary observer to quip that the Republic faced two "social questions": the relation of capital and labor and Latin verse.82 The historical association of the defense of a classical education, of conservative politics, and of a highly stratified social order was the concrete basis for Du rkheim's sustained attacks upon dilettantism and Renaissance humanism as antimodern tendencies subservient to the interests of a small elite. Durkheim's conception of reform comprised the democratization of education and a curriculum that would give students, along with a necessary

Chapter 2

Durkheim 's Milieu

49

b a ckground in general culture, the type of training that would prepare them for specialized functi ons in modern society. Yet it has not been recognized to how great an extent the spirit of classical philosophy remained the foundation of Durkheim's social philosophy. Suicide, with its emphasis on the sense of legitimate limits and its intimation of an institutio nally furthered "golden mean" in social life, owes much to the classical tradition. It is synoptically useful tho ugh excessively stereotypical to frame the question of the relation o f Durkheim's Republic to the Church i n terms of contrasts: instituteur versus cure; social and na rural science versus the classics; social and moral philosophy versus old-time religi o n . In any case, a fu rther point must b e made concerning Durkheim's position on the church-state con troversy and the battle over educati o n : he never made an express political pronouncement on this issue. He indeed labeled the Catholic Church "a monstrosity from the sociological point of view."83 But he directed this comment against the extremely b ureaucratic, centralized, and h ierarchical organizati onal structure of the Church. In the same vein, he p u t forth a critique that applied to his own Republic: "A society composed of an infinite dust of unorganized in dividuals which an hypertrophied state tries to hem in and restrain consti tutes a veritable sociological monstrosity. "84 His positive concern in both i nstances was the creation of solidaristic groups in which communal values would be reconciled with institutional organization and respect fo r the rights of the individual. In addition, one did not find in Durkheim the offended, vengeful spirit of the ex-seminarian Emile Combes or the crude positivism embodied in Paul Bert's comparisons of the clergy to the phylloxera blight which d estroyed the vines of France, and of the law imposing restrictive state regulation on religious establishments to healing copper sulfate. Nothing was more alien to Durkh eim's spirit than penny-ante Voltairianism. The basic inspiration of Durkheim's conception of religion was ecumenical. And he ultimately recognized, however tendentiously, the necessity of special symbo lisms of a mythical nature insofar as they co m pl emented rather than contradicted the general rational values basic to consensus i n modern society. For different reasons, the social metaphysic which was his own ultimate explanatory approach to religious symbolism was offensive both to students of culture who saw religion analytically "from the outside" and to believ­ ers who experienced religion "from the inside." B ut the practical thrust of

50

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

his thought within his own historical context was to offe r the Church the same sort of !iving arrangement it had offered to prior religions i n occupied territory: tolerance for their symbolic forms i f they accepted its basic mes­ sage. Catholicism, in other words, had to become a nondisruptive part of a larger social consensus. The classical conservative indictment of the Republic, its philosophy, and its corps of instituteurs was Les Deracines ( The Uprooted), the ideological novel of Maurice B an·es. But the best illustration of Rightest reaction to Durkheim himself a n d his particular role i n the Republic was the report of "Agathon," the pseu donym of Henri Massis and the son of G abriel Tarde, the more status-conscious Alfred de Tarde. This work85 was man ifes tly in­ spired by conservative pol itics, traditional religi o n , activist nationalism, and a romanticized, soci ally elitist defense of classical education. It claimed to represent the dominant opinion of French university students immedi ately before World War I. For the authors of the Agathon Report, Liard h a d made D urkheim "a sort of prefect of studies . . . the regent of the Sorbo nne, the all-power­ fu l maitre. " Durkheim's position o n key co m m ittees like the Conseil de I' Universite de Paris and the Comite Consultatif enabled him "to su rvey a l l appoi ntments in higher education." Under his iron rule, p rofessors of philosophy were "reduced to the simple role of functionaries." Pedagogy was D u rkheim's "own private domain." But sociology was b efo re all else the "one o ffi cial doctrine at the Sorbonne." Sociology had taken the place of the old phi losophy which had fallen fro m grace. It had become "the kingpin of the New Sorbonne." Moving from the conspiratorial indictment to the rhetorical question, the authors of the Agathon Report concluded by asking: "Who is there that does not feel the truly inhuman quality i n this debauchery of logic, these cold a n d deductive reveries, these misty analyses of concepts, and what p o o r food is offered to the avid heart and intelligence of students?"86 Attitudes toward Durkheim constitute d one area in wh ich extremes found ad hoc consensus in France. The standard Marxist categorization of Durkheim was that of "bourgeois Idealist," and the terms of criticism fre­ quently coincided with those of the Agathon Report. The most sustained, if savagely rhetorical, treatment of D urkheim and his milieu by (at least a pro tempore) French Communist close to the controversies of the time was

Chapter 2

Durkheim s Milieu

5I

in P a u l Nizan's Chiem de garde ( The Watchdogs) of 1 93 2 .87 In this youthful book, Nizan rewrote M arx's German Ideology to m ake it apply to intellectual and educational leaders i n the Third Republic. One of the most viciously unobtrusive of the "watchdogs" of the Republic was Durkheim, the "maitre of the Moral Fact." Durkheim was necessary for the b o urgeois university to enter into possession of its own doctrines: this strengthening of the spiritual situation, this passage fro m the vague to the dogmatic, from the obscure to the distinct, is rather well expressed in Durkheim's dec­ laration to Agathon in November 1 90 6 : "Let's get to work and i n three years we'll have a morality." They had it a l l right. This moral­ ity exists . . . . Everything really happened as if the founder of French sociology wrote the Division of Labor in Society to permit obscure administrators to compose a course of instruction destined for the instituteurs. The introduction of sociology into the normal schools consecrated the admini strative victory of o ffi cial morality . . . . In the name o f this science instituteurs teach children to respect the French patrie, to j ustify class collaboration, to accept everything, to commune in the cult of the Rag and b o urgeois democracy . . . . The manuals [of the Durkheim school], among other works, manifest the power of diffusion of this doctrine of obedience, of conformism, and of social respect which, with the years, has obtained such credit and such a numerous audience.88 To engage in rhetorical overstatement and to dismiss Durkheim in toto as yet one more "bo urgeois idealist" or airy h o use ideologue of the status quo was to lose sight of what he actually acco mplished. A real problem for an existentially relevant, living Marxism was the selective assimilation of the valid insights of a D u rkheim. B u t it is difficult not to sympathize with critics who found in Durkheim excessive abstractness, naive social optimism, and tendentious vagueness often combined with dogmatic as­ sertion. Despite his growing concern with modern "social pathology, " one problem Durkheim never broached in his pedagogical works was the pos­ s i b i l i ty that a sch o o l system in which teachers selected and dissemi nated consensual ideals might find itself specializing in the transmission of the type of myth that blinded people to social realities and laid inadequate factual bases for social reform. No doubt, D urkheim's own position in the

52

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

educational establishment contributed to the fact that the treatment of the diffi cult problem of means to effect the reforms he envisaged was perhaps the weakest chapter in his thought about modern society. He was forever vague about the type of practical activity that was related both to the acquisition of concrete knowledge and to the project of changing society i n a desirable direction. An open reckoning with Marx would have deepened Durkheim's penetration into modern institutions and ideologies. At the very least, it would have forced him to treat more adequately the role o f economic fac­ tors and social confl ict in modern life . Yet i n his sole extended discussion of Marxism (in a review of a work b y Antonio Labriola), Durkheim took special pains to insist that he had "not in the least undergone the influence of Marx."89 I ndeed the influence of Durkheim in French social thought was one reason w h y a systematic and derailed confrontation with Marx i n France was delayed until the 1 93 0s. What precisely was Durkheim's position i n the spectrum of practical politics? Marcel Mauss has characterized Durkheim's relationship to so­ cialism in the following terms: D u rk h e i m was q ui t e fam i l i ar with s o ci a l i s m at its very s o urces, thro ugh S a i n t- S i m o n , S c haeffle, and Karl Marx w h o m a F i nn­ ish fri e n d , N e i gl i c k , h ad advised h i m t o s t u d y d u r i n g h is s t a y in Leipzig. A l l h i s l i fe he w a s reluctant to a d h e re t o s o ci alism (properly s o -call e d ) b e cause of certain features o f this m ove­ m e n t : i t s v i o l e n t nature, its class character - n1 or e or less w o r k i ngmen's - and t h e r e fo r e its p o l itical and even p o l i t i ­ c i a n - l i k e t o n e . D u rk h e i m w a s p r o f o u n d l y o p p o s e d t o all w a r s of c l a s s or n at i o n . H e d e s i r e d c h a n g e o nl y for the b en e fi t of t h e w h o l e o f s o ciety a n d n o t o f o n e o f i t s p arts e v e n i f t h e latter h a d n u m b ers and for c e . H e c o n s i dere d p o l i ti c al revol u t i o n s a n d p a r l i a m e n t a r y e v o l u t i o n as s u p e rfi ci al , c o s tly, a n d m o re dramatic than s e r i o us . He t h e r e fo re always r e s i s t e d the i de a of s u b m i tt i n g himself to a party of p o li t ical d i s c i p l i n e , e s p e ci a l l y an i nternati o na l o n e . Even t h e s o ci al a n d p o l it i c a l crisis o f t he D re yfus Affa i r, i n w h i c h h e played a large p a r t , d i d n o t change his o p i n i o n . H e t h e refore remain e d u n c o m m i tt e d - he "syn1pathized" ( a s i t is n o w c a l l e d ) with t h e s o c i alists, w i t h J a ures, w i t h s ocialism. But h e never gave himself t o i t .90

Chapter 2

Durkheim 's Milieu

53

This precis of D u rkheim's attitude toward socialism b y his nephew and colleague must nonetheless be qualified. For one thing, Durkheim's ideas o n the possibilities o f corporatism in modern society included cer­ tain features of democratic socialism although his views might not go far enough to satisfy those who saw an unacceptable disproportion between the "numbers" or p utative "force" of certain segments of the population and the opportunity, income, and wealth allotted to them . D u rkheim defi nitely did not subscribe to any existing socialist viewpoint, but he did attempt to offer a substitute for existing viewpoints that, h e felt, integrated their desirable, and avoided their undesirable, aspects. H e a p p arently did not believe in the necessity or desirability o f apo calyptic, violent revolu­ tion in his own society or advanced industrial societies in general. B u t he did see a strong element of value in the French Revolution, although like Tocqueville h e was aware of the respects in which traits of the ancien regime continued into the present despite the Revolution. The Revolution had failed to realize its ideals i n institutions, b ut these ideals, which depended for their genesis and formulation on social unrest of revolutionary propor­ tions, were of lasti ng value i n m odern soci ety. And a d e m ocratic republic, which itself was a long-delayed fru i t of the Revolution, found a lifelong s upporter in D urkheim. On the whole, it would b e accurate to say that Durkheim found parlia­ mentary evolution sup erfi cial when politics b elied the promise of democracy by remaining within the structural confines that detached it from the real problems of society. To a large extent, politics in his own France did increas­ ingly fall into this category as the years wore o n . Toward the end of his life, Durkheim seemed to realize this. He contrasted, w e are told, the youthful hopes engendered by the golden age of the Republic with the actual nature of politics circa 1 9 1 4 : The "political kitchen" was always o d i o u s t o him and h e avoided questions of personality and coterie. G am b etta was to some extent his i d o l : if he liked h i m so m u ch, I think it was because of the large and generous spirit he found in h i m . Chatting with Durkheim i n 1 9 1 4, I heard h i m complain that pol itics had become " a very small and mediocre thing." H e had always wanted i t to be grand: that was the way he saw it in his youth 9 1

54

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

In another respect, it did not do to classify socialism as violent and p u rely working-class in Durkheim's time. Indeed the complexity of so­ cialism and of the problems to w hich it sought a n answer had a great deal to do with Durkheim's hesitancy. I n his own France, there was, for example, a measure of cooperation between the relatively small, weak, and internally divided trade-union movement and the parliamentary Socialist Party (composed mainly of bourgeois). B ut there was n o thoroughgoing integration on the model of the British Labour Party. The more violent strand of socialism, with its doctrinaire insistence upon class confl ict and fa luttefinale, was taken up by anarchosyndicalism. G eorges Sorel became its ex post facto theorist by b o rrowing fro m M arx's theory of classes and Durkheim's ideas on r e l i g i o n in a m a n n e r that was fa i thful to n e i t h e r Marx n o r D urkheim. T h e upshot w a s a lyrical eulogy o f t h e "myth o f the general strike" and the "poetry of social violence" which were to provide e ffervescent energy and empowerment, if not redemptive regeneration, for a working class in movement. Sorel's position came close to a despairing defense of an activist philosophy of violence independent of context and prob a b l e consequences - Ia politique du pire in i ts worst form. As G e o rge Lichtheim has argued, �arx himself rejected anarchosyndicalism as an immature reaction and increasingly came to a more reformist conception of effective social action i n advanced i n dustrial societies. France remained important to Marxism [in the period b e tween 1 8 7 1 and 1 9 1 8 ] not merely for the obvious reason, but because of its strategic position - at any rate down to the 1 8 90s - i n the propagation of M arxist doctrine. Contrary to a widespread notion it was the first major party where a significant section of the labour movement adopted a M arxist platform. This event took place in 1 8 8 0 , eleven years b efore the German S o c i a l Democrats followed s u i t . The platform was a "reformist" one, in that it tacitly repudiated the An­ archist preachment of armed violence and the indigenous Blanquist tradition of Parisian coups d'etat. Instead emphasis was laid on the need for the working class to build u p its organizations as the only basis of the coming collectivist order. This was a return to the classic document of the First International, the Inaugural Address [of 1 864] , and it marked the abandonment by M arx (who helped G uesde to draft the French party p rogramme) of his temporary infatuation with

Chapter 2

Durkheim 's Milieu

55

the utopianism o f the Paris Commune. It was precisely i n this sense that "M arxism" was then understood both by its adherents and by Bakunin's followers all over Europe.n Durkheim himself seems to h ave c o n t i n u e d to identify Marx and Marxism with doctrinaire intransigence about violent class conflict. He undertook his studies in soci alism i n part b e cause some of his most brilliant students were being converted t o Marxist forms of socialism. Mauss was undoubtedly correct in finding Durkheim's closest practical association to be with Jaures. (One might retrospectively add the name of the Leon Blum of A L'Echelle humaine - For All Mankind.) The main reason for the split b e tween J aures and the Marxists i n France was the issue of cooperation with the radicals in defense of republican solidarity. Mauss observed that "if i t was Lucien Herr who in 1 8 86- 1 8 8 8 converted J am·es to Socialism, i t was Durkheim who in 1 8 8 9- 1 89 6 turned him away from the political formalism and the shallow philosophy of the radicals."93 But in all prob­ ability Durkheim himself would have concurred with J aures on the issue of pragmatic alliances to defend the Rep ublic against all threats. In Lichtheim' s words: "The fact that Jaures eventually imposed his outlook o n the party had much to do with the evolution of French Socialism from a worker's sect into a m ass movement."94 Jaures' position, however, also had m u ch to d o with the tendency of the Socialist Party in France to subordinate basic issues to opportunistic considerations, electoral maneuvers, and the "political kitchen." Why was it that Durkheim in this context did not become more politically active i n a n attempt to use h i s intellectual powers and infl uence t o defend the basic moral and philosophical issues to which h e always gave primary emphasis? On this one can only speculate. Unlike many of his disciples, Durkheim did not have an activist temperament. M oreover, he may well h ave believed that by remaining "above parties" he had a greater chance of infl uencing contending groups t o accept his conception of rational reconstructi o n . His defi nition of socialism did i n fact influence both Jaures and Jules G uesde.95 Summing up i n 1 90 4 the lessons he had learned from the Dreyfus Affair, Durkheim observed: Writers and scholars are citizens; it i s thus evident that they have the strict duty to participate in p u b l i c life . . . .

56

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

Men of thought and imagination, it does not appear that they are particularly predestined to specifi cally political careers; for these demand above all the qualities of men of action . . . . I t is i n my opinion above all through the book, the public lecture, and popular edu cation that o u r efforts must be made. We must above all b e counselors and edu cators . . . . But whenever a serious question o f principle has been raised, w e h a v e seen scientists abandon their laboratories and scholars leave their private offi ces to move closer to the crowd and mingle in its life . Experience has shown that they know how to m ake themselves heard. The moral agitation which these events [of the Dreyfus Affair] have provoked has not yet been extinguished, and I am among those who think that it must not be extinguished; for it is necessary . . . . The h o u r of rest has not yet come for us. There is so m u ch to do that it is i n dispensable for us to keep our social energies, in a m an­ ner of speaking, perpetu ally m o b i lized. This is why I believe that the policy followed in these last years [ 1 900- 1 9 04] is preferable to the preceding one. It has succeeded i n maintaining a continuous current of collective action of a reasonable intensity.96 Thus Durkheim's growing sense of crisis led him to believe that the scholar should move fro m his "normal" activities into a position of more militant concern. Indeed all Durkheim's major works culminated in a call to action. In the final words of Suicide, he perhaps gave clearest expres­ sion to his idea of the relation b etween theory and practice: "Once one has established the existence of an evil, what it consists of and on what it depends, when one knows i n consequence the general characteristics of the remedy, the essential thing i s n o t to draw up i n advance a plan which foresees everything; i t i s to get resolutely to work."97 These considerations enable us perhaps to gain some insight into the moot question o f Durkheim's relation to the solidarist, or solidarity, move­ ment - a question on which we have little objective evidence. After the turn of the centu ry, this m ovement secured extensive support from governments in power until it became "a sort of offi cial philosophy of the Third Repub­ lic."n In a sense the concept of "solidarity" came to have in Durkheim's France a status comparable to that of "consensus" in recent American his­ tory, with many of the same obfuscations and ambiguities. Solidarity was

Chapter 2

Durkheim 's Milieu

57

a theme - indeed an "i dee-force," i n the expression of Alfred Fouillee - developed b y the politician Leon Bourgeois (who relied on the notion of a quasi-contract as the basis of social obligation ) ; a j urist and student of Durkheim at Bordeaux, Leon Duguit; the socially conscious and humane economist Charles G i de; and the p edagogue Henri Marion (whose De La Solidarite morale of 1 8 8 0 predated Durkhei m's work by almost a generation). Despite all the verbal advocacy of solidarity, few o f the concrete welfare measures proposed by advocates of the movement ever passed into law. The parliamentary deadlock stymied all action. For M arxists, soli darism amounted to a rose-colored, ritualistic gesture of academics of good will and bad conscience whose desire for social peace had little relevance to the requirements of social acti o n . I n deed, "the Left had always said that i t came to nothing more than a pretentious restatement o f the classic slogan, 'Neither reaction nor revolution."'�� What hard facts of a historical nature do w e have about Durkheim's relation to the solidarity movement? H e was named to the Faculte des Hautes Etudes Sociales, founded i n part to prop agate solidarism, and an i n ternati o n al conference on s o l i d arism ( i n cluded as part of the Exposition Universelle of 1 9 00) had Durkheim as one of its guest speakers. Beyond these two facts, the historical ground is less fl rm, and w e are forced to rely on opinion and the nature of Durkheim's ideas themselves. Harry Alpert has fl atly rejected any association of Durkheim with the solidarist movement. "It is important not to identify Durkheim with the Solidarity movement. Although he too was immediately concerned with moral questions, and attempted to develop the ethical consequences of social unity, he used the concept of 'solidarite ' in its pre-Bou rgeois, ob jec­ tive, relational and non-ethical sense." 1 00 Alp ert's argument comprised both the question of historical relationship and the nature of Durkheim's ideas. On the latter point, Alpert, if I understand him correctly, misunderstood Durkheim's usage of the concept of solidarity - a grievous error, since this concept was at the very root of Durkheim's thought and reappeared in dif­ ferent guises in all his works. Certai nly, Durkheim insisted upon the obj ective interdependence or soli darity of social and cultural phenomena in all states of society and hence upon their amenability to formally rational, structural, and functional analysis. But absolutely essential to Durkheim's social phi­ losophy was the notion that social normality is equated with substantive

58

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

rationality, especi ally in the latter's moral sense. On the level of human and specifl cally social relations, Durkheim was not concerned exclusively or even primarily with "obj ective" solidarity either in the formal, value-neutral sense or in the restricted sense of an interdependence of economic interests. As he stated in the preface to the first edition of De La Division du travail social ( The Divisio n of Labor in Society), his object was "to treat the facts of the moral life according t o the method of the p ositive sciences." 1 0 1 Despite certain ambiguities in the argument of the first edition of Durkheim's E rst major work, the development of D urkheim's thought - including promi­ nently the preface to the second edition of The Division ofLabor - makes it abundan tly clear that the social sense of solidarity for Durkheim was preeminently m o ral and that it i n cluded both an "objective" com p o n e n t in institutional and symb o l i c structures a n d a "subj ective" component i n internalizatio n , communal sentiment, a n d personal commitment. Alpert did not provide any evidence whatsoever for the contention that Durkheim had no relationship with the solidarist movement. Durkheim's own trusted disciple Celestin Bougie, who, i f anyone, should have known, p l aced Durkheim within the soli darist movement in a work publ ished ( 1 9 03) during the latter's lifetime and in a larger work pub lished ( 1 924) after his death. In 1 90 3 , Bougie argued that in contrast with utilitarian individualism, "solidarism helps us to oppose these desiccating, dissolving, and aristocratic forms of individualism with a democratic individualism, a fecund principle of social union and action, whose motto is not 'each man in his own home' [chacun chez soil or 'each man for himself' [chacun pour soil but 'one for all and all for one' [chacun pour tous et tous pour chacun ] . " 1 0 2 Indeed Bougie quoted D u rkheim himself as asserting, "One can say that there is not a single sociological proposition which is not a direct or indirect demonstration of solidarity." 1 0' The key practical problem (as B o ugie saw) was whether and in what contexts solidarity was proposed as a quality of the status quo or as a goal of action i m p lying the necessity of change. In Durkheimian terms, this amounted to the question of the extent to which the existing social order was "normal" or "pathological," for a primary quality of the normal state of society was the existence of solidarity. The mystifying and ideologically tendentious use of the idea of solidarity to present a "pathological" status quo as if it were in all essential respects "normal" and thereby to mask vested

Chapter 2

Durkheim 's Milieu

59

interest and legitimate the repression of dissidence was perceived both on the Left and o n the Right. The idea of solidarity (like that of consensus) readily functioned as an ideology passed off as an index of the end of ide­ ol ogy. The conservative novelist Paul B ourget in his L'Etape observed of one of his protagonists: Ardent and critical souls are not in the least governed by formulas as vain and as empty as this morality of "human solidarity" which filled the mouth of the anticlerical p ro fessor: He believed he could replace by these two words the living tradition of order and love i n carnated in the Church. He did not see that this expression of the relative dependence of beings with respect to one another had two signifi cations: the well-meaning one was the only one h e wanted to see. But are not all the ferocities of the struggle for life j ustified by this formula? The lion is in a state of solidarity with his prey, since he cannot live without it; only this solid arity consists in killing and devouring i t . 1 04 Aside from its reference to the false optimism of republican educators, this evocation of the universe of social Darwinism and the more subtle movement of Hegel's master-slave dialectic pointed to the possible function of the idea of solidarity in j ustif}ring exploitation. Despite certain equivocal features of the Division ofLabor, including its abstract and mechanistic air of false optimism, Durkheim recognized this point. H e increasingly saw the achievement of moral solidarity and social normality as a project o f no mean proportions in modern society a n d one whose realization required basic structural reforms. To this extent, he retained the nineteenth-century usage of the term "solidarity" by the Left, which correlated it with basic social reform rather than with token gestures or the self-serving attempt to bring people together psychologi cally in a soci ally "pathological" status quo. The importance of the Dreyfus Affair i n the context of the b attle b e tween the poli tical extremes and the Republic has already been touched upon. What rem a i n s is to indicate its i m p o rtance in Durkheim's intellectual de­ velopment and to his conception of reform in modern society. The intense engagement of Durkheim and his disciples in the Dreyfus Affair i n d i cated the extent of its imp act upon them. Durkheim himself was a primary object of attack by the anti-Dreyfusard forces. His classes were disrupted. And his

60

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

collaborators, in the wake of a series of bombings i n cafes surrounding the Sorbonne, were even led to fear for his life. 1 0 5 Durkheim was moved to step into the political arena and write his defense of Dreyfus (in 1 8 9 8 ) in oppos i t i o n to Ferdinand Brunetiere, the Catholic apologist and anti- Dreyfusard editor of the Revue des deux mondes. Melvin Richter has accurately observed: " It is striking how the theory elaborated in Les formes r!Mmentaires de fa vie refigieuse turns up at the very center of the fervent defense Tlndividualisme et les intellectuels,' which Durkheim wrote at the height of the Dreyfus Affair." 106 It m i ght b e added that in this complex issue, which involved t h e opposition b etween justice and the demands of "law and order" in maintaining the status q u o , Durkheim came o u t on the s i d e of justice with an argu m e n t which was n o t only m o r e sensitive t o the ambiguities involved than the attitudes o f many of the D reyfusards b u t which revealed much more than his own general discussions of morality an awareness of the complexities i nvolved in any concrete case of choice. The respect f orauthorityhas nothing incompatible with rationalism, provided that authority is fo unded rationally . . . . It is not s u ffi cient in convincing men to remind them of this commonplace of banal rhetoric that society is not possible without mutual sacrifi ces and a certain s p i rit o f s ubordination; o n e m ust justify in the [specific] instance the docility o n e asks of them . . . . When, on the contrary, one is concerned with a question which, by definition, falls under common j udgment, such an abdication is contrary to all reason and consequently t o duty. Now, to know whether a tri b u n al is permitted to condemn an accused person without hearing h is defense does not require any special enlightenment . . . . M e n have asked themselves whether it is proper to consent to a temporary eclipse of principle i n order not to trouble the functioning of a public administration which everybody, by the way, recognizes to be indispensable to the security o f the state. We d o not know if the antinomy really poses itself in this sharp form; but, in any case, if a c h o i ce is really n e cessary between these two evils, to sacrifi ce what has been up to the pres­ ent time our historical raison d'etre would b e to choose the greater evil. An organ of p u b l i c life, however important it may b e , is only an instrument, a means to an end. What good i s it to conserve the means i f one detaches it fro m its end? 107

Chapter 2

Durkheim 's Milieu

61

It was i n this defense of D reyfus, m oreover, that Durkheim's h u m an­ istic conception o f the "normal" role of individualism in m o d er n societies t o o k definite and assertive form. Durkheim observed that the indictment of individualism confounded it with "the narrow utilitarianism and utili­ tarian egoism of Spencer and the economists . " He rejected this facile identification. "One has an easy time i n denouncing as an ideal w i t h o u t grandeur this shabby commercialism which reduces society to t h e status of a vast apparatus of production and exchange. " O n the contrary, the individualism which D urkheim d efended was "the individualism of Kant and Rousseau, of the spiri tualists - that which the D eclaration of the Rights of Man t r i e d more or less s uccessfully to translate into fo rmulas, that which we at present teach in o u r schools a n d which has b e co m e t h e b a s i s o f o u r moral catech i sm . " According to this s o r t of individualism, duty consisted i n turning away fro m our personal concerns and "our empirical i ndividuality i n order to seek u n i q uely what our nature as men demands insofar as w e share it i n common with all other m e n . " This ideal transcended the level of egoistic utilitarian ends t o such an extent that i t seemed t o be "marked with rel igiosity" and t o be "sacred in t h e ritual sense o f t h e word . " The problem w a s " t o complete, extend, and organize individualism, not to restrict and com b at i t . " Reflection alone could a i d i n "finding a w a y o ut of the present diffi culties." With a rare ironic fl ourish, Durkheim concluded: " I t is n o t in meditating upon La Politi que tiree de l'Ecriture sainte [ Bossuet's "Politics Derived from the Very Words o f Sacred Scripture"] that w e will ever fi n d the means of organizing economic life and introducing more j ustice into contractual relati o ns . " 108 But what is perhaps most significant is that D urkheim's intense awareness of the crucial role of religion in social life itself became prominent about the time the Dreyfus Affair was breaking. In a 1 9 0 7 letter to the Revue m!o­ scholastique, Durkheim asserted: It was only in 1 895 that I had a clear understanding of the capital role played by religion in social life . It was in that year that for the fi rst time I found the means of approaching the study of religion sociol ogically. It was a revelation to me. The course of 1 8 95 marks a line of demarcation in the development of my thought, so much so

62

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

that all my previous research had to be taken up again with renewed effort in order to be placed in harmony with these new views.109 Durkheim in good scholarly fash i o n went on to fl nd the scientifl c basis of his reorientation i n the studies of religious history he had undertaken at the time, notably the works of Robertson Smith and his school. But i t was n o accident that the "revelation" came t o him about the time h e was deeply involved in the Dreyfus Affair. For the i n vo lvement that consti­ tuted a peak experience of republican intellectuals had all the markings of D u rkheim's i d ea of an effervescent social m ove m e n t carried a l o n g by the q u asi-religious force of a mystique which revived and reanimated great revolutionary ideals of the past. Charles Peguy - the constant critic who, with impassioned partiality, saw in D u rkheim only the offl cial rep­ resentative of p etty rationalism and state power - nonetheless expressed a conception of the Dreyfus Affai r which Durkheim shared: " O u r Drey­ fusism was a religion . . . . justice a n d trut h , which were so loved by us and to which we gave everyth ing, were not at all the truth and j ustice of the concept, of b o o ks; they were organic, they were Christian." 1 1 0 For Durkheim, the rassemblement of m e n o f good w i l l i n defense of D reyfus ( w h o at times assumed the status of a totemic emblem symb olic of collective values) enabled modern life to transcend for a moment its ordinary "moral mediocrity." From the time o f the Dreyfus Affair - i . e . , during t h e second half of his i n tellectual life - Durkheim, instead o f fo cusing o n the role of formal constraints, stressed the importance o f com­ munal sentiment, collective ideals, and religious symbols in social l i fe . A t least until World War I . T h e war came as a rude awakening to men like Durkheim, shattering many o f their intellectual assumptions and the foundations of their personal existence. Brice Parain, i n his La Mort de Jean Madec, seizes the contrast between the m o ral atmosphere of Ia belle epoque, when things seemed fu l l of hope quand meme, and the postwar sentiments of intellectuals in France who were faced with an "ob structed p ath . " I grew u p among the schoolmasters who organized the Republic

after the Dreyfus Affair. They were good, honest, reliable - b u t they demanded t o o m u ch o f m a n and o f themselves . . . . T h u s they believed very strongly in the reign of j ustice; their moralityfell apart.

Chapter 2

Durkheim 's Milieu

63

It required too m u c h saintliness. O n e w o u l d h ave preferred the type of heroism which is more brilliant and which gets along bet­ ter with a certain insouciance which is necessary for life. Their principle said: if you do go o d , you have only done your d uty, b u t i f y o u d o evil, you must b e punished. Well, evil was done all the same, and nobody was around to punish the wicked. The war p u t a n e n d t o their d ream. What i n effect d o es someone owe w h e n h e has received nothing a n d w i l l receive nothing? ' ' ' During the war Durkheim rallied to the union sacrr!e and b e came intensely involved in administrative work and propaganda. 1 12 The most that can b e said ab o u t his propagandistic pieces is that they are among the most level-headed specimens of a rather paranoid genre. At times they offered vehicles fo r the expression of his thought, e . g . , in his attempt, i n L'Allemagne au-dessus de tout - Germany above All - to portray the German national character and define i m p erialism, with special reference to the works of Heinrich von Treitschke. 1 1 3 His confi dence in the justice of his own country's cause was neither diminished by considerations of long-term causation nor m i tigated b y concern ab o u t the postwar settle­ ment. The intensity ( b u t n o t the mere fact) of his propagandistic efforts, however, must be seen in the light of his anxiety over the fate of his only son. He received definite news of his son's d eath at the front only after a prolonged period of uncertainty. For the first time, D u rkheim seemed to face the temptation of madness. " I need not tell you , " he wrote to G eorges D avy, "o f the anguish in which I live. It is an obsession of every instant which hurts me more than I supposed." Durkheim was haunted "by the image of this exhausted child, alone by the roadside i n t h e mi ddle of t h e night and t h e fog . . . . That image held m e by the throat. " 1 14 When he fi nally received definite word o f his son's death, the man who had writ­ ten movingly of the spiri tually restorative powers of ritual in m o m ents of crisis withdrew into a terrible silence which prevented him fro m so much as talking about his feelings with his closest friends: " D on't speak to me about my son u n t i l I tell you that i t 's possib l e . " 1 1 5 "Ab ove all, d o n't speak to me of h i m . " 1 1 6 " Don't answer me. All that weakens and exhausts m e . " 1 17 Iron self-discipline remained the d o m i nant fo rce in Durkheim's life, and i t fi nally broke h i m . In 1 9 1 7 he died o f what has b e e n called a " b roken

64

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

heart." But his own melancholic loss and his inability to mourn might b e understood less i n terms o f h i s personal ethos than as a testimony t o the deficit of effective social processes, including rituals of mourning, i n secular society - a deficit his thinking tried in certain ways to address.

Chapter 2

Durkheim s Milieu

65

Notes

I. 2. 3.

4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Georges Weill, Histoire du mouvement social en France, 1 852- 1 9 1 0 (Paris: Alcan, I 9 I I ) , pp. 469-483. "Emile Durkheim," Revue ftanr;aise de socioLo gie, I ( I 9 6 0 ) , 6 . Revue de metaphysique et de morale, XXIV ( I 9 I 7 ) , 749. Compare the tes­ timony of Rene Maublanc, "L'Oeuvre sociologique d'Emile Durkheim:' Europe, XXII ( 1 930), 298. See also Ivan Streski, Durkheim and the fezus of France (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, I 997). "Emile Durkheim," p . 6 . Reported by Bougle, "L'Oeuvre sociologique d'Emile Durkheim," Europe, XXII ( 1 93 0 ) , 28 1 . Georges Davy, "Emile Durkheim: L'Homme," Revue de nu!taphysique et de morale, XXVI ( I 9 I 9) , I 8 3 . Davy, in commemorative issue, Annates de l 'Universite de Paris, No. I (Jan.-March I 960), I 9 . Harry Alpert, Emile Durkheim and His Sociology (first pub. I 93 9 ; New York: Russell & Russell, I 9 6 1 ) , pp. I 6- I 7. Davy, "Emile Durkheim: L'Homme," Revue de metaphysique e t de morale, XXVI ( I 9 I 9 ) , I 8 7. The disorder was diagnosed as erysipelas, an acute febrile disease associated with intense local inflammation of the skin and subcutaneous tissue. The agrt!gation is the competitive examination quali­ fYing successful candidates to hold teaching posts in French high schools ( lyct!es) .

IO. II. I 2. I3.

Ibid.,

p. I 84.

Ibid. , p . I 87. Ibid. , p . I 88 .

Quoted in Davy, "Emile Durkheim," Revue ftanr;aise de sociologie, I ( 1 960 ) , 8.

I 4. I5.

I6. I7.

Preface to Le Systhne de Descartes (Paris: Alcan, I 9 I I ) , p . v. Alpert, p . 3 2 . For an analysis o f the French lyc t!e and university system, see Pierre Bourdieu and Jean-Claude Passeron, The Inheritors: French Students and Their Relation to Culture, trans. Richard Nice (first pub. I 964; Chi­ cago: University of Chicago Press, I 97 9 ) . See also Fritz Ringer, Fields of Knowledge: French Academic Culture in Comparative Perspective (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, I 9 92) . Davy, AnnaLes d e f' Universite de. Paris, No. I (Jan.-March I 96 0 ) , I 9 . "La Philosophie dans les universites allemandes," Revue inte rnationale de f'enseignement, XIII ( 1 887), 3 I 3 - 3 3 8 , 423-440; and "La Science positive

66

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

de la morale en Allemagne," Revue philosophique, XXIV ( 1 8 8 7 ) , 3 3 - 5 8 , 1 1 3 - 1 42, 275-284. 18.

Rene Lacroze, Annales de l'Universite de Paris, No. 1 (Jan.-March 1 9 6 0 ) ,

19. 20.

Annales de l'Universite de Paris, No. 1 (Jan.-March 1 9 6 0 ) , 1 9 . Marcel Mauss, "In Memoriam: I;Oeuvre inedite de Durkheim et d e ses collaborateurs," Annie sociologique, n.s., I ( 1 92 3 ) , 9 . Quoted by Davy, A nnales de l'Universitt!de Paris, No. 1 (Jan.-March 1 96 0 ) ,

26.

21.

19. 22. 23.

In trod., Emile Durkheim, L'Evolution Pedagogique e n France (Paris: Alcan, 1 93 8 ) , p. 1 . "Emile Durkheim: I:Homme," Revue de metaphysique et de morale, XXVI ( 1 9 1 9) , 1 9 0.

24.

Roger Lacombe, La Methode sociologique de Durkheim: Etude critique (Paris: Alcan, 1 92 6 ) , p. 1 . The continuing presence of Durkheim i n French sociology was indicated b y the fact that the immediate string of successors to his chair in sociology at the Sorbonne were his disciples P. Fauconnet, M. Halbwachs, and G. Davy. After World War II, however, the infl uence of Durkheim in French sociology waned. The holders of the two chairs in sociology at the Sorbonne, Raymond Aron and, to a lesser extent perhaps, Georges Gurvitch, were more often than not hostile critics of Durkheim. The centenary of Durkheim's birth i n 1 9 5 8 passed almost unnoticed in France, partly because of the Algerian crisis that brought de Gaulle to power. The celebration at the Sorbo nne ofDurkheim's centenary took place almost two years later, long after similar ceremonies in other countries. In certain ways, however, a later generation of social thinkers in France attempted to revive interest in Durkheim with an understanding guided by the sympathetic desire to discover and develop what is still alive in his thought. This attitude may be found, for example, in the perceptive introduction by Victor Karady to an edition of the very Durkheimian works of the roung Mauss - a publication which is itself a phenomenon of importance (Marcel Mauss, Oeuvres, 1: Les Fonctions du sacre [Paris: Les Editions du ;vlinuit, 1 968] ) . The neglect of Durkheim after the war was due in part to the impact of structuralism on anthropology, general methodology, philosophy, and even ;vlarxism (as well as to the vogue of phe­ nomenology and existentialism). Re-evaluation ofDurkheim might make it possible to retain the elements of structuralism that clearly constitute a genuine theoretical advance over Durkheim while phasing out those of its inclinations which induce sterile formalism and damaging obscurantism. It might also provide one basis for a critical analysis of the relations between

Chap ter 2

25.

26. 27.

Durkheim s Milieu

67

structuralism and varieties o f poststructuralism. Durkheim's legacy is of course quite important for Pierre Bourdieu. Its significance for Georges Bataille has in general not been refl ected in the work of poststructuralists and would merit extended treatment. One might argue that Bataille over­ interpreted, or even misinterpreted, Mauss o n the gift in terms of potlatch as depense (excessive, gratuitous expenditure) and went on to revise if not reverse Durkheim's emphasis on the role of normative limits by construing the latter predominantly as invitations to more or less radical transgression and ecstatic excess. In Bataille radical transgression becomes the avenue to at least momentary transcendence in the quest for a secular sacred. Bataille's orientation has left its mark on poststructuralism. O n e even finds a n echo o f the republican attack on the Second Empire, which frequently lent itself to ideological uses as a basis for a legitimating myth of the Republic and its original purity, in Leon Blum's comment in A L'Echefte humaine (Paris: Gallimard, 1 94 5 ) : "The Empire had been guilty, but the Republi c was only unfortunate [malheureuse]" (p. 4 1 ) . Emile Durkheim, Socialism, trans. Charlotte Sattler, ed. with Introd. by Alvin Gouldner (New York: Collier Books, 1 96 2 ) , p. 1 6 0. David Thomson, Democracy i n France (London, New York, Toronto: Ox­ ford University Press, 1 9 5 8 ) , p. 27. See also Yves Deloge, Ecofe et citoyennete: f'individualisme republicain de jules Ferry a Vichy: controverses (Paris: Presses de Ia Fondation nationale des sciences politiques, 1 9 9 4 ) ; Sanford Elwitt, The Making ofthe Third Republic: Class and Politics in France 1 8 68-1 884

28. 29.

(Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1 9 75) and The Third Republic Defended: Bourgeois R�{Orm in France (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1 986) ; William Logue, From Philosophy to Sociology: The Evolution ofFrench Liberalism 1870- 1 9 1 4 (Dekalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1 9 83) and Charles Renouvier: Philosopher ofL iberty (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1 99 3 ); Laurent Muccielli, L a Decouverte d u social: naissance d e Ia sociologie e n France 1 8 70- 1914 (Paris: Editions de la decouverte, 1 9 98) ; Philip Nord, The Republican Moment: Struf!j!,lesfor Democracy in Nineteenth-Century France (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1 9 9 5 ) ; and Phyllis Stock-Morton, Moral Educ ation for a Se cular Soc iety: The Development of morale la'igue in Nineteenth-Century France (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1 9 8 8 ) . Cf Alpert, p p . 2 8 fl: "Cours de science sociale," Revue internationale d e l'enseignement, XIV ( 1 8 8 8 ) , 48-49.

30.

For a concise account o f the social bases o f t h e Third Rep ublic, see Thom­ son, chap. ii. See also the compact and intricate essay of Stanley Hoffmann,

68

31.

32.

33.

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

"Paradoxes of the hench Political Comm unity," in Stanley H o ffmann et a!., In Search of France (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1 96 3 ) . See also Susanna Barrows, Distorting Mirrors: Visions ofthe Crowd i n Late Nineteenth-Century France ( N e w Haven: Yale University Press, 1 9 8 1 ) ; Jean Bauberot, La Morale lai'que contre l 'ordre moral (Paris: Editions du seuil, 1 997); Christophe Clurle, La Crise l itteraire a l epoque du naturalisme: roman, theatre et politique (Paris: Presses de )'Ecole Normale Superieure, 1 979), Les Elites de Ia Republique (Paris: Fayard , 1 98 7 ) , and Naissance des 'intellectueLr' 1 880-1900 (Paris: Editions de minuit, 1 9 90); Bernard Lacroix, Durkheim et le pol itique ( Montreal: Presses de Ia Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques, 1 98 2 ) ; Christophe Prochasson, Les annees electriques, 1880- 1 9 1 0 (Paris: Editions de Ia decouverte, 1 9 9 1 ) , Les intellectueLr, le socialisme et fa guerre, 1900-1938 (Paris: Editions du seuil, 1 9 9 3 ) , and Paris 1900. Essai d 'histoire culturelle (Paris: Caiman-Levy, 1 99 9 ) ; Sylvia Schafer, Children in Moral Danger and the Problem ofGoZJernment in Third Republ ic France (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1 99 7 ) ; and Judith Wishnia, The Proletarianizing of the Fonctionnaires: CiZJil SerZJice W�rkers and the Labor Mowment under the Third Republic (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1 9 90 ). See his Economic Deuel opment ofFrance and Germany (4th ed.; Cambridge: University Press, 1 93 6 ) , especially pp. 232ff. For a thought-provoking account of the rapid and disrup tive transformation of French society and culture in the crucial period preceding 1 96 8 , see Kristin Ross, Fast C ars, Clean Bodies: Decolonization and the Reordering of French Cul ture (Cam­ bridge, Mass.: M I T Press, 1 99 5 ) Jesse Pitts, "Continuity and Change i n Bourgeois France," i n Stanley Hoffmann et al., In Search ofFrance. On the way in which social attitudes of businessmen affected economic activi ty, see David Landes, "French En­ trepreneurship and Industrial Growth in the Nineteenth Century," journal of Economic History, IX ( 1 94 9 ) , 4 5 - 6 1 , and " Business and the Business Man: A Social and Cultural Analysis," in E. M. Earle, ed., Modern France (Princeto n : Princeton University Press, 1 9 5 1 ) . Louis Chevalier, i n his Classes faborieuses e t classes dangereuses (Paris: Pion, 1 9 5 8 ) , has observed that from 1 8 48 to 1 8 70 small industry not only pre­ dominated but was on the in crease in Paris (pp. 76ff. ) . ror Chevalier, the prevalence of crime in the Paris region during the nineteenth century was due to the pathological state caused primarily by demographic change. The rapid inf ux of people into Paris caused a crisis situation which resulted not only in high crime rates but in class conf ict of extreme virulence. Citing an interesting statistic on the issue of class consciousness versus

Chapter 2

34. 35.

36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42.

43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50.

Durkheim s Milieu

69

professional consciousness, Chevalier noted that, at the end of the Empire and the beginning of the Third Republic, the ind ication of occupation o n electoral lists tended increasingly to change from a precise denotation o f metier t o a designation of social class a s "worker" ( p . 1 73 ) . "H istory and Science in Anthropology," American Anthropologist, XXI I ( 1 93 5 ) , 539-569. Theories o_fPrimitive Religion (London: Oxford University Press , 1 965) , p. 67. See also p . 6 , where Evans-Pritchard observes in the manner of Levi­ Strauss: "It is a remarkable fact that none of the anthropologists whose theories about primitive religion have been most influential had ever been near a primitive people. It is as though a chemist had never thought i t necessary t o enter a laboratory." C f. Jean Duvignaud, Durkheim (Paris: Presses Universitaires d e France, 1 9 6 5 ) , p. 1 3 . Quoted in John Eros, "The Positivist Generation of French In tellectuals, " Sociologic al Review, I I I ( 1 9 5 5 ) , 2 6 5 . Les Regles de fa methode sociologique ( 1 5th e d . ; Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1 9 63), p. xii. Davy, "Emile Durkheim: "CHomme," Revue d e mitaphysique e t de morale, XXVI ( 1 9 1 9) , 1 94 . Ibid., p . 1 9 5 . " I n Memoriam," p. 2 . See Adrien Dansette, Religious History ofModern Fr ance (New Yo rk: Herder & Herder, 1 9 6 1 ) , I I , 54ff. See also Georges Duveau, Les Instituteurs (Paris: Editions d u Seuil, 1 9 5 7 ) , pp. 1 22ff. Duveau, p . 1 2 2 . John Scott, Rep ublican Ideas a n d the Liber af71· adition in Fr ance, 1870- 1914 (New York: Columbia University Pres s ) , pp. 1 8 5 - 1 8 6 . Duveau pp: 1 1 7-1 1 8 . Felix Pecaut, "Emile Durkheim," Revue pedagogique, n.s., LXXII ( 1 9 1 8) , 1 4- 1 5 . Jean Izoulet; quoted in G!lestin Bougie, Bilan d e la sociofogie franraise con­ tempor aine (Paris: Alcan, 1 93 5 ) , p. 1 68n. Albert Thibaudet, {, a Repubfique d e s professeurs (Paris: Grasser, 1 927), pp. 222-223. Maublanc, 'TOeuvre sociologique d'Emile Durkhei m , " p. 3 0 3 . O n Liard, s e e E r n e s t Lavisse, "Louis Liard , " Revue inten ationafe d e f'enseignement, L XX I I ( 1 9 1 8) , 8 1 -8 9 ; s e e also G. Ribiere, Revue des cours et des conftrences, X I I ( 1 904), 1 - 1 3 , 49-65, 97- 1 1 3 , 1 4 5- 1 6 1 , 1 9 3-200, which includes an extensive analysis of Liard's published works. On Lapie, ,

70

51.

52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62.

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

see the statements by Celestin Bougie, Felix Pecaut, Andre Fontaine, and Xavier Leon in the Revue pedagogique, XC-XCI ( 1 927), 1 1 5- 1 66 . Many people realized the extent to which the mystique of the instituteur was the symbolic recompense for the fact that h e was miserably underpaid. In a circular to instituteurs i n 1 8 3 3 , Fran�ois Guizot remarked: "The resources which the central power has at its disposal will never succeed in making the simple profession of instituteur as attractive as it is useful. Society is unable to give back to those who consecrate themselves to it all that they have done for it. It is necessary that a profound sentiment support and animate the instituteur, that the austere pleasure of having served men and contributed to the public good become the worthy salary which his conscience alone gives h i m . It is his glory to exhaust himself in sacrifices and expect his recompense from God alone" (quoted i n Duveau, p. 5 4 ) . Quoted i n Ribiere, pp. 49, 6 5 . Lavisse, pp. 86-87. Lavisse, p. 8 8 . Quoted i n Ribiere, p . 9 . Lavisse, pp. 82-83. Lavisse, pp. 98-99. Fontaine, Revue pedagogique, XC-XCI ( 1 927), 1 6 5 . Pecaut, ibid., pp. 1 22 - 1 2 3 . Leon, ibid., p. 1 6 0 . Fontaine, ibid. , p. 1 66 . Andre Canivez, }tdes Lagneau: Essai sur Ia condition du professeur de philoso­ phie jusq u a Ia fin du )JXe siecle, Association des Publications de l a Faculte de Strasbourg, 1 9 65, p. 275. See also Claude Digeon, La Crise allemande de la pemee ji-mz�aise, 18 70- 1 9 1 4 (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1 9 59) .

63.

64.

Speech o f Paul Armand Challemei-Lacour before the Senate, Dec. 1 9 , 1 8 8 8 ; as quoted in Maurice Barres, Les Deracines, I (first pub. 1 8 97 ; Paris: Pion, 1 9 5 9 ) , 64. Repotted by Bougie, "L'Oeuvre sociologique d'Emile Durkhe i m , " p. 283.

65. 66.

67.

E m i l e Durkheim, L'taucatimz morale (first pub. 1 92 5 ; Paris: Presses Uni­ versitaires de France, 1 9 6 3 ) , pp. 3, 9, 7-8. See Richard D. Sonn, Anarchism and Cultural Politics in Fin-de-siecle France (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1 9 89) and Peter Starr, Log­ ics ofFailed Revolt: French Theory After May '68 (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1 9 9 5 ) . Emile Durkheim, Education et sociologie (Paris: Alcan, 1 92 2 ) , p. 62.

Chapter 2 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73.

74 .

75.

76.

77.

Durkheim 's Milieu

71

Canivez, p. 275.

L'Educatimz morale, p p . 72-73. Armand Cuvillier, Ou va la sociologie .fi'mz�·aise? (Paris: Librairie Marcel Riviere, 1 9 5 3 ) , p. 42. Les Etapes de Ia pensee sociologique (Paris : Gallimard, 1 9 87), pp. 394ff. Letter of Jan. 1 , 1 87 8 , "Lettres , " Bibliotheque Nationale. For a brief analysis ofTarde's thought, which attemp ts to show how Tarde was much more than the theorist of the "laws of imitation," see the intro­ duction by Terry N . Clark to Gabriel Tarde mz C ommwzication and Social Influence (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1 969). Introduction a Iapsychologie collective (first pub. 1 927; Paris: Armand Colin, 1 9 64), p. 37. This neglected work contains an excellent comparison of Comte, Durkheim, and Tarde. Thomson, pp. 27-28. See also the complementary, farther ranging (if less historically tight) analysis by Rene Remond of changing manifestations of traditionalist, conservative-liberal, and nationalist tendencies, La Droite en France (Paris: Aubier, 1 9 63) . Eugen Weber, The Nationalist Revival in France, 1905- 1 9 1 4 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1 9 59). See also Robert So ucy, Fascism in France: The Case ofMaurice Barres (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1 972), French Fascism: The First Wcwe, 1 924- 1933 (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1 986) , and French Fascism: The Second Wflve (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1 99 5 ) ; and Zeev Sternhell, Neither Right nor L�(t: Fascist Ideology in France (Berkeley: University of Californ ia Press, 1 9 86) . For the argument relating Durkheim to conservatives and traditionalists, see Robert Nisbet, "Conservatism and Sociology, " American journal ofSoci­ ology, LVI I I ( 1 9 5 2 ) , 1 6 5 - 1 7 5 . The theme of Durkheim's conservatism was muted in Nisbet's long essay in Emile Durkheim (Englewood Cliffs , N . J . : Prentice-Hall, 1 965) and his Sociological Tmditimz (New Yo rk: Basic Books, 1 966). An important idea adumbrated in "Conservatism and Sociology" is no t further developed in Nisbet's two later works . (It is discussed in Nisbet's fo reword to 7!Je Works ofjoseph de Maistre, trans. and in trod. by Jack Lively [ fi rst pub. 1 9 65; N . Y. : Schoken Books, 1 97 1 ] , pp. xi-xviii.) This is the idea of philosophical conservatism. Nisbet argues that a thinker may have conservative values although he does not defend the status quo or reaction. It is in this p hilosophical sense, I think, that Durkheim was conservative. For the assertion of Durkheim's relation to " i n tegral nationalism," see M. M. Mitchell, "Emile Durkheim and the Philosophy of Nationalism," Political Science Quarterly, XLVI ( 1 9 3 1 ) , 8 7- 1 06 . See also George Catlin's

72

78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85.

86. 87. 88. 89.

90. 91. 92.

93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98.

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher introduction to Durkhei m's Rules ofSociological Method (first pub. 1 93 8 ; N .Y. : Free Press, 1 9 64). For the charge o f irrationalism and protofas cism, see William M . McGovern, From Luther to Hitler (London: George G . Harrap, 1 94 6 ) , chap. ix. Thomson, p. 1 4 3 . Elements d'une doctrine radicale (Paris: Gallimard, 1 92 5 ) , p . 2 5 . Thomson, p . 1 4 1 . Thibaudet, p . 1 9 6 . Alfred Fouillee, "La Reforme d e l'enseignement philosophique e t moral en France , " Revue des deux mondes, XXXIX ( 1 8 8 0 ) , 3 3 3 - 3 6 9 . "Associations d e culte," Libres Entretiens, 1 s t series (Paris: Bureau des "Lib res Entretien s"), p . 369. Preface t o 2d ed., D e La Division du travail social (7th e d . ; Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1 96 0 ) , p. xxxii. L'Esprit de Ia nouvelle Sorbomze (Paris: Mercure d e France, 1 9 1 1 ) . S e e also the same authors' less interesting Les]eunes Gens d'aujourd'hui (Paris: Pion, 1 9 13). L'Esprit de Ia nouvelle Sorbomze, p p . 9 9 , 1 0 1 - 1 02 , 1 1 0. Paris: Maspero. Ibid. , pp. 1 09- 1 1 0. Revue philosophique, LXIV ( 1 8 9 ), 647. On this problem, see Armand Cuvillier, "Durkheim et Marx," Cahiers internationaux de sociologie, I V ( 1 94 8 ) , 75-97. Introd., 1 s t ed., Emile Durkheim, Le Socialisme, in Socialism, pp. 3435. M . Holleaux, quoted i n Davy, "Emile Durkheim: I.:Homme," Revue de metaphysique et de morale, XXVI ( 1 9 1 9) , 1 8 9 . Marxism: A n Historical & Critical Study (New Yo rk: Praeger, 1 96 1 ) , p. 228. Mauss, lntrod., Socialism, p. 34. Lichtheim, pp. 228-229. Mauss, lntrod., SociaHsm, p. 3 5 . 'TElite et Ia democratie," Revue bleue XXI I I ( 1 904), pp. 705-06. Le Suicide (Paris: Presses Universitaires de france, 1 9 60), p. 45 1 . Celestin Bougie, L e Solidarisme (Paris: Marcel G i ard, 1 9 24), p. 7. See also his earlier study L'Evolution d u Solidarisme (Paris: Bureau de La Revue politique et parlementaire, 1 9 03 ) , an extract from Revue politique et pa rlementaire, March 1 90 3 . J . E. S . Hayward, in "Solidarity: The Social History of an Idea i n Nineteenth Century France , " International Review ofSocial History, n . s . , I V ( 1 95 1 ) , 2 6 1 -2 8 4 , contends that solidarity a s an idee:force was associated

Chapter 2

99. 100. 101. 1 02 . 103. 1 04. 105.

1 06. 1 07. 1 08 . 109. 1 1 0. 111.

1 1 2.

Durkheim 's Milieu

7.3

in the ni neteenth century with leftist and reformist movements and that in the Third Rep ublic i t increasingly became an ideology j u stifying the status quo. He places Durkheim in the latter context without attempting to j ustify this classification. The problem concerning Durkheim is touched upon briefly in Melvin Richter's excellent article, "Durkheim's Politics and Political Theory, " in Kurt H. Wolff, e d . , Essays on Sociology and Philosophy (New York: Harper & Row, 1 9 64), p. 1 8 8 . On the role of the concept of solidarity in early n ineteenth-century France, including its radical use by workers, see William Sewell, Work and Revolution in France: The Language ofLabor fi"om the Old Regime to 1848 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1 98 0 ). Sewell argues that a democratic corporatism with socialist components was dominant in laboring classes during the period treated in his study. Richter, op. cit. Alpert, p. 1 7 8 . Division du travail social, p. xxxvii. "L'Evolution d u Solidarisme, " p . 28. For the explicit reference to Durkheim, see p. 3 . Ibid., p . 7 . The quotation i s repeated i n Bougie's L e Solidarisme, p . 1 2 . Paris: Librairie Artheme Fayard, 1 94 6 (first pub. 1 9 1 4 ), p . 207. See Terry N . Clark, "Emile Durkheim and the Institutionalization o f Soci­ ology," Archives europeemzes de sociologie, IX ( 1 96 8 ) , 63-64. See also Eugen Weber, The Nationalist Revival in France; Charles Andler, La Vie de Lucien Herr (Paris : Rieder, 1 93 2 ) , pp. 1 1 2- 1 50 ; Romain Rolland, Peguy (Paris: Albin Michel, 1 944), I , 3 0 6ff. ; and Daniel Halevy, Peguy et "Les Cahiers de la quinzaine" (Paris: Bernard Grasser, 1 94 1 ) , p p . 68-80 " D urkhei m's Politics and Political Theory," p. 1 7 5 . "L'lndividualisme et les intellectuels , " Revue bleue, 4th series, X ( 1 898) , 1 0, 12. Ibid., pp. 7-8, 1 3 . XI V ( 1 907), 6 1 3 . Quoted in Romain Ro lland, Peguy, p . 8 5 . Paris: Grasser, 1 94 5 , p . 7 1 . For the French in tellectual scene between the two wars and after, see H . Stuart H ughes, The Obstructed Path (New Yo rk: Harper & Row, 1 968) . A list of Durkheim's commi ttees in Davy, "Emile Durkheim: CHomme," Revue de metaphysique et de morale, XXVI ( 1 9 1 9) , 1 93 , includes: Conseil de l' Universite, Comite des travaux historiques et scientifiques, Comite consultatif de l' enseignement superieur, Commission des etrangers au ministere de l'I nterieur, Comite fran<_;:ais d'information et d'action aupres

74

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

des j uifs en pays neutre, Fraternite fran co-americaine, Pupilles de ! ' Ecole publique, Comite de publication des Etudes et documents s u r la guerre, Comite de publication des lettres a tOllS les Franc;:ais, Ligue republicaine d'Alsace-Lorraine, Societe des amis de Jaures, and Pour le rapprochement universitaire. 1 1 3 . In L>lilemagne au-dessus de tout (Paris : Colin, 1 9 1 5 ) , Durkheim made an interesting application of his concept of anomie to the problem o f imperialism. For Durkheim, imperialism was a form of anomie fo stered by dominant institutions like the state and military, and a thinker like Treitschke attempted to legitimate institutionalized anomie in the form of a national will to power. The limitless expansion of the power of a state at the expense of o ther states was for Durkheim "a morbid hypotrophy of the will, a kind of will mania" (p. 44). Durkheim realized that anomie might be furthered by dominant institutions, instilled into the personalities of citizens through education, and legitimated by intellectuals. Even in his later work, however, he only at times extended his insights to broach an analysis and critique of colonialism. Colonialism is not, for example, an issue in his Elememary Forms oft he Religious L�fe or in his reflections about the relation of sociology to anthropology. 1 1 4 . Davy, A mzales de l 'Universite de Paris, 2 1 . I would further note that i t i s i nteresting to compare Durkheim's conception of Germany's primary responsibility in causing the war with the similar thesis later made famous by the German historian Fritz Fischer.

1 1 5 . Ibid. 1 1 6 . Davy, "Emile Durkheim," Revue fimzf·aise de sociologie, I ( 1 960), 1 2 . 1 1 7 . Quoted b y Raymond Lenoir, "L'Oeuvre sociologique d'Emile Durkheim," Europe, XX I I ( 1 930), 2 9 5 .

3

The Division ofSocial Labor

We believe that our research would not merit an hour's tro u ble �fit had only a sp eculative interest. Jfwe sep a rate with care theoreticalfrom p racticalproblems, it is not in order to neglect the latter; it is, on the contrary, to p u t o u rselves in a better position to resolve them. - The Division of Labor in Society

Quo vadis ?

The Division of Labor in Society has a c q u i red in modern social thought the d u b i o u s status of a sacred text that is almost a dead letter. l t i s a work that is referred t o with the pro forma awe that scholars reserve fo r recognized classics, b u t to which little real reference is made in the analysis of problems. Indeed D urkheim h i m s elf, as well as h i s disciples, never returned to the massive and c u m b r o u s concepts of organic and mechanical solidarity t h a t were "absolutely fundamental i n h i s fi r s t m a j o r w o r k . " ' Talcott Parsons, despite his belief that the work has never received the recognition it mer­ its, fel t o b liged to o b serve, "it is, however, a book which i s far from being complete o r clear i n many o f t h e m o s t essential p o i n t s , and is distinctly diffi cult to interpret."2 I t i s diffi cult to decide whether The Division ofLabor m e r i ts attention i n itself o r whether its value derives p r i m a r i l y fro m its place i n the general development of the thought of Durkheim and his s c h o o l . And it i s d i ffi­ cult to understand why certain co m m en tators, even Parsons h i m se l f, were tempted to construe this work as indicative of a definitively fo rmulated "first position" in D u rkheim's thought which was later sub jected to dras­ tic r e vi s i o n . The work o ught rather to b e seen as an initial, tentative, and somewhat ambivalent exploratory essay putting fo rth certain problems

76

Emile

Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

and themes which i n the course o f Durkheim's intellectual life were to be - with varyi n g degrees of adequacy - modified, refi ned, and developed. Durkheim once compared the experience of people i n archaic societies to a "primitive nebula" whose laws were in all essentials to be conserved in modern societies.3 In some measure, this metaphor applies to the relation of The Division of Labor to Durkheim's own later works. Durkheim, as we know from M arcel Mauss, had at first conceived his thesis in terms o f individualism and socialism - a theme which recalled the 1 8 3 3 essay De L7ndividualism e et du socialisme of the Saint-Simonian Pierre Leroux. This popular work had been infl uential in bri nging the term "socialism" into general curren cy.4 But the theme of The Division of Labor was later recast i n the more scientifically aseptic framework of t h e relation between t h e individual and society. I n a turn o f phrase reminiscent of Rousseau i n the Social Contract, D urkheim posed the question: " How is it possible for the individual in becoming more autonomous to depend more closely upon society? How can he be at the same time more personal and more solidaristic?"5 S o m e of the m o re ideological reasons why Durkh eim recast the t h e m e of h i s first major work were related t o t h e obvious hesitancies i n its line of argument and the timidity i n its refl ections o n reform. Durkheim u n d o u b tedly remembered the h arassment of Alfred Espinas and the furor caused by his thesis, "Animal Societies." Paul Janet, a member of Durkheim's o w n thesis j ury, had tried t o convince Espinas to modify a pas­ sage on Auguste Comte in his introduction and, because Espinas refused, had had the entire introduction suppressed before publication.6 During the defense of Durkheim's thesis, Janet lost his composure, rapped on the table, invoked G od, and warned D u rkheim that sociology led to madness.7 Emile Boutroux, to whom the thesis was dedicated, could not accept this ambivalent honor "without making a grimace. "8 It was signifi cant that the title of D u rkhei m's supplementary Latin thesis on �1ontesquieu re­ ferred to h i s predecessor's contributions to political science rather than to sociology. Durkheim's hesitancy to use the n e w word "sociol ogy" was one small indication that sociology was suspect, not b e cause of its reliance on orthodox conservative ideas to bolster the status quo, but because i t was unsettling, at times for reasons contemporaries were unable to formulate clearly or accurately. Despite D urkheim's attempt, in his early work, to allay

Chapter 3

The Division ofSocial l-abor

77

suspicions on t h i s score, h i s s o c i o l ogical a p p roach t o problems involved a new way of seeing things and, consequently, a reordering of modes of in­ terpretation. Politically and socially, it seemed t o i m p ly, h o wever o b l i q u e l y a t t i m e s , t h e necessity o f b a s i c s t r u c t u r a l reform for s t a b l e o r d e r t o be p o s ­ sible in modern s o c i e t i e s . M a u s s r e p o r t e d t h a t D u rkheim "clashed w i t h t o u c h y moralists and c l a s s i c or C h r i s t i a n economists fo r their obj ections to collectivism, w h i c h t h e y s t r u c k at through his Division of Labor. D u e t o confl icts o f t h i s k i n d , h e w a s excluded from p r o fessorships i n Paris. " 9 Bordeaux itself i n D u rkheim's t i m e b e came a sho rt-lived i n tellectual center because o f the o p p o s i t i o n of established powers i n the c a p i t a l to newer currents i n social thought. Indeed, the fact that The Division of Labor could have caused such a s t i r seems surprising i n retrospect, since i t is ambiguous b o t h i n its theories and in its p olitical implications. Ostensibly, the primary focus of The Division of Laborwas the structure of modern society, the pro cess of modernization, which had brought that structure into existence, and the relation of structure and process to moral solidarity among people in society. In good Gallic fashion, the b o o k was divided into three principal parts: ( 1 ) an analysis of organic and mechanical solidarity and their relations to individuals and groups in society;

(2) an investigation of the process o f change which purportedly had led from the mechanical solidarity o f primitive and traditional societies to the organic solidarity of modern societies b ased on The Division ofLabor; (3) a study of pathological fo rms in which The Division ofLabor did not function to create solidarity in society. Thus, D u rkheim approached modernity and the industrial revolution through the s t u d y of The Divisio n of Labor. I n this way, he met the clas­ sical economists on their own native grounds. But these grounds were to be explored and their sociological features perceived in such a way that the resulting human geography would no longer b e familiar to the heirs of Adam Smith. The very title of the work, De La Division du travail social - which has been mistranslated The Division ofLabor in Society i nstead of "The Division of Social Labor" - was itself highly significant. The division of social labor was fo r Durkheim identical in its b r o adest sense with social d ifferentiation, and in its n arrower and more specifically modern sense with advanced occupational specialization. But in Durkheim the fo cus shifted away fr om the economic role of the divi s i o n of l a b o r, e . g . , in increasing

78

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

prod uctivity. It fel l instead on the function o f the division of!abor i n relating p e o p l e to one another in society. From economic product to social process and the quality of human l i fe - this for Durkheim was the sociological perspective o n the division of labor. In fact, D u rkheim's first m aj o r work seemed to show a lack of concern with economic problems. Durkheim's methodological goal was to fu rther the idea of a u n i fi e d social science by stressing the extra-economic dimensions of economic activity. His increasingly apparent ideological p urpose was to subordinate the economy and materialistic motives to the moral and cultural needs of people i n s o ciety. B u t h i s mode of affirmation often approached disciplinary imper ialism and disdain fo r the dismal science with its specific fo rm o f abstraction. Indeed, i n Durkh eim's conception o f economics, t h e mind-body dualism fu nctioned to relegate economic activity t o t h e sphere of the literally material a n d the individual. B y the end of h i s !if e, Durkheim considered economic activity to be the p r o fane par excellence. His entire conception of the problem not only failed to offer insight into the nature of economic institutions; it also d i d little to illuminate the moral and reli­ gious aspects o f modern economic activity t h a t Max Weber treated in Th e

Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Durkheim's i d e a o f economics was o n e case i n w h i c h the norm ative and critical aspects of his thought submerged the analytic. For he saw the unlimited desire fo r commodities and unregulated economic activity (the "free" m arket) as prominent instances o f modern social pathology. This p o i n t of view would become manifest in Suicide. But the distinction between social "normali ty" and "pathology" was basic to the general argument of T he Division ofLabor. In that book, D u rkheim introdu ced his basic definition of morality and h i s idea o f the i n t i m a t e association b etween social normality and t h e prevalence of soli darity in soci ety. "We can say in a general manner," he observed, "that the characteristic of moral rules is to enunciate the fundamental conditions of social solidarity. " L 0 The correlation of social normali ty, solidarity, and morality revealed the fo undation o f D u r k h e im's thought i n organizing principles that were methodological and normative at one and the s a m e time. In h i s concepts o f mechanical and organic solidarity, Durkheim fo­ cused u p o n "normal" states o f society. A consideration o f "pathological" phenomena i n modern society was restricted to a concluding section which was disproportion ately s m a l l i n comparison with the gravity o f the prob-

Chapter 3

The Division ofSocial l-abor

79

lems treated; i t was also rather dissociated fro m , o r at least inadequately related to, the preceding discussion o f normal states o f society. The result was that a t times social "normality" was itself normalized, and the distinc­ tion between t h e norm atively desirable or legitimate state of society and the empiri cally prevalent or d o m inant - even m o reso the evolutionary expectation - was effaced. A m a j o r ambiguity i n Durkheim's argument stemmed from the l a c k of clarity about the concepts of t h e mechanical a n d t h e organic. I n terms of his master metaphor of the tree of sociocultural l i fe, it was unclear ( 1 ) where given cases, and especially entire societies, fi t into his conception of the mechanical and the organic, and (2) whether and how these concepts applied to the c o m m o n , transhistorical trunk ofsociety and to its typological branches. Furthermore, Durkheim relied on the concepts of the mechanical and the organic to correlate a series o f classifications whose factual basis was far fro m certain and whose fru i tfulness i n research was far fro m apparent. The confl uence o f these problematic features made The Division ofLabor not only the most inertly abstract o f D urkhei m's works b u t the least convincing in i t s a b i l i t y t o h a ndle theoreti cal abstractions with logical in telligibility a n d informative relevance.

Mechanical and Organic Solidarity T h e distinction between mechanical and organic so lidarity was s i m i l a r to numerous other polar o p p ositions i n t h e work o f early social thinkers. I t was analogo u s , fo r example, to Charles Horton Cooley's distinction b e tween primary and secondary groups. And it h a d areas o f overl apping w i t h N i etzsche's concepts of the D i o nysian and the Apollonian and with Weber's o p p o s i t i o n b e tween charisma and b ureaucratization. D urkheim h i m s e l f, as w e shall see, tried to relate h i s concepts to Ferdinand Ti:innies' i n fl uential contrast between Gemein s chaft ( c o m m u nity) and Gesellschaft (society). To s o m e extent, the c o m m o n root of a l l these o p p ositions was the distinction b etween communitas and d i fferentiated structure. ( D urkheim himself did n o t use the term comnumitas. But I think it helps t o formulate the concept he tried to convey in a term like "mechanical solidarity." In contrast w i t h differentiated structure, communitas constitutes the (problem-

80

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

atic) element of communal identity in experience. T h e term communitas has been employed b y Victor Turner i n The Ritual Process, discussed later in this chapter.) But the terms "mechanical" and "organic" b etrayed a peculiar duality in Durkheim's thought. On the one hand, they seemed indi cative of the most pretentious sort of positivism. The analogies evoked were physical and bi­ ological. On the other hand, the terms were saturated with symbolic value. Romantic thought had made the organic the synonym of the authentic and living, and the mechanical identical with the false and dead. This duality in connotation belied the fact that Durkheim did not know precisely where he was going in his first major work. Like much modern writing, The Divisio n ofLabor was a dissertation in search of a thesis. In t h e most general sense, the term "mechanical" referred t o solidarity through "si­ militudes" (or what might be termed "communal identity" ) ; "organic" referred to solidarity through differentiation with reciprocity and cooperation among differentiated but complementary parts. In referring to the genesis of social solidarity, Durkheim related his sociological principles to the notion in com­ mon-sense psychology that people love both what resembles them and what is di fferent from yet com plements them. To refer to community as mechanical was paradoxical. I n the works of other social thinkers, the concept of the organic was intimately bound up with the notion of community. In The Division ofLabor, the fact that overshadowed the concept of organic solidarity was the absence of signifi cant community i n modern life. Durkheim recognized this fact b u t seemed bewildered about how to come to terms with it. The concluding section, on "pathological" forms of The Division ofLabor, showed that Du rkheim was not offering the concept of organic solidarity as a simple legitimation of the modern status quo. But does The Division ofLabor indi cate he believed that solidarity in modern society i s even theoretically possible without significant community? The fact that he failed to treat the relation of bureaucracy to organic solidarity does not help to clarify his intent. Nor does t h e absence of a full discussion of the relations between modern, universalistic humanism and t h e values adapted t o more concrete, face-to-face communi ties. At times Durkheim seemed to sense the need for a measure of both or­ ganic and mechanical solidarity i n any "normal" (or normatively desirable) society: "It is not necessary to choose once and fo r all between [organic and

Chapter 3

The Division ofSocial l-abor

8I

mechanical solidarity] and condemn one i n the name o f the other; what i s necessary i s t o give each at each moment o fhistory the place which i s proper to i t ." 1 1 But it was only in writings of a later date that D urkheim became more explicit about the possible role of community in modern society. His advocacy of professional groups that would allow for some measure of decentralization had as one of its most essential features the desire to remedy the lack of com­ munity in modern life. And his last major work, The Elementary Forms ofthe Religious Life, was postulated on the conviction that a significant measure of continuity was necessary between the b ases of legi timate order in "primitive" and modern societies. Although Durkhe im's ideas about modern society became clearer in time, one feature of The Division of Labor which continued to be characteristic of his thought was the tendency to see "primitive" societies primarily, i f not ex­ clusively, in terms of social similitudes, homogeneity, and communal identity, to the exclusion of differentiation among roles i n the group or among groups in the larger social context. This exaggerated idea of "primitive" conformism became the b asis for the chapter in The Rules of Sociological Method on the classification of social types (chapter iv). It was in fact one basic reason why Durkh eim's project for a comp arative classification of social types remained little more than a pious hope. In The Rules, as in The Division of Labor, Durkheim gratuitously postulated a hypothetical horde as the basis of group formation in society, and hence the "natural" b asis of classifi cation of societ­ ies in terms of increasingly complex combinations of the nonexistent primal horde. Individuals in the horde "do not form in the interior of the total group any special groups which differ from the group as a whole; they are j uxtaposed atomically. " 12 Du rkheim was forced to concede that no historically known societies corresponded to this Darwinian notion of the undifferentiated "protoplasm of the social realm." But the force of this model of primitive homogeneity was so constraining in D urkheim's mind that he concluded, with no appeal to evidence, that the "simplest" types of "primitive" society were "formed i m mediately and without any i n termediary by a repetition of hordes . " 13 The horde, which became a "segment" of a larger "segmental" so­ ciety by recapitulating the atomistic j uxtaposition of its members in its own relations (or nonrelations) with other hordes, was for Durkheim the clan. A. R. Radcliffe-Brown detected with acumen h o w this sociologically false and misleading conception of groups in "primitive" societies remained basic even

82

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

in The Elementary Forms oft he Religious L�fi:: "One o f the results ofDurkheim's theory is that it over-emphasizes the clan and clan soli darity. Totemism does more than express the unity of the clan; it also expresses the unity of totemic society as a whole in the relations of the clans t o one another within the larger society." 14 0ne could add that totem ism might also be related to tension and conflict within and between groups. The tendency to see phenomena in "primitive" societies in terms ofidentity, homogeneity, and confusion was carried to absurd lengths in Lucien Levy­ Bruhl's attempt to make the Platonic principle of mystical "participation" the sole basis of experience among the "primitives. " Despite his own criticism of Levy- Bruhl's tendency to see an unbridgeable gap between forms of experi­ ence in "primit ive" and modern societies, a strong element of the tendency remained i n Durkheim's attempt to fi nd the source of religious beliefs i n undifferentiated concepts like "mana." And Durkheim often continued t o see the type of communal identity that is at most attained within confl ict groups in revolutionary "effervescence" and within a stable society only periodically, in ritual activities, as the exclusive functional principle of solidarity in ongo­ ing "pri m i tive" societies. Durkhei m's thought, however, was not dominated by the abstract force of concepts alone or by the generally unsympathetic ethnocentrism of a Levy-Bruhl. What remained from beginning to end in his conception of "primitive" societies was the idea of savage experience as the total realization of the communal bond that he fel t was missing in modern societies. Yet it is no exaggeration to say that a fundamental basis fo r the advance of social and cultural anthropology beyond Durkheim has been the application of the principle of differentiation to symbolic systems and social stru ctures in "primitive" societies, or, even more forcefully, the questioning of whether any common label (much less the designation primitive) fits certain societies or, instead, relies on the tendentious opposition between "them" and "us." Along with such questioning has come a fuller appreciation for both the nature of experience in these societies and the role of differences and differentiations i n all cultural symbolisms and social systems. H i ghly complex occupational specialization might not be typical of certain societies. Nor were universalistic values (which applied to all people in certain situa­ tions, independent of personal status) or functionally specifi c norms (which were limited to certain spheres of existence differentiated from other spheres). But certain sorts of difference and differentiation were crucial in "primitive"

Chapter 3

The Division ofSocial l-abor

83

societies: the problem was their precise nature and relation to issues Durkheim found important. The difficulty of relating the universal and typical conditions of solidarity in modern and "primi tive" societies was compounded in The Division ofL a­ bor by the inclusion of other concepts and phenomena under the rubrics of mechanical and organic solidarity. Under mechanical solidarity, Durkheim included - along with similitude, or communal identity, i n "primitive" society (indeed "traditional" societies in general) - the notion of conscience collective, repressive or penal sanctions as the most objective index of this type of solidari ty, and the idea of segmental structure. Under organic solidarity, he included - along with differen tiation in modern society - the idea of the weakening, if not the eclipse, of comcience collective, restitutive sanction as the most objective index of this type of solidarity, the notion of "organized" structure, and the emergence of universalistic values and individualism. As I intimated earlier, at points in this intri cate exercise in opposing modern and "other" societies, Durkheim threatened to fall into the trap of similar dualistic attempts to classify the universe of societies known to cultural history: the basing of "scientific" classification in sociology o n the vague and tendentious opposition between "them" and "us." Perhaps the most plausible way to pursue an analysis of this aspect of The Division ofLabor is to take apart the idea clusters of mechanical and organic solidarity, which were to decompose of their own weight over the years, and to show how Durkheim and his disciples defined and redefined their conceptual components until new and more (or less) relevant classificatory schemes ap­ peared on the horizon of their thought.

Conscience Collective

The core concept of Durkheimian sociology which The Division of L a ­ bor included under mechanical solidarity was that of conscience collective. Durkheim defined the concept thus: The totality of beliefs and sentiments common to average members of the same society forms a determinate system which has its own life; one can call i t the collective or common conscience . . . . It is re-

84

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

alized only in individuals [but] it is the psychic type of society, a type which has its properties, its conditions of existence, and its mode of development. 1 5 Elsewhere Durkheim would indicate how the conscience collective might remain pertinent to exceptions in society, even when it was transgresse d . T h e conscience collective, i n contrast with the individual and the event, was situated on the level of structure. In one sense, it was the sociopsychological ground of a common culture in members of society. I n French, the word conscience had the ambivalent meanings of "conscience" and "consciousness." Durk heim, h owever, often stressed that aspects of the conscience collective might be unconscious. And the concept, both in its conscious and uncon­ scious aspects, applied above all to norms, constraining symbolic systems, and moral or religious sentiments. Within the French tradition, the concept recalled Comte's notion of consensus and Rousseau's idea of volonte gbzerale. I t also was similar to Freud's concept of the superego. D u rkheim's notion of "collective representation" (somewhat like Freud's "ego ideal") stressed more specifi cally the conscious component of comcience collective. The ideas, values, and symbols expressed in collective representations were sou rces of legitimation for institutional practices and actual behavior in soci ety. Without going into the complex qualifications that would be required i n any extended discussion, o n e might also note that the concept of comcience collective - especi ally in its unconscious or implicit aspect - resembles later notions, such as Ferdinand de Saussure's langue (in contrast to parole) and Levi-Strau ss's structure (in contrast to event) . B u t Durkheim also at times retained a sense of ways in which the concept could not be inserted into a system of binary oppositions b u t instead informed practices or actual uses that had a degree of flexibility i n history and social life. Still, at its most dubious, conscience collective approximated vague and tendentious notions of national character. The history of Durkheim's intellectual development was in large part the story of his re-emphasis of factors in social life initially discussed under the rubric of conscience collective. Yet, within the confining context of me­ chanical solidari ty, he associated the conscience collectivewith repressive penal sanctions and communal identi ty. Repressive sanctions, for Durkheim, were t h e most obj ective i n dex or criterion of mechanical sol idarity: they i m posed

Chapter 3

The Division ofSocial l-abor

85

expiatory punishment upon the person who offended the comcience collective, especially in its religi ous demands. This punishment was in contrast with restitutive sanctions (correlated with organic solidarity), which simply tried to reinstate the status quo ante, e.g., through the paym ent of damages. The confinement of the conscience collective to norms defining crimes leading to repressive sanctions proved in time to be too restrictive a notion for Durkheim, altho ugh h e never lost interest i n the problem of crime and punishment a n d its relation to the "hard core" of the conscience collective. The correlation of comcience co!lectivewith communal identity or similitudes in the "internal milieu" of the group imposed more extreme and at times misleading restrictions on usage (restrictions which, in one sense, confl icted with the emphasis on repressive sanctions, for, within limits, soci ety tended to be more communal when it was less repressive and more repressive when it was less communal ) . But the emphasis upon the importance of community in a normal state of society was to be retained by Durkheim. And it revealed the influence of Rousseau on his thought, especially in the belief that com­ m u n i ty was m o s t pronounced in "pri m i ti v e societies. In time Durkheim's conception of "normality" i n modern society re­ scinded the narrow correlation of conscience collective, mechanical solidar­ ity, and traditional soci ety. The first edition of The Division of Labor itself presented humanism - the idea of a common human nature and universal values as the ultimate basis of personal dignity - as the highest cultural ideal of modern society. Humanism was the universalistic comcience col­ lective of modern societies, and it enjoined the sentiment o f community among all men qua men (often in blindly gendered and species-specific terms which Durkheim replicated rather than critically analyze d). But its abstract values and imaginary identifications seemed to evolve almost as the unintended consequence of a process of elimination of other, more concrete values, attachments, and face-to-face relations. Later, Durkheim argued that universalistic humanism need not be incompatible w i th m o re particular (but not narrowly particularistic) forms of comcience collective. Militant nationalism contradicted a universalistic humanism; but liberal patriotism complemented it. In Durkheim's conception of corporatism, moreover, the insistence upon the necessity of communal intermediary groups was con­ joined with the idea that a normal, solidaristic social system in modernity would requ i re norms and laws which defined the relational conditions of "

86

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

reciprocity and cooperation among differentiated elements or intermediary groups in the larger social context. The specialized professional and other particular contents of experience might be restricted to a given group (and serve as the experiential basis for a particular component of the conscience collective of that gro u p ) . But, for solidarity to predominate over particu­ larism, related groups would have to share a conscience collective containing norms which defl ned the justifled modes of interaction, mutual expectation, and exchange with one another. This requirement placed a dimension of organi c solidarity within the province of the conscience collective. In fact, we flnd an awareness of this requirement i n the discussion of contract law and its normative social context in The Division of Labor itself.

Crime and Punishment

The Division of Labor stressed the sociological importance of the com­ parative study of legal systems. It placed special emphasis on the role of organized sanctions in society. This e m p hasis h ad both m e thodological and substantive bases. Methodologically, the organized sanction was an objective and relatively manifest component of social structure. Thus a focus upon it reduced the possibility of subjective or ideological distortion of facts in the initial ori­ entation of research. As Durkheim remarked in his preface: "To submit an order of facts to science, i t is not sufflcient to observe them with care, to describe and classify them. But, what is more difflcult, one must, in the words of Descartes, flnd the way in which they are scientiflc, that is discover in them some objective element which allows exact determination and, i f possible, measurement." 16 Durkheim's later thought was less "positivistic" in that i t neither made this degree of methodological objectivity the criterion of all significant research nor maintained a prim ary e m p h asis upon fo rmal constraints and sanctions. And, in marked contrast to important tendencies in social science that continue to this day, his approach never made a fetish of measurement. But it did retain the subs tantive basis of the focus on sanctions, which it in tegrated into a notion of objectivity more adapted to the complex, mean­ ingful demands of sociocultural enquiry. Sanctions could serve as an index

Chapter 3

The Division ofSocial l-abor

87

of solidarity in the "normal" state of society only because they shared in the nature of the social system in general. For, in the "normal" state of society, customary or written law was the most organized and stable dimension of social structure . 1 7 Through its sanctions, a society put its authorized power where its mouthed ideals were. One apparent defect of The Division of Labor was the fact that Durkheim, despite his legalistic focus, did not treat the problem of law and sanctions i n a society characterized by significant conflict and marked differences among social groups in terms of wealth, status, and power. What does law express and how does it function in a society riven by conflict? Marx's answer was categorical: law serves the in­ terests of the ruling class. Durkh eim never provided a comprehensive and more nuanced answer to the questions raised by the problematics oflaw i n a confl ict-ridden, stratified society. His later writing contained only scattered references to the problem. In Suicide, he observed i n passing: "When the law represses acts which public sentiment judges to be inoffensive, i t is the law which makes us indignant, not the act which it punishes." 1 8 One important problem which the propagandistic World War I pamphlet Germany above All emphasized was the crisis generated by a conflict between legal imperatives and the demands of a humanistic ethic. Although the severity of this conflict challenged his optimistic evolutionary assumptions about the non-authoritarian and democratic course of law and government in modern society, Du rkheim's answer was unequivocal. In con­ trast to the school of j u ridical positivism in Germany, which had exercised some influence on his early thought, Durkheim without hesitation placed the humanistic conscience collective of modern society above legal duties to the state. Had he lived longer, Du rkheim might well have confronted in more pressing terms the problem of the relation between his theory of value and the issue of civil disobedience. 19 What was the nature of crime and the criminal from Durkheim's socio­ logical perspective? The criminal was different from others. This difference lay in the crimi nal's infringe m e n t of norms and values in wh ich oth ers found identity through communal allegiance and shared commitment. Crime disrupted the conscience collective. In Durkheim's neo-Kantian and some­ what personifYing conception, punishment was the way a law responded to transgression by reasserting its own threatened authority. As h e phrased i t i n a later work:

88

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

A violated law must bear witness to the fact that despite appearances it is always itself, that it has lost nothing of its fo rce and authority in spite of the act which negates it. In other words, it must affirm itself in the face of the offense and react in a way that manifests an energy proportional t o the energy of the attack which i t has undergone. Pun­ ishment is nothing other than this meaningfu l manifestation.20 Still, from Durkheim's perspective, sanctions in society were essentially d i fferent from the conditioning of animals. D urkheim was never "pos­ itivistic" in the behavioristic or even formalistic sense. One of his own later criticisms of pragmatism (in his Pragmatism and Sociology) was its proximity to purely behavioristic explanations of human activity. In turning to the role o f internalized norms in people, Durkheim argued that "pun­ ishment is only a sign of an internal state; i t is a notation, a language by which . . . the public conscience of society . . . expresses the sentiment which the blameworthy act inspires in i t . " 2 1 Durkheim did believe that when values were deeply rooted in the comcience co llective, punishment might become an almost instin ctive reaction. But the emotion involved i n this passionate response to crime was not pure affectivity. It was affect or sentiment more or less meaningfully, and perhaps unconsciously, structured by norms and symbols that interposed themselves b etween stimulus and response. Indeed, punishment served to counter the unsettling, at times traumatic, threat of anxiety and anomie affectivity attendant on a challenge to on e's n o rmative structure of experience. These were the general notions of crime and punishment, first sketched in The Division ofLabor, which D urkheim would retain and develop. In The Rules ofSociological Method, however, he pointed to an error in his dominant conception of crime and the criminal i n his first major work: "Con trary to current ideas, the criminal no longer appears as a radically unsociable or parasitical element, a fo reign and unassimilable body within society; he is a regular agent of social life . "22 The Division of Labor, by Durkheim's own admission, had stressed the negative nature of the criminal and his relation to society - a viewpoint on the "deviant" which almost refl ected the at­ titude of the conformist. In his conception of the possible social normality of crime, Durkheim dialectically perceived the positive or productive ele­ ment in cri me.

Chapter 3

The Division ofSocial l-abor

89

A certain rate of crime was an essential and inevitable constituent of the healthy o r normal society. Functionally, crime provided the occasion for a more or less dramatic display of social solidarity i n punishment. Si­ multaneously, it tested existing institutions and relations, indicating that social structures were flexible enough to allow fo r a measure of change. Indeed, the criminal and the idealist were related by a hidden fu nctional nexus between transgressi on and transcendence, which at times portended a certain identity of nature. "For society to evolve, individual originality must break through; for that of the idealist, who dreams of going beyond his century, to manifest i tself, that of the criminal, who is below the level of his time, must b e possible. O n e does n o t go without the other. "23 Even in the most " n o r m a l " society t h a t cam e closest to realizing its values, there would be a necessary gap b e tween ideal discourse or sacred text and practical reality. Hence, one had the existence of anomie and in­ determinate interstices in which the criminal would always fi nd a place. Imagine a society of saints, an exemplary and perfect cloister. Crimes in the stri ct sense would be unknown there. B u t fau l ts which seem venial to the vulgar would raise the same scandal as ordinary mis­ demeanors i n ordinary consciences. Thus i f this society fo und itself armed with the power to j udge and punish, it would qualify these acts as criminal and treat them as s u c h.24 Thus i n all states, types, and milieus of society, the nature of crime said something profound ab o u t the nature of society. Crime and conformity were themselves bound together by a structure of reciprocity. Indeed, especially in periods of rapid transi t i o n , it m i ght b e i m possi b l e to distin­ guish clearly and distinctly between the idealist and the criminal, for both might ambivalently participate i n the destructive and creative potential of anomie. With the collapse of fi xed and stable reference p oints, it would a t times be d i fficult to tell who was above and w h o below the level of the time. D urkheim's frequent references to the trial of Socrates rested upon an awareness of this dilemma and the problems it presented for moral judgment. For Durkheim, m oreover, the contradictions and equ ivocations of crime represented like a distorted mirror i m age the uncertainties of conformi ty.

90

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

Revealing his recognition of the tendencies of one for m of modern hu­ manism which were antithetical to his own growing desire for communal warmth i n moderni ty, h e perceptively observed: Such are the characteristics of our i m m o rality that they make t h e m ­ selves remarked more by cunning than by violence. These charac­ teristics of our immorality are, moreover, those of our morali ty. It also becomes more cold, self-conscious, and rational. Sensibility plays an ever more restricted role, and this is what Kant expressed i n placing passion beyond morals. 25 So great was D u rkhei m's belief in the importance of the intimate rela­ tionship between crime and conformity that i t led to what was for him a truly signifi cant step: the reorganizati on of material i n the A n nt!e sociologique. Beginning with Volume IV, Durkheim included a section on the functi oning of moral and j uridical rules in which he included b o th statistics and an analysis of conformity and deviance. (This section was paralleled by one on the genesis and structure of norms and institutions.) The explanatory basis of this classificatory reorganization was the realization that disobeying a rule was a way of relating to it. The typological variations of conformity were matched by variations of criminality. As Mauss later observed: "In an epoch when few statisticians recognized the fact, he distinguished between violent cri minality directed against persons in b ackward classes and popula­ tions and the milder crimi nality against goods (fraud, abuses of confidence, etc.) in commercial classes and urban, policed populations." 2 6 Here we have an inkling of what Sutherland was to call "w hire-collar crime."27 Whatever the problematics of the manner in which he applied it to specific cases, the general principle which underlay Durkheim's conception of crime was the idea that an institutional order or value system expressed i tself in its fo rms of deviance or transgression i n a m a n n e r fully co m p l e m e n tary to its expression in its forms of "respectable" b ehavior. Thus for Durkheim crime itself was not a social disease. Rather, the crime rate became a symptom of social pathology when i t rose ab ove or fel l below certain thresholds of collective tolerance: then it pointed to severe causes of pathology i n society and attested to the need for social reform. It would, moreover, be false to conclude, on the grounds that Durkheim assimilated ordinary crime and ideological crime, that Durkheim's theory of

Chapter 3

The Division ofSocial l-abor

9I

crime was convincing evidence o f h i s status q u o conservatism. Lucien Gold­ mann, for example, has written, "It should be pointed out that [Durkheim's definition of crime] includes acts as different as the deed of Jesus driving money changers from the temple, the activity ofThomas M iintzer, Karl Marx or Lenin, on the one hand, and, on the other, the latest hold-up or murder."28 This conAation, for Goldmann, is one proof of "the conservative perspective in which all of Durkheim's sociology is implicitly elaborated and which al­ lows us to explain a great many other features of both his work and that of his disciples." Goldmann concludes, "the assimilation of the revolutionary to the criminal naturally turns the reader against the former."29 Durkheim's point was that, especially in periods of rapid transition, m e m b e rs of s o c i ety w o u l d t h e m s e lves experience a m b iva l e n ce in the j u dgment of certain phenomena. That the ideological criminal could himself p articipate in this ambivalence was shown by the case of S o crates. Ye t D u rkheim did realize that the characteristic of ordinary crime was its parasitical status vis-a-vis existing norms and institutions, whereas ideological crime (or, at times, the ideological aspect of crime) placed in guestion the e x i s t i n g rules o r p o l i cies. D u rkh e i m , in an article, tried to take account of a criticism by Tarde that was s i m ilar to G o ldmann's b u t that, i n contrast, stressed t h e radical implications of Durkheim's theory of crime. In other words, Tarde fel t that the approximation of the revolu­ tion ary to the criminal naturally turned the reader in favor of the latter. D urkheim replied: I said [in The Rules] that it was useful and even necessary that in any society the collective type not repeat itself i d entically in all con­ sciences . . . . When I tried to show how crime could have even direct utility, the only examples I cited were those of Socrates and the philosophical heretics of all times, the precursors o f free thought . . . . Then I said that the existence of crime had a generally indirect and sometimes direct utility: indirect, because crime could end only i f t h e conscience collective i m posed itself upon individual conscien ces with such incorrigible authority that all moral transformation was rendered impossible; direct, because sometimes, b u t only sometimes, the criminal was the precursor of a future morality . . . . In all times, the great moral reformers condemned the reigning morality and were condemned by it.30

92

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

Despite the debatable nature of Durkheim's moral futurism and his omission of the point (so imp ortant for Walter Benjamin) that w h a t loses out histori cally might be of value and worth redeeming for the present and future, he did indicate the dialectical relation between crime and conformity. This involved both the destructive and creative aspects of anomie that were pre-eminently marked in ideological crime. Certain questionable features of the argument in The Di11ision ofLabor, however, would be only partially mod in ed in the course of time. Durkheim never adequately inquired into the crisis i n the modern con­ sciousness of punishment created by the puzzling intersection of an ideology of individual responsibility, the theory of social determinants, and the idea of "mental i l l ness." Nor did h e ever treat the psyc h o logical internalization of norms and values with the care that would facilitate the building of bridges to the insights of Freud. In his investigation of crime, D urkheim did not treat self-punishment, which might have masochistic dimensions, or the function of the punishment of others in acting out sometimes sadistic sacrificial scenarios, suppressing one's own criminal tendencies, or relieving o n e's frustrations and anxieties. In Durkh e i m , there was li ttle fee l i ng for t h e possibility that people might commit crimes, a s they might turn t o suicide, in order to find expiatory punishment fo r a pre-existing sense of guilt stem­ ming from an explicit act, an overwhelming desire, or the general structure of a repressive collective or individual conscience. In his Ci11ilization and Its Discontents, Freud asserted that his intention was "to represent the sense of guilt as the most important problem in the evolution of culture, and to convey that the price of p rogress in civiliza­ tion is paid in for feiting happiness through the heightening of the sense of guilt. " 3 1 Despite his insistence upon the role of expiation in punishment, Durkheim devoted scant attention to the problem of guilt - a critical lacuna in his attempt to relate self and society. Even in his Education morale, which contained some of his most acute observations on the social determinants of character fo rmation, he tended on the w h o l e to restrict h i mself to prob­ lems of social structure, solidarity, and blame. Thus crime and punishment did constitute an area i n which Durkheim's curiosity was stunted by his positivism and obj ectivism. In The Di11ision of Labor, moreover, the same problems that plagued his conception of comcience collecti11e b eset his theory of crime. Associating

Chapter 3

The Division ofSocial l-abor

93

crime in a one-dimensional manner with social homogeneity and communal identity, he failed to explore fully the ways in which crime was related to differentiation. The sector of modern l i fe that supported the correlation of differentiation and restitutive sanction was that of the functionally specific division of labor, or specialization, in formally rationalized contexts. B u t Durkheim's tendency to universalize the correlation of communal identity and penal sanction led him to ignore or underestimate crucial features of social life . Durkheim's i d e a that t h e criminal w a s different from others was asso­ ciated with the idea that crime itself was a departure from the communal identity assured by the conscience collective. The latter preconception pre­ vented Durkheim fro m seeing that the criminal m igh t diffe r fro m others in deviating from norms stipulating differentiation and that crime itself might consist in bringing together in illicit communal identity "things" which ought to remain separate. Crime as deviation from norms prescribing dif­ ferentiation was in certain respects singularly significant in the "primitive" societies that Durkheim interpreted in terms of homogeneity and com­ munal identity. Durkheim's undialectical conception of the role of com­ munal identity in crime accounted for the fact that, while he recognized the importance of ritual interdict in creating the religious nature of crime and the role of the incest taboo in kinship, he was never fully able to account theoretically for these observations. Thus, for example, he never related the incest taboo to differentiation among kinship groups and never saw the way in which incest was (as the Chinese characters which stand for incest express it) a "confusion of relati onships." Nor did he devote analytic and critical attention to the dubious differentiation and illegitimate prohibitions involved in the gendering of relations, for example, those confining women to certain delimited social roles and occupations. Indeed his own analysis (notably in Suicide) at times symptomatically replicated stereotypes related to prevalent male gender anxieties. Durkheim's l o n g article e n titled "Deux L o i s de !'evolution penale" ("Two Laws of Penal E volution")32 represented an extended footnote to the discussion of crime in The Divisio n of Labor. In this article, he tried to formulate tendential regularities in the development of penal sancti ons. His focus shifted from restitutive to repressive sanctions i n m odern society. H e approached the problem through the evolutionary bias of "laws" of

94

mile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

F.

quali tative and quantitative development i n punishment. His law of quali­ tative variation asserted that punishments tended to become less religious in nature. In modern socie ty, punishment was increasingly restricted t o the deprivation of liberty through incarceration in special houses of detention. (This insight was of course later important in the work of Michel Foucault for whom Durkheim was not, however, an explicit reference point.) In D urkheim's second I aw, the element of social optimism which existed as an undercurrent in The Division of Labor emerged fully to the surface of his thought. It stated that the intensity or severity of punishment varied directly with the extent to which societies belonged to a simpler or "lower" type and with the extent to which the central government was absolute. T h i s idea was more nuanced than the tendency in The Division of Labor to correlate "cruel and unusual p u nishments" with "primitiveness, " for i t recognized a second variable i n the nature o f the central government - a factor that was n o t pertinent to many "primitive" societies. B u t Durkheim apparently did n o t believe that authoritarian government was a real pos­ sibility in modern societies. Indeed, the entire problem of the nature of government, which did not readily fi t i n to t h e s i m p le-co mp lex schema of social organization, was deprived of sociological relevance. "This special form of political organization [ i . e . , authoritarianism] does not pertain to the congenital constitution of society b u t to individual, transitory, and contingent conditions."33 Despite his thesis on Montesquieu, Durkheim at this stage of his thought was far from learning the lessons in political sociology that his great predecessor taught. The generalized correlation of "simple" or "undifferentiated" society with severe punishment, however, could not withstand the onslaught of evidence. In this respect, Durkheim's lvforal Education (which began as a lecture course j u st after the publication of 'Two Laws of Penal Evolution") represented a significant advance i n his conception of crime and punish­ ment. Commenting on the research of the ethnographer Sebald-Rudolf Steinmetz, Durkheim observed: A priori,

one might believe that it is the rudeness of primitive mores, the barbarism of the fl rst ages which gave birth to this [severe] system of punishment. B ut the facts are far from concording with this hy­ pothesis, h owever natural it may first appear . . . . In the great majority

Chapter 3

The Division ofSocial l-abor

95

of cases, discipline is of great mildness [ i n "primitive" societies] . The Indians of Canada love their children tenderly, never beat them, and do not even reprimand them.34 A little later Mauss, writing about a "primitive" society (that of the Todas) in the A nn ee sociologique, asserted: "Penal law does not exist to any significant extent. It is probable that the cause of this absence is the extreme mildness of mores in these populations."35 Curiously, Durkheim himself observed in an Annee review that predated his "Two Laws of Penal Evolution": "The role of discipline grows with civilization. The notion of rules, o f imp erative norms, which holds such a great place in our morality has nothing primitive about it. It is thus natural that education becomes impregnated with a certain austerity."36 These rather overstated observations on the repressive role of developing civilization were supplemented in Durkheim's Moral Education with a line of argument that did greater j ustice to the function of authoritarian gov­ ernment by placing i t in the broader context of authoritarian and oppressive institutional structures in general. In early modern history, corporal pun­ ishment fou n d a privileged sanctuary i n the type of school that was marked by maximal social distance b etween teacher and pupil and a claustration of children that isolated them from their families and the rest of society. This educational situation, Durkheim concluded, easily "degenerates into despotism . " The means o f avoiding this danger was to prevent the school "from closing in upon itself. . . and assuming too professional a c haracter." This could be effected only by m u ltiplying the school's points of contact with the external world. "In itself, the school, like all constituted groups, tends toward auton omy. It does not easily accept control. Yet control is indispensable for it, not only fro m an intellectual, b u t from a moral point of view."37 Durkheim went on to elaborate a more inclusive theory of severe and violent punishments, which he extended beyond the school to comprise such phenomena as colonialism. Corporal punishment i n the school was " a partJcu . 1 ar case o f a 1 aw. , Every time two populations, two groups of individuals, of unequal culture find themselves in sustained contact, certain sentiments develop which lead the more cultivated group or the group which

96

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

beli eves i tself to b e more cultivated to do violence to the other. This can be observed very frequently in colonies and in any country where representatives of a European civilization find themselves at grips with an i n ferior civil izati o n . Without violence having any utility, and although i t presents grave dangers to those who indu lge i n i t and who expose themselves to fearful reprisals, i t breaks out inevitably . . . . There is produced a veritable drunkenness, a shameless exaltation of the ego, a sort of megalomania which leads to the worst excesses, whose origin is not difficult to perceive . . . . The individual does not contain himself u n less he is faced with moral fo rces which he respects and upon which he dares not trample. Otherwise, he knows no limits and asserts himself without measure or bound.38 Here Durkheim did briefly address the problem o f colonialism and even related its violent excesses to the "sublime" feeling of exaltation. His final observation obscured the way social values and political or military practices - not simply limitless individual assertion - may themselves be crucial in exacerbating colonial excesses. But his valuable insight was that the truly relevant variable in the severity of p u nishment is the degree of authoritari­ anism in social institutions. Authoritarian structures or relations tended to convert punishment into a systematic but often anomically unstable form of extreme violence that might be met by the extremely violent reaction of the oppressed.

Traditional D ijferentiation

The distinction between segmental and organized structures 11 The Division of Labor paralleled that between the simple and the complex, the mechanical and the organic, the primitive and the mod ern.39 The discussion of segmental structures had the merit of bringing out the importance of relatively small and self-sufficient populations i n societies marked by strong communal ties, inherited status, attachment to traditions (represented socio­ logically by the prestige of elders), local territory (or vicinage), religi ous belief and practice, and the importance of kinship. However, Durkheim's idea of segmental structures i n creased the d i fficulty of relating the various factors that he inventoried, for it reinforced the preconception that certain societies

Chapter 3

The Division ofSocial l-abor

97

were based exclusively on homogeneous groups j uxtaposed, i n Durkheim's simile, "like the rings of a ringworm ."40 D urkheim apparently did not sense the absurdity in the idea of a structure that was not in any sense organized. He could even make the incredible assertion that in "primitive" societies "kinship itself is not organized."41 Given Durkheim's taste for biological metaphors, it is interesting to spec­ ulate what might have been the effect on his thought if he had known about the genetic code. The Division ofLabor relied on the idea that undifferentiated protoplasm was the basis of organisms. In his later years, Durkheim did seem to be on the brink of newer ideas which prefigured the great shift in social and cultural anthropo logy that was to be effected in France by Marcel Mauss and Claude Levi-Strauss. In 1 9 03, D urkheim observed in an article on methodology written i n collaboration with Paul Fauconnet: These elementary forms exist now here in a state of even relative isola­ tion which permits direct observation. Indeed, one must not confound them with primitive forms. The most rudimentary societies are still complex, although they have a confused complexity. They contain in themselves, lost in one another [perdues les tmes dans les autres] , but still real, all the elements which will be differentiated and developed in the course of evolution.42 The question begged in this quotation is whether the confusion lies in the comp lexity of certain societies or in the understanding of the observer. D urkheim's thought i tself appeared in slightly clearer form in his Pragmatisme et Sociologie (reconstituted from a course given j ust before his death), in which he enunciated the idea of a "primitive nebula." When Spencer affirms that the universe proceeds from the homo­ geneous to the heterogeneous, this formula is inexact. What exists at the origin is also heterogenei ty, b u t it is heterogeneity in a state of confusion. The initial state is a multiplicity of seeds, of modali­ ties, of different activities, not only mixed together, but, so to speak, lost in one another so that it i s extremely difficult to separate them. They are indistinct from one another. It is thus that in the cell of monocellular beings all vital functions are as if gathered u p : all are fo und there; only they are not separated. The fu nctions of nutrition

98

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

and the functions of relation seem confounded, and i t is difficult to distinguish them. In social life, this primi tive state of indivision is still more striking. Religious life, for example, is rich with a multitude of fo rms of t h o ught and activity of all sorts. In the order of th o ught, it comprises: ( I ) myths and religious beliefs , (2) an incipient science, (3) arts, aesthetic elements, notably song and music. All these ele­ ments are gathered up [ ramasses] i n a whole, and it seems diffi cult to separate them: science and art, myth and poe try, morality, law, and religion - all are confounded [ confondu] or rather melted [/ondu] i n t o o n e another.43 This was Durkheim's most complete and perceptive statement of the problem which began to intrigue him in The Division of Labor. To find a more adequate conception of the nature and role of differentiation in "primitive" societies, one must turn from Durkheim himself to a work which perhaps m arked the beginning of truly modern social and cultural anthropology in France: The Gift, by Marcel Mauss. Cla u d e Levi-Strauss has compared the experience of the anthropologist in reading this essay to that of Malebranche in fi rst reading D escartes. For, despite its suggestively unfi nished quality and the honeycomb of erudition with which it is laced, this little essay seems to bring together imaginative conceptualization and massive evidence in a manner indi cating a life spent in intimate contact with basic problems and an awareness of the way things fall into place without losing their local color. M auss fu lly realized that the fact that one never fi nds one homogeneous group i n isolation b u t finds always at least two associated groups is indeed a crucial fact for sociological theory. The idea of an isolated, undifferentiated horde as the basis of social life was untenable. Thro ugh an analysis of gift exchange, Mauss sought "a set of more or less archeological conclusions on t h e nature of human transactions" which a m o unted to little less than a gen­ eral theory of the role and nature of differentiation and exchange i n human societies.44 The fundamental status of the exchange of gifts i n "primitive" societies revealed the universality of social differentiation which in certain contexts served to "bind clans together and keep them separate, divide their labor and constrain them to exchange."45 In his study of the gift, moreover, Mauss sought "the answer to the questi o n posed by Durkheim about t h e religious origin o f economic value."46

Chapter 3

The Division ofSocial l-abor

99

What underlay and informed the exchange of gifts i n certain societ­ ies was a structure of reciprocity that led men i n groups to relate to other groups through the obligation to give gifts, accept them, and render gifts in return. Members of indigenous societies conceptualized this structural principle - which norm atively combined spontaneity and constraint, in­ terest and obligation, freedom and necessity - in the idea that immanent in the gift was a religious and magical force binding people to return what they received. Thus receiving a gift was a dangerous as well as a gratifying experience, for it obliged the receiver to reciprocate, at times with increased largesse, often under the pain of magical sancti on. Differentiation always implied a measure of conflict among different­ iated entities. But in certain cases (e.g., in North A m erica a n d M e l anesia) "amiable rivalry" compatible with mutual respect gave way to bouts of excessive, even arrogant, gift-giving whose purpose was to establish po­ litical and moral superiori ty. The circle of reciprocity was broken by the domineering gesture and the unilateral disdain which crushed one's rival with largesse. G i ft exchange, in a sense, inverted the principle of capitalis­ tic accu m u l ation by i n stitutionally requi ring men t o give more than they took rather than to profit by taking more than they gave. I n the p otlatch - the "monster child of the gift system" - the "agonistic" component i n largesse attained t h e tragic level of hubris i n ostentatious disp lay: enormous quantities of gifts were not given b u t contemptuo usly destroyed or thrown into the sea. The p o tlatch revealed why men might be feared and suspected of treach ery, especially when bearing gifts. The fear of the gift one could not repay was expressed in the ambivalence of the G erman Gift, meaning both "present" and "poison." I n a s u p p l ementary article on the suicide of a Gallic chi ef, M auss developed further the extreme complexity of the moral psychology of gift exchange by recounting the tale of a leader who, unable to reciprocate in kind, gave the only thing comparable i n value to what he had received: his life . But t h e gift in "primitive" societies was never a n isolated p h e n o m e n o n . I n h i s concept o f the fait social total, Mauss revised and reformulated Durkhei m's i d ea of a "pri m i t ive n e b u l a . " It was n o t that i d eas were uniquely confused or differentiations lacking in certain societies, but that differentiations tended to be cumulative in nature and to engage experience on a multiplicity of levels simultaneo usly: "In these 'early' societies, social

100

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

phenomena are not discrete; each phenomenon contains all the threads of which the social fabric is composed. In these total social phenomena rJaits sociaux totaux] , as we propose to call them, all kinds of institutions find simultaneous expression: religious, legal, moral, and economic. In addition, the phenomena have their aesthetic aspect and they reveal morphological types." 4 7 The difference between "primitive" and modern societies that Durkheim sought could, i n the light of M a uss's ideas, be formulated, I think, as follows. Certain societies accumulated relations among roles, groups, persons, values, and ideas in a way which set limits to economic growth and technological control of nature, but which also implicated people in an intricate, inclu­ sive network of spiritual and sym b o l i c relations with o n e another and t h e cosmos. Modern societies distinguished sharply between nature and culture (as between humans and other animals), dissociated institutional spheres from one another (fami ly, j ob , politics, art, religion, and so on), defined often depersonalized roles in functionally specific ways, objectified nature in the interest of manipulation and control (at the limit as "raw material" ) , and furthered technological mastery and the accu mulation o f eco n o m i c goods, often ( i f n o t typically) a t t h e expense of the environment. The say­ ing "Business is business" was a meaningfully tautological expression of this orientation. In modern society differentiations tended to b e detached from one another in relatively clear and distinct, Cartesian compartments of activity and boxes of experience. Advanced specialization, in the modern division of labor, was one prominent fo rm of this phenomenon. What were the implications of this con trast b etween "primitive" and modern societies for the problem of relating self and society? In "primitive" societies, the relation between the self and social experience was more en­ compassing, like the relation b etween people and nature, b ecause individual and group gave more of themselves i n each relationship and in more many­ sided ways. Individuality was subordinated to personhood in a sense that m ight dimi nish or even seem to deny any existential distance between th e individual and his or her roles or subject positions. In ultimate forms, the individual found meaning for his or her own life in the cosmic archetype that countered the role, if it did not negate the reality, of chronological, irreversible time and might to some significant extent mitigate the anxiety­ ridden confrontation of the individual with death.

Chapter 3

The Division ofSocial labor

I 0I

In modern society, each role o r group involved only a delimited invest­ ment of the self and called for only a limited commitment, at times largely restricted to external conformity or the stipulations of a contract mo tivated by self-interest. Individuality became a keynote of sociocultural lif e, at times in ways that masked related forms of sometimes extreme dependence on oth­ ers. The gro up was less a milieu of existence, the development of the person less a community project, the "personal" more markedly distinguished fro m t h e "official" capaci ty, t h e "private" from t h e "public," occupation m o r e a technically, professi onally, and economically rationalized enterprise, and the search for identity an individual quest which often produced more weak books than strong personalities. The way in which a person experienced thi ngs or related to other people tended to b e "one-d i m e nsional." Reactions to this state of affairs might prompt various types of group mobilization and collective affi rmations of, or quests for, a shared identity. In The Gift, Mauss drew critically accentuated moral and political con­ clusions with specific reference to forms of modern society. Analytically, he con trasted the institutions of a cap italistic economy with those related to gift exchange. Let us now test the notion to which we have opposed the idea of gift and disinterestedness: that of interest and the individual pursuit of utility . . . . If similar motives animate Trobriand and American chiefs and Andaman clans and once animated generous Hindu or Germanic noblemen in their giving and spending, they are not to be found in the cold reasoning of the businessman, banker or capitalist. In those earlier civilizations one had interests but they differed from those of our time. There, if one hoards, it is only to spend later on, to put people under obligations and to win followers. Exchanges are made as well, but only of l uxury objects like clothing and ornaments, or feasts and other things that are consumed at once . . . . It is only our Western societies that quite recently turned man into an economic animal. . . . For a long time, man was something quite different; and it is not so long ago now since he became a machine - a calculat­ ing machineY One might of course qualify Mauss's hyperbole, which to some extent was polemical, for example, by noting charitable giving in certain capitalistic

102

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

contexts. Still, Mauss himself went o n to consider reform i n a tram of thought revealing that one basic sense i n which Durkheim and his school were conservative was i n the desire to return to what they saw as bedrock fundamentals of human existence that were depreciated in modern life and particularly devalued in capitalistic market-oriented activity. These elementary fo rms of sociocultural life provided a daily bread of solidarity and led people to experience the necessary contradictions, liminal invita­ tions, and anomie breakthroughs of existence in all their tragic profundi ty. For Mauss as for Durkheim, basic institutional change adapted to modern conditions might enable people to find a path back to the wisdom of" primi­ tive" societies that was expressed in noble reciprocal gift-giving. We should return to the old and elemental. Once again we shall discover those motives of action still remembered by many societies and classes: the j oy of giving in public, the delight i n generous artis­ tic expenditure, the pleasure of hospi tality in the public or private feast. Social insurance, solicitude in mutuality or cooperation i n the professional group and all those moral persons called Friendly Societies, are better than the mere personal security guaranteed by the nobleman to his tenant, better than the mean life afforded by the daily wage handed out by managements, and better even than the uncertainty of capitalist savings . . . . For honor, disinterestedness, and corporate solidarity are not vain words, nor do they deny the neces­ sity for work. We should humanize the other liberal professions and make all of them more perfect. That would be a great deed, and one Durkheim already had i n view. I n doing this we should, we believe, return to the ever-present bases of law, to its real fundamentals and to the very heart of normal social l i fe.49 The probe into the problems which held the attention of the Durkheim school has b een continued by a thinker who has acknowledged the indirect infl uence o f D urkheim and the more direct, informal, and fruitfully personal influence of Marcel Mauss: Claude Levi-Strauss. La Pensee sauvage ( The Savage Mind) constituted a nodal point in the development of Levi-Strauss. ( I say more about its relation to D u rkheim's thought when I discuss the re­ lation of the human sciences to epistemology.) In this extremely difficult and professedly provisional pause in his work, Levi-Strauss broached problems

Chapter 3

The Division ofSocial labor

! 03

which had b e e n downplayed in the thought o f D urkheim. These problems included people's perceptual and metaphoric relations with nature, the mediation between sensation and the intellect, the nature of time, cosmic structures of experience, and the dialectic between the real and the imagi­ nary. Indeed, i t would not be going too far to argue that La Pemee sauvage is basically a study in the epistemology of perception which em ploys material drawn from "primitive" or "savage" societies in a "crucial experiment" i n t h e elaboration of a general theory. I n his own conception of the relation of sociology to philosophy, Durkheim was fully aware of the symbolic and structural bases of culture and society, b u t he was bound by a highly specific metaphysic in his interpretation of this idea. The work of Levi-Strauss goes beyond Durkhei m's social metaphysic in its contention that the notion of mutual respect as the complement of self-respect must be extended to the more generous, less narrowly anthropocentric, idea that one cannot respect oneself or others without respecting the whole of nature. This gift of broader solidarity i s entailed in Levi-Strauss's conviction that true humanism must begin beyond "man" - that it "does not begin w i t h oneself, but places the world above l i fe, life above man, respect for oth ers above egotism . " A more intimate knowledge of certain societies enabled Levi-Strauss t o reassert the primacy of Rousseau in modern cultural thought (and o f the Kant who was greatly i nfl uenced by Rousseau), whereas Durkheim placed ultimate faith in a Cartesianized neo- Kantianism which culminated i n a dualistic conception of mind and body and left little epistemological room for Kant's faculty of aesthetic j u dgment. On the more circumscribed problem of the contrast between "primi­ tive" and modern societies with respect to the existence of d i fferentiation, Levi-Strauss observed: We know the taboo on parents-in-law or at least its approximate equivalent. Through it we are forbidden t o address the great of this world and obliged to keep out of their way . . . . Now, in most societies the position of wife giver is accompanied by social (and sometimes also economic) superiori ty, that of wife taker by inferiority and depen­ dence. This inequality b e tween affines may be expressed obj ectively in institutions as a A u i d or stable hierarchy, or it may be expressed subj ectively in the system of interpersonal relations by means of privileges and prohibitions.

104

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

Thus nothing mysterious is attached to these usages which our own experience unveils to us from the inside. We are disconcerted only by their constitu tive conditions, different i n each case. Among ourselves, they are clearly detached from other usages and linked together in a nonequivocal context. In con trast, i n exotic societ­ ies the same usages and the same context are, as it were, ensnared [englues] in other usages and a different context: that of family ties, with which they seem to us incompatible. We find it hard to imagine that in private the son-in-law of the President of the French Republic should see in him the chief of state rather than the father-in-law. And although the Queen of England's husband may b ehave as the fi rst of her subjects in public, there are good reasons for supposing that he is just a husband when they are alone together. It is either one or the other. The superficial strangeness of the taboo on parents-in-law arises from its being both at the same time. Consequently, as we have found already i n the case of operations of understanding, the system of ideas and attitudes appears here only as incarnated . . . . What appears to us [in modern relationships] as greater social ease and greater intellectual mobility is thus due to t h e fact that w e prefer to operate with detached pieces [pieces detachees] , if not indeed with small change [Ia monnaie de Ia piece] , while the native is a hoarder: he is forever tying the threads, tirelessly turning over on themselves all aspects of reali ry, whether physical, social, or mental. We traffi c in our ideas; he makes of them a treasure. Sav­ age thought [Ia pensee sauvage] puts in practice a philosophy of finitude. 5 0 Freud's concept of transference would complicate Levi-Strauss's formu­ lations and lead one to see somewhat differently the relation b etween the "primitive" and the modern. In any event, the first great theoretical work of Levi-Strauss, Les Structures element aires de la parente ( The Elementary Struc­ ture ofKinship ) , was tacitly posited on the extension o f D u rkheim's category of organic solidarity (in the sense of differentiation and reciprocity) to the study of kinship structures in "primi tive" societies. In a summary which Levi-Strauss gave of his general conclusions, he observed: Now, in exactly the same way that the principle of sexual division of labor establishes a mutual dependency b e tween the sexes, compelling

Chapter 3

The Division ofSocial labor

I05

them thereby to perpetuate themselves and to found a fam ily, the prohibition of incest establishes a mutual dependency between fami­ lies, compelling them, in order to perpetuate themselves, to give rise to new fam ilies. It is through a strange oversight that the similarity of the two processes i s generally overlooked on account of the use of terms as dissimilar as division, on the one hand, and prohibition on the other. We could easily have emphasized only the negative aspect of The Division of Labor by calling it a prohibition of tasks; and co nversely, outlined the posi tive aspect of incest-prohibition by calling it the principle of Th e Division ofLabor of marriageable rights between families. For incest-p rohibition simply states that families (however they should be defined) can only marry between each other and that they cannot marry inside themselves. 5 1 The role o f differentiation i n "primitive" societies was also investigated by Levi-Strauss in a study of totemism which preceded La Penst!e sauvage. I n Le 1otemisme a ujourd'h ui ( 1otemism), h e interpreted totemism on the most general theoretical level as the assert ion o f a h o m o l ogy between a b i n ary opposition between natural species and a binary opposition between social group s . Levi-Strauss found the only specificity of totemism as a cultu ral phenomenon to be the privileged role of natural species as logical operators. The logical "similitude," moreover, was postulated neither within society as a homogeneous whole nor between the group and a natural species. The "similitude" referred to comparable differences between natural species and social groups. Durkheim's later theory of religion comprised a conception of a global totemic institution combining religion, kinship, and alimentary taboos. In The Elementary Forms ofthe Religious L�fe, Durkheim would argue that the totem was simultaneously the "family" name of the clan and the sacred object of religious devotion, and he would center his interpretation on the idea of an identification between a solidary social group (the clan) and an essential principle of religi ous meaning asserted by him to be the "hidden" referent in the figurative and emblematic representation of a natural species. D u rkheim argued that this "hid d en" referent was society itself, and religion for Durkheim had an essentially social meaning. For Levi-Strauss, religion had a social aspect, b u t it included this aspect in a broader network of relations, including prominently peo ple's relation to nature. To temism did not have an invariably religi ous function. The logical identity affi rmed

JOG

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

by totemism, moreover, referred to the relation b etween internally differ­ entiated series of natural and social groups. And the entire notion of an original social and cultural complex gravi tating around the totem formed an untenable "totemic illusi o n . " Through the usage o f a n animal and plant nomenclature ( i ts unique distin ctive characteristic), the alleged totemism does no more than express in its own way - by means of a code, as we would say today - correlations and oppositions which can be formalized in other ways, e.g., among certain tribes o f N orth and South America by op­ positions of the type sky/earth, war/peace, upstream/downstream, red/white, etc. The most general model and the most sys tematic ap­ plication of this is perhaps to be fo und in China, in the opposition of the two principles Yang and Yin, as male and female, day and night, summer and winter, the union of which results in an organized totality (tao) such as the conjugal p air, the day, or the year. Totemism is thus reduced to a particular fashion of posing a general problem: how to make opposition, instead of being an obstacle to integrati on, serve rather t o produce it.52 Thus totemism for Levi-Strauss amounted to a subcase of the general problem of making differentiation the ground of integration - the very problem which Durkheim had earlier conceptualized in terms of organic solidarity. The highly complex role of more or less comprehensive, cumu­ lative differentiations in symbolic systems and social structure (conceived analytically as one type of symb olic system rather than as an invariably autonomous, "sui generis realm of social facts") has been fu rther extended by Levi-Strauss into the study of mythology, a problem area that Durkheim largely p assed over in silence. Since this aspect of Levi-Strauss's thought is both the most intricate and the least accessible to the nonspecialist, we shall have to b e content with its mere mention. It is, however, safe to say that the thought of Levi-Strauss has thoroughly exploded Durkheim's idea of simplicity, homogenei ty, and diffuseness as the essence of "primi tive" societies. In its place, there have arisen problems of such magnitude that modern social scientists often feel compelled to call upon other specialists, e.g., mathematicians, and thereby invoke the modern division of labor i n order t o track certain societies' "primi tive" complexity and possibly tran­ shistorical implications.

Chapter 3

The Division ofSocial labor

107

But the transcendence of Durkheim's ethnocentrism has in practice often led to the loss of his profound interest in the nature and course of modern societies. Judging from Levi-Strauss's own work, the major problem of the ethnologist is no longer objectivity in relation to experience in other societies because of his commitments in modern society but detachment from the problems of modern society because of commitment to the ways of other societies. This attitude easily shades into elegiac remembrance, a form of aestheticism which, in its social implications, has little to distinguish it fro m less elevated forms of escapism and divertissement. Yet it was Levi­ Strauss who in his " Inaugural Address" formulated, in spite of his apparent reluctance, the pregnant possibility sensed by Mauss and vaguely felt by Durkheim h i m self. I f i t were - and t h a n k G o d i t is n o t - expected of t h e anthro­

pologist that h e presage the fu ture of humanity, no doubt h e would conceive it, n o t as a prolongation or a transcendence of present forms, but rather on the model of an i ntegrati on, progressively u n i fying the ch aracteristics proper to cold societies [ i . e . , t h e type of order, approximated i n "primitive" societies, which rests on the primacy of reversible, cyclical time] and hot societies [ i . e . , historically turbulent change and "progress , " approximated i n modern societ­ ies] . His reflection would take u p the thread of the old Cartesian dream of placing machines, like automata, i n the service of man. He would follow the traces of this dream i n the social philosophy of the eighteenth century u p until Saint-Simon. For, in announcing the passage "from the government of men to the administration of things," the latter anticipated the distinction between [material] culture and society and the convers ion, which information theory and electronics enable us at least to p e rceive as possible, from a type of civilization which historical b e coming inaugurated in the past - b u t at the price of a transformation of men into machines - to an ideal civilization which could succeed in transforming machines into men. Then, culture having received the b u rden of manufactur ­ ing progress, society would be lib erated from the millennia! curse which forced i t to enslave men in order to progress. Thenceforth, history could make itself. And society - placed above, or below, h i story - cou l d once again assume t h a t regular and almost crystal­ line structure which the best preserved of primitive societies teach

108

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

us is not contradictory to human nature. In this perspective, even if utopian, social anthropology would find its highest justification, for the forms of life and thought which it studies would no longer have only historical and comparative interest. T hey would correspond to a permanent choice for man which social anthropology, especially in our most somber hours, would have the mission of safeguardingY This notion of reconciling progress with legitimate order in modern society, whichDurkheim expressed in his own way in terms of the dialectic of anomie and a structurally informed conscience collective, brought the Durkheim school beyond the retrogressive memories ofComte. It showed the way to an idea of the legitimately conservative possibilities of modern society. Given the nature of status quo institutions and conditions in mod­ ern society, however, this vision increasingly led to what might be called a selectively radical conservatism requiring basic structural change. For only structural change would permit the use of modern material culture in ways compatible with a (re)turn to fundamentals in social life through structural transformation involving the planned avoidance of unwanted change. Yet one crucial problem left by Durkheim has not been adequately resolved by French thinkers influenced by him. Durkheim perceived in an exaggerated fashion the importance of community in "primitive" so­ cieties. Lucien Levy-Bruhl's stress on this idea was even more one-sided. Durkheim, moreover, increasingly saw the need for significant commu­ nity in all "healthy" societies. The problem he lef t was that of the precise relationship between community and dife f rentiated structure at various levels of t he "tree" of social life. A danger in the methodological revision­ ism of Claude Levi-Strauss is the radical de-emphasis of the problem of communtty. For f urrher insight into this problem, one may turn

to

Victor Turner,

o n e of the most important English-speaking anthropologists significantly influenced by the thought of Durkheim. Turner deserves more adequate coverage than he receives here, for in his treatment ofDurkheim's thought as a living tradition, he showed himself to be a thinker of a stature com­ parable to Levi-Strauss's. I shall confine myself to a few brief indications of the line of argument in the three concluding chapters of one ofTurner's most synthetic works, The Ritual Process. 54

Chapter 3

The Divtston ofSocial rabor

1 09

The Ritual Process in a sense revives the problem posed in The Division of Labor. For Tu rner focuses on the roles of structural differentiation and communitas as complementary and dialecti cally (or dialogically) related aspects of the social system. C ommunitas is more diffl cult to grasp than structure. But a study of it is vital and is related to the understanding of structure itself. Communitas is made evident or accessible, so to speak, only through its juxtaposition to, or hybridization with, aspects of social struc­ ture. Just as in Gestalt psychology, flgure and ground are mutually determin ative, or, as some rare elements are never found i n nature in their purity but only as components of chemical compounds, so communi tas can be grasped only in some relation to structure. Just because the communitas component is elusive, hard to pin down, it is not unimportant. Here the story o f Lao-Tse's chariot wheel may b e apposite. The spokes of the wheel and the nave . . . to which they are attached would be useless, he said, but for the hole, the gap, the emptiness at the center . . . which is nevertheless indispensable to the fu nctioning o f the wheel. 55 In this quote, Turner problematizes identity by suggestively linking com­ munitas to generative emptiness or absence rather than to any substantial or reified notion of community. For Turner, moreover, in any society com­ munitas may existentially erupt i n the extreme experience of individuals, e.g., in mystical states. In a relatively stable, ongoing social system, however, communitas is normatively integrated with structure, for example, in rituals such as rites of passage that meaningfully relate t h e liminal or transitional stages of a person's development to his or her life cycle as a whole. In a society excessively bound by formal structures, communitas may be ideologically afflrmed by restive segments of the population. Revolution itself represents a liminal state of society as a w hole. Turner concludes that "communitas breaks in through the i n terstices of structure, i n liminality; at the edges of structure, in marginality; and from beneath structure, in inferiority. It is almost everywhere held to be sacred or ' holy,' possibly b ecause i t transgresses or dissolves the norms that govern structured and institutionalized rela­ tionships and is accomplished by experiences of unprecedented potency. " 5 6 Hence communitas would paradoxically seem related to a certain mode of anom1e.

II 0

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

Through the concept of communitas, Turner i s able to relate - at times i n perhaps too facile or insuffl ciently developed a manner - such seemingly diverse phenomena as "neophytes in the liminal phase of ritual, sub jugated autochthones, small nations, court j esters, holy mendicants, good Samaritans, millenarian movements, 'dharma bums,' matrilaterality in patrilineal systems, patrilaterality in matrilineal systems, and monastic orders . " 57 The mere indication of the problems Turner treats shows the continuing relevance of the questions raised i n Durkheim's The Division of Labor. To some extent, Turner's ideas inform my later discussion of developments i n D u rkheim's thought.

Theory of Change

After his discussion of mechanical and organic solidarity i n normal states of society, Durkheim's focus in The Division of Labor shifts to the process of change, which purportedly has led from one type of solidar­ ity to the preponde rance of t h e other. I n view of stereotyped notions of Durkheim's "static" b i as, it is signiflcant that the question of change is at the center of his fl rst major work. Increasingly, his reformist goal was the type of institutional structure that would limit uncontrolled historical change and establish legitimate order. In this sense, stabilization was indeed his aim. But, analytically and empiri cally, Durkheim was not oblivious to the problem o f change. The questionable feature of The Division of Labor and of Durkheim's thought as a whole is not the neglect of historical change b u t the i d ea of it Du rkheim at times entertained. D u rkheim often assumed that an essential similarity of structure in two societies or social types, one of which was (or was believed to be) in some sense logically "simpler" than the other, permitted the inference that the second society had evolved his­ torically from the first by a process of increasing complexity of structural devel o p m ent. This preconception enabled the theorist to play havoc with the relationship between logic and time. In fa ct, D urkheim's entire evolutionary fram ework i n his first ma­ jor work o ften amounted to an uncritical reliance on S p e ncer's idea of evolution as a movement fro m h o m ogeneity to differentiation. In his First Princip les, Spencer h a d formulated h i s general i d e a of evolution

Chapter 3

The Division ofSocial labor

Ill

thus: "Evolution is an integration of matter and concomitant dissipation of motion; during which the matter passes from a relatively indefinite, incoherent homogeneity to a relatively definite, coherent heterogeneity; and during which the retained motion undergoes a parallel transformation."58 In his parody of Spencer, William James brings out the confusion under the verbiage of this "grand theory" of change from homogeneity to d i f­ ferentiation: "Evolution is a change from a no-howish, untalkaboutable, all-al ikeness to a somehow ish and in general talkaboutable not-all-alikeness by continuous sticktogetherations and somethingelsifications."5� Durkheim's dependence on d i ffuse ideas of evolution for his model of change accounted, no doubt, for the fact that The Division of Labor has no genuine historical dimension. The known process of change - or "moder n i zation," a term w h i c h is at times a b are-faced euphem ism - i n "primitive" societies took t h e form o f colonialism, imperialism, a n d "cul­ ture contact" with societies which had already attained economic, military, and technological superiori ty. Yet Durk h e i m h ad little to say about t h i s process, a process w h i c h c o u l d b e documented historically. Indeed, the uprooting of "primitive" societies by " h i gher" types of civilization made the "primitive" man in modern history prone, among other things, to anomie suicide - a fact which Durkheim did not discuss, even in Sui­ cide. Moreover, the modern i n dustrial societies w h i c h most concerned Durkheim had developed, not from a general type of "primitive" or tra­ ditional society, b u t , with a great deal of turmoil, from a feudal past. As Tocqueville had u nderstood, as experience in France m a d e evident, and as Durkheim himself seemed to realize in his less grandly theoretical mo­ ments, the precise nature of the historical development from a fe udal past was intim ately related to the specific problems faced by various Western countries in the modern perio d . In the United States, which l a cked a pronounced feudal past, a heritage of slavery and racism created severe d i fficulties for the achievement of consensus in ways which differed ac­ cording to region. Of these matters, D urkheim said nothing. And one of the most blatant omissions in his d i s cussion of modern society in the West was the absence of any extended treatment of the speci fi c nature of social structure in G e rmany and its relation to G e rmany's domestic situ­ ation and international position. D u rkheim touched upon the "German

II2

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

problem" only i n propagandistic pamphlets toward the end of his life. And i f h e had wanted to i nvestigate an internal process of change from "primi­ tive" cultures to Western practices and beliefs , the logical historical place to start would h ave been pre-Socratic Greece. The Division of Labor, i n bri ef, often subordinates real problems and historical processes t o models at least as abstract as those of the classical economists whom D u rkheim never tired of criticizing. Although Durkheim's discussion in The Division ofLabor gives little historical insight into significant cases o f change, it is noneth e l ess inter­ esting fo r his general conception of social process and for what it reveals concerning h i s u n certainties a b o u t m o d ern society. The abstract quality of his argument derived largely fro m the fact that he was addressing him­ self, not p os i tively to empirical evidence and problems in the analysis of society, b u t predominantly to the models o f o ther theorists. D u rkheim presented massive change in soci ety as a process in which integrated social structures are s ubjected to conditions b eyond their control and w h i ch results in a transitional phase o f pathological d isord e r b efo re society can reorganize on new structural bases. With the fre quently false and superficial rigor of m o n ocausal the­ ories of the time, D urkheim selected population pressure as the cause of the u p s e t in the functional balance o f society. His v a l i d p o i n t was that demographic conditions are always socially relevant as well as affected by social fo rces and that a well-ordered society requires a normatively controlled p o p u lation p o l i cy. In fact, shi fts in pop ulati o n did have spe­ cial i m p o rtance in causing unwanted change in " p ri m i tive" societies where norms and b el i e fs generally functioned to keep p o p ulation down to manageable proportions. The cmcial role of d e m o graphy in "devel­ oping" and m o dern societies has, of course, b e co m e increasingly obvious. But a methodologically pertinent criticism is that D u rkheim's extreme monocau salism prevented h i m fro m devoting s u ffi cient attention to other factors - e . g. , technology and i d e o logy - in processes of maj o r social change. Theoretically and ideologically, this model of change, which envisioned a passage from "normal" structure through a period of "pathological" tran­ sition to a new form of "normal" structure, had great imp ortance. For Du rkheim as fo r earlier thinkers such as Saint-Simon, Comte, and J . S.

Chapter 3

The Division ofSocial labor

I 13

Mill, modern society was passing through a transitional phase in which pathogenic causes had not yet been fully transcended. D urkheim's con­ ception of utili tarianism was derived from the thought of Bentham and Spencer, and it was infl uenced by Social Darwinism. Had he studied the thought of Mill, fo r example, he might have discovered ideas that cor­ roborated his own theories. But, given his conception of utilitarianism, his model of change enabled D u rkheim to situate i t (as well as Social Darwinism) as a theory relating to a period of rapid transition and social pathology. D urkheim argued in Social Darwinian fashi o n that pop ulation pressure caused an increased struggle fo r existence which resulted in time i n the survival of the fittest. But he did not identify the fittest with those i ndividuals or social units that m a x i m ized their own self- i n terest or s u rvived rabid competition and struggle. This entire state of affairs for him was an aspect of transition and pathology. Rather, he envisioned a process of evolution that would eventuate in the survival of the fittest form ofsocial structure, i . e . , the "normal" state that would cooperatively employ the social contrib utions of all members of society for the common good. The most obvious interpretation of Durkhei m's assertion that "every­ thing happens mechanistically" (tout se passe mecaniquement) is in terms of a comprehensive positivistic theory o f causation that excludes the pos­ sible intervention of human agency and conscious effo rt or control in the historical p r o cess. Here, however, one must distinguish b e tween the passage from the normal to the pathological and the passage from the pathological to the normal. In The Division of Labor, the assertion that "everything happens mechanistically" appeared in Durkhei m's treatment of change from one in tegrated social system to the transitional state of pathology. Apparently, D urkheim did believe that a m aj o r and disorient­ ing departure fro m a viably i ntegrated social order was caused initially by i m p ersonal, mechanistic processes that i n their socially relevant form were not intended. People did not choose to abandon a traditional mode of cultural i n tegration: they were fo rced out o f i t by external conditions such as p o p u lation pressure. Here Durkheim's ideas were similar to those of both Rousseau and Darwin. But D urkheim was much less clear ab o u t the relation of mechanistic pro cess to other factors in the passage fro m pathology to normality. H e seemed to rely o n a D arwinian noti o n of "natural selection" i n a process

I14

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

of evolution. And h e argued that one could not attribute the fu nctions of social institutions to the manifest intentions of social agents. B u t Durkheim never fully sorted o u t the interaction i n t h e historical process of such factors as intentional agency, unintended consequence, uncon­ scious motivation, ano m i e , and the structure and functioning of institu­ tions. Significant ideas he developed are that social consciousness arises in response to social disorder and that sociology, as the most advanced consciousness of modern soci ety, has the task of informing meaningful social action. How these ideas are related t o the over-all understanding of the historical process or to the more limited question of the intentional action o f social and political agents remains a blank chapter in Durkheim's th ought.

Residual Dou bts

One feature o f The Division of Labor that has puzzled many commen­ tators is D u rkhei m's extensive treatm e n t of t h e relation of The Division of Labm· to happiness. Yet this question was i m p ortant for Durkheim in terms ofboth the theories he opposed and the theories he defended. The idea that the division oflabor as the handmaid of economic growth bri ngs happiness and is indeed the result of a conscious pursuit of happiness constituted a favo rite theme of utili tari ans and classical economists. Durkheim did not investigate the possibility that the pursuit of happiness might function ideologically as a form of false consciousness. His rejection of the corre­ lation between happiness and the division of labor relied u p o n a statistical means of testing the proposed relationship. Durkheim argued that there was no positive index of happiness that carried methodological convicti on. But, h e ob served, there was an obj ective index of collective unhappiness: the suicide rate. If economic progress brought happiness, the suicide rate should drop. But "on the con trary, true suicide, i . e . , sad suicide, is in an endemic state among civilized peoples."Go Thus economic growt h, at least under the extremely unstable conditions which have accompanied it in modern history, does not bring happiness. This point would be more fully elaborated i n Suicide, which responded to the correlation of unhappiness and suicide i n The Division ofLabor, D urkheim related all disruptive change

Chapter 3

The Division ofSocial I_abor

II5

to anomie and saw the degree of happiness possible in life to b e dependent on overcoming runaway (but not all) anomie and simultaneously creating solidarity in society. Quite apparent i n the first edition of The Di11ision of Labor was Durkheim's attempt to find a middle way between the complacency of utilitarians and the moral nihilism of prophets of doom. If Durkheim at times in the fl rst edition seemed to share more of the complacency of the utilitarians and classical economists, it was not because he agreed with their idea of legitimate order, b ut because h e opti mistically believed in an evo­ lutionary movement of modern society toward his own ideal of legitimate order, however uncertain he may have been about its precise nature or mode of attainment. Clearly, Durkheim rejected Com te's belief that the division of labor necessarily entails social disorder. But he was tempted, as he so often was, to affl rm the opposite of another theorist's view: at times he seemed to argue that The Di11ision of Labor per se created social solidarity. Durkheim also wanted to distinguish his position from that of Ferdinand Tonnies, in whom he saw a theorist with an excessively negative view of modern soci ety. In fact, Durk h e im's tendentious ideas about "primitive" societies were due less to ethnocentric noblesse oblige than to a desire to avoid the dire conclusions of modern prophets of doom. Durkheim tended to invert Tonnies' equations by finding in modern organic solidarity the virtues Tonnies placed in "primi tive" Gemeinschaft (community) and to ascribe to "primitive" mechanical solidarity the defects Tonnies found i n modern Gese!lschafi (society) . Durkheim at points saw primitive societies as miniature mass societies without any "organic" structure, characterized by herd conformity and repressive pu nishments, and held together by bonds which were weaker and less stable than those i n modern society.6 1 Tonnies, in Gemeinschafi und Gesellschafi , had stated his position in these terms: The theory of Gesellschafi deals with the arriflcial construction of an aggregate of human beings which superflcially resembles the Gemein­ schaft ins ofar as the individuals live and dwell together p eacefully. However, in Gemeinschafi they remain essentially united in spite of all separating fa ctors, whereas i n Gesellschafi they are essentially separated in spite of all uniting factors. In the Gesellschaft, as con­ trasted with the Gemeinschafi, we find no actions that can be derived from an a priori and necessarily existing unity; no actions, therefore,

II 6

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

which manifest the will and spirit of the unity even if performed by the individual; no actions which, i nsofar as they are performed by the individual, take place on behalf of those united with h i m . I n the Gesellschafi such actions do not e x i s t . On the contrary, here everybody is by himself and isolated, and there exists a condition of tension against all others. 62 Ti:innies asserted that D urkheim's ideas of mechanical and organic soli­ darity were "altogether different" (ganz und gar verschieden) from his own.63 In an I 889 article on T i:innies' book, Durkheim, with comparable in transigence, made an apparent effort to accentuate the positive in modern society. The point where I separate myself fro m him is i n his theory of Ge­ sellschafi. I f I h ave understood h i m , Gesellschafi is characterized by a progressive development of individualis m , whose dispersive effects the state's action could for a while prevent. It would be essentially a mechanical aggregate; everything that remained of truly collective life would result not from spontaneity b u t from the entirely exter­ nal impulsion of the state. In a word, this i s society as conceived by Be ntham. Now I believe that the life in great social agglom erations i s j ust as natural as that i n little aggregates. It is not less organic or less internal. Beyond purely individual movements, there is in our contemporary societies a properly collective activity which is as natu­ ral as that of smaller societies of the past. I t is assuredly different; it constitutes a different type, but b etween these two species of the same genus, however diverse they may be, there is no difference of nature. To prove i t would take a book.64 T h e book was The Division ofLabor. But the b o o k remained ambiguous about whether and how existing forms of The Division of Labor or their d evelopmental tendencies created social and moral solidari ty. The argum ent concealed a "missing link" i n the evolutionary chain. Uncertainty also characterized Durkheim's treatment of modern indi­ vidualism and irs relation to solidarity. In addition to other aspects of the problem, Durkheim later tried to distinguish between forms ofindividualism compatible with solidarity and excessive, atomizing individualism or ego­ ism, particularly in the economic sphere. The Division of Labor attempted to correlate increasing social differentiation, u niversalistic values, and indi-

Chapter 3

The Division ofSocial labor

II7

vidualism. But its idea of the relation of individualism to solidarity was veiled in darkness. At times, Durkheim stressed the importance of personal dignity and the individual choice of a function in keeping with humane values and one's capacities. At other times, he seemed to argue that all institutionalized or ideologically shared individualism is the egoistic expression of a self- e f­ facing conscience collective - despite his own attempt to base solidarity on phenomena bound up with modern individualism. If [modern individualism and the cult of the person] are common insofar as they are beliefs shared by the community, they are indi­ vidual in their object. If all wills are turned toward the same end, this end is n o t social. Thus individualism is in an entirely excep tional situation i n the conscience collective. It is from society that it draws its force, b ut i t is not to society that it attaches us: i t is to o u rselves. Consequently, i t does not constitute a truly social bond. This is why theorists who make this sentiment the exclusive basis of their moral d o ctrine may with j u stice b e met with the reproach that they dissolve society. 65 Another matter left in doub t i n The Division of Labor was the rela­ tionship of differentiation to stratification, class formation, gendered roles, and structures of domination in society - and their relation, i n turn, to reciprocity and solidarity. This was a notable omission in a purportedly general sociology of a world in which the historical price of abundance and "high" culture for the few had typically been the exploitation of the many. Here Durkheim's failure to come to terms with M arx and become aware of Weber lessened drastically the relevance of his sociology to both the under­ standing of historical societies and the elaboration of his own concepts of normality and pathology. And here more than anywhere else is a basis for the charge that D u rkheim was a "bourgeois id ealist" whose thought d iverted attention from the realities of historical society. Apparently, D u rkheim did not believe that functional differentiation n ecessarily involves strati£ cation and discrimination or that the nature of a function somehow entails a dif­ ferential evaluation of roles or groups in terms of higher and lower. B u t he apparently did believe that all differentiated social orders were correlated with some typ e and measure of stratification which in modern society would be based on merit or achievement.66

118

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

What the causes, mechanisms, consequences, o r principles of this correlation might be, either typologically or universally, was never fully examined by D urkheim. Even i n his proposed model of a normal, soli­ daristic form of modern society, he did not offer a sustained, searching, and detailed enquiry into the problem of power, prestige, and economic reward in various institutional spheres and in the overall social order. Only certain elementary ideas emerged fro m h i s discussions, and they were hardly adequate to the problems raised. These ideas are discussed in the next two chapters.

Contract and Solidarity

D urkheim's tacit acceptance of Spencer's conception of evolution was not i n d i cative of his estimation, in The Division ofLabor, of the thought of the English theorist. His generally critical reaction to Spencer is m o s t apparent in B o o k I, chapter v i i , i n which he contrasts Spencer's idea of co n tractual s o l i darity w i t h h i s own i d e a of organic solidarity. T h i s piv­ otal chapter immediately precedes D u rkheim's discussion of change fro m mechanical t o organic s o l i d arity, b u t i t i n troduces t h e concluding section o n pathological forms of The Division of Labor by bringing o ut ways i n which development i n modern society has n o t reached a stage adequate to serve as a functional b as is of solidarity. For Spencer, industrial society was based u p o n a vast cash nexus of private contracts sanctioned b y a laissez-faire police state. "The typical fo rm of social relation would be the economic relation stripped of all regulation. " 6 7 If this kind of market relationship characterized society, Durkheim reasoned, there w o u l d b e little i f any solidarity. In the fact of econo m i c exchange, the d i fferent agents remain out­ side one another, and with the termination o f the operation each one E nds himself alone again. Consciences are only s u perfl cially i n contact; they neither penetrate nor adhere strongly to one another. If one gets to the bottom of things, one will see that all harmony of interests conceals a conflict which is latent or simply adjourned. For where interest reigns alone, there is nothing to restrain egoism, and each ego E nds itself on a warlike footing with all others. Any

Chapter 3

The Division ofSocial labor

II9

truce to this eternal antagonism cannot b e long-range. Indeed, i n terest is the least constant of all things in the w orld. Today it is in my interest to unite with you. Tomorrow the same reason will make me your enemy. 68 Thus Ti:innies' critique, excluded by the fro n t door, seemed to gain entry b y the b ack. D urkheim's own position was summed up in the as­ sertion that "not everything is contractual in the contract."69 D u rkheim meant that the contract could not b e reduced to ad hoc acts o f will among private parties, b u t that it presupposed a framework of norms and laws upheld and sanctioned by social agencies. As examples, he cited the re­ quirements of the French Code, which fo rbade the making of contracts by an incompetent and contracts concerning things which could n o t b e sold o r involving illicit dealings. There were also posi tive obligations i n contract law, fo r instance those enabling a j u dge t o grant a delay t o a debtor under certain conditions. The crucial substantive question, however, was whether and t o what extent the i n terve n t i o n of the state or o ther social agencies was restricted to p o lice fu nctions and the enforcement of the rules of the game in a profl t-oriented market economy. Were the conditions of organic solidar­ ity fulfl lled by the pursuit of self- interest in market relationships as long as one did not break the law (thro ugh theft, fraud, and so on)? In other words, w a s D urkheim a t b es t scoring a debater's points against Spencer by presenting an academic reinterpretation of the same facts, or was h e arguing that solid arity i n society required structural bases very different fro m those envisaged by Spencer and the economists? At this j uncture of the argument, Durkheim began to make critical comments and to lay down general principles which took him far b eyon d legal procedures o r the " formal" freedom o f contracting parties and i n t o substantive considerations o f social j ustice. T h i s prerequisite of solidarity in society cannot be conceived as the automatic resultant of market forces or even as a possible achievement of a Keynesian welfare state. Du rkheim's remarks i m p l y that b asic structural reform i s required to provide the ground work of soli darity in society. No doubt, when men unite by contract, i t is because simple o r com­ plex division oflabor has made them need one another. But for them

I 20

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

to cooperate harmoniously, it is not sufficient for them to enter into relations nor even to feel the state o f mutual dependence i n which they find themselves. It is further necessary that the conditions of this cooperation be fixed fo r the entire duration of their relation­ ship. I t is necessary that the duties and rights of each be d efined, not only in view of the situation as it presents itself at the moment of contract, but in prevision of circumstances which may develop and modify it. Indeed, it is necessary not to forget that i f the division of labor makes i nterests interdependent, it does not confound them; it leaves them distinct and rival. . . . Each contracting party, while in need of the other, seeks to obtain what he needs at the lowest price, that is, to acquire the most rights possible in return for the fewest obligations possible.7° For solidarity to be created in this context, the conscience collective re­ lating differentiated functions would have to stipulate institutional norms that would establish and sanction relational conditions of reciprocity. Only the generally accepted norm could locate the "middle term between the rivalry of interests and their solidarity. " Hence Durkheim concluded that "there is only a difference of degree between the law which regulates con­ tractual o b l i gations and [ t h e laws] which fix other social duties of citize n s . " And he asked whether the absence of effective social control of key sectors of the economy "was n o t the effect of a morbid state" of society.7 1 Significantly, however, Durkheim realized that regulative norms would not eliminate all conflict i n society. Although he did not devote adequate attention to the problem of conflict in its various fo rms and functions, he did see that conflict in itself was not "path o l ogical" a n d that, w i t h i n l i m i ts, it might be conducive to "normal" integrati o n . "Normal" social o rder, he believed, was not static equilibrium. Confl ict was one component of social dynamics. The pathological began only when confl ict was unregulated. To what extent confl ict should be regulated in order to arrive a t a "middle term" - a normative golden mean or compromise formation that could not be conflated with a status quo juste milieu - was a diffi c u l t question Durkheim never fully answered. But, in general, M auss's term "amiable rivalry" well expressed Durkheim's i d e a . Durkheim went o n t o reject the myth o f freedom of contract and to pose the problem of the relation between bargaining positions in society and

Chapter 3

77u Division ofSocial labor

I 2I

the social regulation of contract. For Spencer, the object of contract was

to

ensure that the worker received the equivalent of the outlay his work cost him. Durkheim believed that contract could never fill such a role without contracts "being much more closely regulated than they are today." Classical economists replied that the law of supply and demand would automatically re-establish economic equilibrium. Durkheim countered that this view neglected the social fact that workers living in poverty could not move on to higher paying jobs. Even for classes with greater mobility, changes of occupation took time. "In the meanwhile, unjust contracts which are antisocial by definition have been executed with the complicity of society, and, when equilibrium has been established at one point, there is no reason for its not breaking up at another."72 In one of his veryfirst articles, Durkheim was even more explicit about the myth of equating formal legal freedom with real contractual freedom in society: What can the poor worker reduced to his own resources do against the rich and powerful boss, and is there not a palpable and cruel irony in assimilating these two forces which are so manifestly unequal? If they enter into combat, is it not clear that the second will always and without difficulty crush the first? What does such a liberty amount to, and does not the economist who contents himself with it become guilty of taking the word for the thing?73 In the discussion of contract and organic solidarity in

Labor,

The Division of

Durkheim went on to draw a very radical conclusion from the idea

of social justice: If a contract is not just, it is destitute of all authority. In any case, the role of society cannot be to reduce itself to the passive execu­ tion of contracts. It must also determine under what conditions they are executable and, if necessary, restore them to their normal form. The agreement of parties cannot render just a clause which in itself is unjust, and there are rules of justice whose violation social justice must prevent, even if it has been consented to by the interested parties.74

I22

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

Thus even when society depended most fully o n The Division ofLabor, It could not resolve itself into "a dust of j uxtaposed atoms" having only "exterior and passing contacts" with one another. According to Durkheim, people cannot live together "without mutual understanding and, conse­ quently, without becoming bound to one another in a strong and durable manner. All soci ety is a moral society . . . . The individual is not sufficient unto himself."75

Modern Social Pathology

Durkheim's reflections on contract were continued i n his concluding section on pathological forms of the division of labor. In the pathological state, the division of labor did n o t fu nction to create solidarity but, on th e contrary, was related to social crisis and disease. Biology, for Durkheim, was the science with the greatest interest for sociology, although he always made clear that this interest was limited to the metaphors and analogies that biology might provi d e . The two sets of concepts with bio logical analogues that had greatest importance for sociology were, of course, the notions of structure and fu nction and the distinction between the normal and the pathological. Aside fro m his general methodol ogical belief t h at in sociol­ ogy as in biology the study of the pathological was complementary to the study of the normal, Durkheim turned to the study of p athology for the specific reason that historically the division of labor "would not have been the object of such grave accusations if i t really did not deviate more or less from the normal state."76 Thus, despite the apparent conviction in his first major work that society in time would "mechanisti cally" tend to assume a normal or i ntegrated form, Durkheim did recognize that this condition had not yet been reached. The pathological forms Durkheim treated were the anomie, the fo rced, and what might be termed the alienated, division oflabor. It is significant that his core concept of anomie made its first appearance in his earliest work and in a context i n t i m ately related to i llegitimate constraint or expl o i tative struc­ tures. In fact, the concept of anomie, which was to receive its fu ll theoretical development in Suicide, already took on in The Division ofLabor features of what Marx had conceived as structural contradictions in society.

Chapter 3

The Division ofSocial labor

123

Durkheim b egan his discussion of the anomie division of!abor by giving specific cases, some of which he also included in Suicide: "The fi rst case of this genus is furnished by industrial or commercial crises, by bankruptcies, which are so many partial ruptures of organic solidarity; they bear witness to the fact that at certain points of the organism, certain social functions are not adjusted to one another." Instead of decreasing with the division of labor, industrial and commercial crises had increased with its advance. Durkheim recognized, however, that crises could not be unequivocally correlated with economic growth in general, for enterprises had become concentrated to a greater degree than they had multiplied. Indeed, he went on to observe that "small industry, where labor is less divided, offers the spectacle of a relative harmony between worker and boss; it is only in big industry that conflicts are in a b i tter state."77 Anomie i n big industry, ac­ cording to Durkheim, was due to an absence of functional coordination. He did not consider the possibility that impersonal bureaucratic organizations which minutely coordinated functions and roles on an i nstrumental and formally rational level might produce anomie on the level of substantive irrational ity by denying or marginal izing face-to-face relations and foste r i n g meani n gless human relationships. Durkheim found a "more striking" case of anomie in the confl ict of labor and capital. "To the extent that industrial functions become more specialized, so far from solidarity increasing, the struggle becomes more lively."78 Relying on Emile Levasseu r's Les Classes ouvrieres en France jusqua Ia Revolution ("The Working Classes i n France up to the Revolution," 1 8 5 9 ) , Durkheim observed that before the fifteenth century conflicts had been i n frequent, largely becau se master and apprentice were almost equals. In many metiers, the apprentice could look forward to becoming a master in his turn. Beginning with the fifteenth century, conditions b egan to change, but confl icts remained restricted to matters bearing on specific grievances. With the coming of b i g i n dustry in the seventeenth century, the third stage i n the process of growing class conflict b rought the separat i o n of worker and boss, the genesis of two alien "races" i n the fa ctories, and the b i rth of revolutionary ideologies. After this brief but illuminating slice of history, Durkheim enunciated his own idea of the close relationship between anomie and exploitation. In a sense, social disorder derived b o th from the absence of the right kind

124

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

of regulation and the presence of the wrong kind o f regulation. More speciflcal!y, exploitation could b e seen as an element in a broader fl eld of anomie, for i t involved an irrational contradiction b e tween the condi­ tion or institutional position of a group and its values and needs, i f not t h e values and needs o f society as a whole. A t this point i n t h e argument, D u rkhei m's faith in a "mechanistic" trend over time toward integration began to falter; at most, he believed that i ntegrati o n would be achieved only in a p ost-revolutionary phase of social pathology. In a pre-revolutionary social context, "mechanistic" and impersonal processes would not be forces for integration and solidarity. There is, h owever, one case where anomie can be produced even though contiguity [among functions] i s suffl ci ent. It i s when the necessary regulation can be established only at the price of transfor­ mations of which the social structure is no longer capable: because the plasticity of societies i s not indefl nit e. When i t is at its end, it may make impossible even necessary changes.79 Thus, according to Durkheim, society might E nd itself i n a structural bind in which a historical conjunction of anomie and exploitative insti­ tutions would require revolution for possible structural transformation. D u rkheim never beli eved that in the modern context violent apocalypse was necessary fo r structural reform - he never considered it sufflcient i n a n y context - b u t he did increasingly see the need for basic structural change effected through arduous, i f ill-defined, effort. By this point in the argument, the full range of Durkheim's concept of anomie, which receives fuller exposition in Suicide, becomes more evident. In the E rst edition of The Division of Labor, Durkheim did provide suf­ flcient grounds for rejecting any attempt simply to identify anomie with a total absence of institutions, norms, or values - a situation which in Du rkheim's usage of the term "anomie" constitu ted only an extreme case. The D u rkheimian defl nition of "anomie" referred to the absence of gen­ erally accepted limiting norms. Thus contradictions in the social system, including normative contradictions, were, in D urkheim's sense, anomie because there was no norm of a higher order t o resolve the structural problems that they caused. And institutions or ideologies might be anomie i n the sense t h at they i m posed limitless assertion or expans i o n , which for

Chapter 3

The Division ofSocial labor

125

Durkheim was invariably bound up with substantive irrationality in the larger soci ety. One cannot b egin to understand the full extent to which Durkheim had a notion of substantive reason and the ways i n which his concept of social pathology has o ften been distorted if one does not understand the scope and implications of his concept of anomie and the importance fo r him of an institutionally based sense of legitimate limits in society. I n The Division of Labor, as i n Suicide, D u rkheim treated as anomie an institutional system which structurally imposed limitless, maximizing activity upon members of society: a profit-oriented market economy. His ideas on the anomie "anarchy of the market" coincided with those of both C o m te and Marx, who i n this circumscribed respect were in agreement. Durkheim wrote: 'Today there are no longer rules which fix the number of economic enterprises and, i n each branch of industry, production i s not regulated i n a way that m akes i t remain at the level of consumption . . . . This lack of regulation does not permit a regular harmony of functions."80 Although he prudently refrained from making prescriptive recom­ mendations on the necessity of social control for integrati on and solidarity, Durkheim did go on to assert that the economists' idea of the re-establishment of economic equilibrium through the free play of market forces ignored the social havoc wrought by the market. "The economists demonstrate, it is true, that this harmony becomes re-established by itself when it is necessary, thanks to the rise or fall of prices which, according to needs, stimulates or slows down production. But in any case it re-establishes itself in this way only after ruptures of equilibrium and more or less prolonged troubles ."8 1 D u rkheim found another case of anomie in modern society in the lack of coordination among specialized disciplines: "Science, which is fragmented into a multitude of detailed studies which do not fi t together, no longer forms a solidary whole. What manifests best this absence of concert and unity i s the widespread theory that each particular science has a n absolute value. "82 Hence Durkheim did not endorse the tendency toward the autonom ization of differentiated spheres of activity in modern society. The integration of science and of society were companion goals of his endeavor. And his line of thought implies that structural change and cultural reorientation are the prerequisites for making any i nterdisciplinary study of modern society more than a large-scale investigation of fragmentation, partial truths, and internal

I26

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

inconsistencies. Without such change, the university itself threatened to be a rather vacuous idea - an i nsubstantial catch-all for a series of expansive microcosms gravi tating in their own orbits. Next Durkheim turned to the "constrained" (in the sense of "forced") division of labor; the discussion both resumed his enquiry into contract and overlapped with his treatment of anomie. He began with a pregnant obser­ vation that reveals his full awareness that certain types of laws or institutional norms might abet confl ict, disorder, and malaise in society. It is not sufficient t h at there be rules, however, because sometimes the rules themselves are the causes of evil. This is what occurs in class wars. The institution of classes [apparently intended here to signifY orders or estates] or of castes constitutes an organization of The Division of Labor, and it is a strictly regulated organization; i t is, nevertheless, a frequent cause of dissensi ons. The lower classes, not satisfied, or no longer satisfl ed, with the role which custom or law has devo lved upon them, aspire to dispossess those who are exercising these functions. From this there arise civil wars, which result fro m the manner in which labor is distributed.s3 Thus the problem of s o c i a l conflict was not entirely ignored in D u rkheim's first major work. In a d i rect criticism o f Tarde's theory of imi­ tation, Durkheim recognized that rising expectations might be involved i n the genesis o f social confl ict, perhaps a s o n e component o f a more compre­ hensive process of structural change and social uprooting. His ideas on this subject were similar to Vilfredo Pareto's theory of the "circulation of elites." Imitation of one class by another takes place only if there are "predisposing grounds." "For needs to spread from one class to another, it is necessary that differences which originally separated the classes should have disappeared or diminished. It is necessary, through changes produced in soci ety, that some become competent in functions which formerly were beyond them, while others lose their original superiority."84 Once a lower class perceived that opportunities fo r its growing ability to exercise certain functions were closed off, it was m otivated to assert its prerogatives, if need be through revolutionary action. Durkheim distinguished sharply b etween constraint, in the sense of obligation rooted in commitment to legitimate norms, and pathological

Chapter 3

The Division ofSocial labor

127

constraint based upon pure power and the reality or threat of force and vio­ lence. "If the commitment which I have torn fro m someone by threatening him with death is morally and legally null, how could it be valid if, in order to obtain it, I have profited from a situation of which I was not the cause, it is true, b u t which puts someone else under the necessity of yielding to me or dying? "ss Durkheim believed that in modern society the creation of solidarity depended upon the abolition of illegitimate constraint both i n j o b opportunities and i n the interrelations o f groups and functions. On the level of j o b opportunity, the democratic values of modern society enjoined a more complete passage from inherited status to the recognition of equality of opportunity and achievement. In an article on Albert Schaeffle written eight years before the publication of The Division of Labor, Dur k h e i m was quite clear about the need fo r one basic type o f individual lib erty in modern society: I f by these words [ " i ndividual l i b erty"] o n e means the faculty of violating the principle of causality, of withd rawing from all social milieus in order to posit oneself as an absolute, there is no merit i n sacrifi cing it. It i s a sterile independence; it is the plague of all morality. The one thing which must be upheld is the right to choose a m o n g all fu nctions the one which we j udge to be the most in accord with our nature.86 In The Division ofLabor, the idea of equality of opportunity as a func­ tional prerequisite of integration in modern society led Durkheim to a very radical conclusion that he would later expand and modifY. If one class in society is obliged, in order to live, to have its services accepted at any price, while another class can do without them, thanks to the resources i t controls - not necessarily because of some social superiority - the second unjustly imposes its law upon the first. In other words, there cannot be rich and poor fro m birth without there being unjust contracts.87 Tru e equality of opportunity, unj ustly inhibited b y existing fo rms offamilial inheritance of wealth, was for D urkheim made all the more necessary by the collapse o f religious legitimation of the social order. The humanistic

I28

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

conception o f social structure as a purely human creation laid it open to the claims of people. As an entirely human work, "it could no longer oppose itself to human demands." This circumstance made the reconcili­ ation of The Division ofLabor with an " i d e a l of spontaneity" all the more imperative.88 Equality of opportunity was the first functional prerequisite of j ust contract and solidarity in modern soci ety. But it was also necessary "to relate functions to one another."89 This was possible only i f f unctional contributions were fl exibly limited and adjusted to one another by shared norn1s. Durkheim's concept of achievement cannot be identified with a gener­ alized performance principle in society. Limitless competitive achieving was fo r h i m a conspicuous case of ano m ie. Ach ieve m e n t in Durkheim's "normal" society had the very classical meaning of fulfi lling oneself i n ways complementary to the self-fulfi llment of others. Limitless striving would be restricted to a marginal aspect of the average personality and to marginal groups of exceptional individuals. This line of argument again brought D u rkheim face to face with the need fo r a conscience collective in modern society. The last pathological form of The Division of Labor was left unnamed by Durkheim. But the concept of alienation expresses his basic idea. This pathological form was exemplifi ed in the extreme division oflabor i n which functions "were distributed in such a way that they did not offer suffi cient matter for the activity of individuals." Here Durkheim took yet another step away fro m the economists and what has become known as Taylorism or Fordism. In so doing, he did not content himself with the discovery of a " h u m a n factor" among the resou rces mobilized by the process of pro­ duction. His conception of the normal state of the division of labor was directly oriented to the human worker rather than the economic process. The division o f labor imposed duties i f, and only if, it provided the means for an in-depth development of the self compatible with reciprocity with others. " H owever one m ay represent the moral ideal," Durkheim remarks, "one cannot remain indifferent to a degradation of human nature. If mo­ rality has as its goal the perfection of the individual, i t cannot permit the individual to be ruined to such a degree; i f it has society as its end, i t can­ not let the very source of moral lif e stagnate: fo r the evil does not menace economic functions alone, but all social functions, however elevated they

Chapter 3

The Division ofSocial labor

129

may b e . "90 Thus D urkheim's indictment of the d i lettantism of Renais­ sance man, which he correlated with undemocratic forms of elitism, was complemented by an equally severe indictment o f extreme specialization. M o reover, h e fu lly recognized that i m p roving leisure-time activities and the level of general culture did not resolve the problem of making jobs meaningfu l. "The division of labor does n o t change its nature b e cause i t i s preceded b y general culture. No d o u b t i t is good for the worker to be able to interest himself i n art, literature, etc. But i t is n o less bad fo r him t o b e treated all day l o n g like a mach i n e . " 9 1 B y t h i s point, i t should b e obvious where the "missing link" between the division of labor and solidarity was to b e fo und: in the specifically sociological issue of the institutional organization of the division of labor with respect to legitimate, limiting norms and substantive values, as well as the historical processes which might lead to the genesis of a desirable state of society. It was not the division o f labor per se which created either solidarity or disorder, b u t the nature of the division of labor and the way in which it was institutionally organized. Durkheim's d i d not i n h i s first m aj o r work an alyze closely existing social realities and the ways i n which they might be transformed to make society more livab l e . He o ffered no systematic investigation of the state, bureaucracy as an institutional form, the army, the economy, education, the fam i ly, gender, religion, existing occupations, and their i n terrelations in society as a whole. His treatment of the economy was confined to the specific features that concerned him most from a moral point of view. He did not, for example, treat capitalism as an institutional system and attempt to trace its stages of development or project its probable course. Nor did he try to apply his concepts of normality and pathology i n a consistent appre­ ciation and critique of existing realities. It was, to some extent, annoyance at D urkheim's failure to investigate more intensively existing social fo rces and their concrete effects on the lives of human b e ings that prompted his own disci p l e Celestin B o ugie to observe i n a 1 9 0 1 article, " T h e o ries of the Division o f Labor," in the Annee sociologique itself: One can indeed fear that the division of labor, as i t becomes per­ fected, tends in certain respects to isolate individuals and make il­ lusory the interrelations formerly believed to be effective in creating

I30

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

consensus among people. When relations between produ cers and consumers, or entrepreneurs and workers, remain direct and man­ to-man, then one might b elieve that specialization brings with it certain associations of ideas and sentiments which naturally i n c l i n e those whom i t brings i n contact t o respect o n e another. B u t when these relations become abstract, when some work for others without being i n contact with o r seeing one another, can the moral effect be the same? Is not one of the consequences of the role of money i n our societies the replacement almost everywhere o f concrete, living, and h u m a n relationships by i m personal and abstract rela­ tions? . . . To the extent that the division of labor is responsible fo r the development of o ur entire commercial system, one can say that it makes habitual the tendency no longer t o see men above things, [but] to treat men as things.92 Durkheim's own discussion of anomie, fo rced, and alienated forms of the division of labor - despite its extreme generality and hypothetical air - did imply the necessity of basic structural reforms b efore solidarity could b e created in modern society. Like all of Durkheim's major w o rks, The Di11ision of Labor ended with a call to action: We fee l only too m uch how laborious a task it is to build this so­ ciety where each individual will have the place h e merits, will be rewarded as he deserves, and where everybody, consequently, will spontaneo usly work for the good of each and all. . . . It has been said with j ustice that morality - and b y this must be understood not only moral doctrines b ut customs - is going through a real crisis. What precedes can h e l p us to u n d e rstand t h e nature and causes o f this sick condition. Profo u nd changes have been prod u ced i n the structure o f our societies i n a very short time . . . . The functi ons which have been disrupted i n the course o f the upheaval have not had time to adjust themselves t o one another; t h e new life which has e m e rged so suddenly has n o t been able to b e co m e com pletely organized, and above a l l , it has n o t been organized in a way t h at satisfies the need for j u stice which has grown more ardent in o u r hearts. I f this i s so, t h e remedy for t h e evil is not t o seek t h e revival of traditions and practices which, no longer corresponding to pres­ ent conditions of society, can live only an artificial, false life. What we m ust do is bring this a n o m i e to an e n d and fi n d the means for

Chapter 3

The Division ofSocial labor

I3 I

making the organs which are still wasting themselves in discordant movements concur harmoniously . . . . In a word, our fi rst duty is to create a morality . . . . What refl ection can and must do is mark the goal that must b e attained. That is what we h ave tried to do.93 Hence, the requirement for solidarity was to create a morality not in t h e abstract or purely discursively but with respect t o institutional practices and forms of social relation. What social and political agents might respond to this call was a question not raised, much less answered, by Durkheim. But Durkheim seemed to conclu d e , however haltingly, that community and differentiated structure were complementary elements o f society and culture that all normal types of society would h ave to integrate in their own specifl c ways.

J 32

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

Notes

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 1 0. 11. 12. 13. 14. 1 5. 1 6. 17. 18. 1 9. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27.

Robert Nisbet, ed., Emile Durkheim (Englewood Cliffs, N . J . : Prentice Hall, 1 96 5 ) , p . 3 0 . The Structure of Social Action: A Study in Social Theory (first pub. 1 937; Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1 949), p . 3 0 8 . Pragmatisme et sociologie (Paris: Librairie Philosophique J . Vrin), 1 9 5 5 . George Lichtheim, Origins ofSocialism (New York: Praeger, 1 9 68), p . 5 6 . Preface to 1 st ed., D e L a Division d u travail social (7th e d . ; Paris: Presses U niversitaires de France, 1 960 ), p. xliii. Raymond Lenoir, " L'Oeuvre sociologique d'Emile Durkheim , " Europe, XXII ( 1 93 0 ) , 294. Celestin Bougie, ibid. , p . 2 8 1 . Bougie, ibid. Marcel Mauss, I n trod., 1 st ed., Emile Durkheim, L e Socialisme; i n Socialism, trans. Charlotte Sattler (New York: Collier Books, 1 9 5 8 ) , p. 34. Division d u travail social, p . 393. Division du travail social, p . 393. Les Regles de la methode sociologique ( 1 5th ed.; Paris: Presses U niversitaires de France, 1 96 3 ) , p . 82. Ibid. , p. 83. Structure and Function i n Primitive Societies (London: Cohen & West, 1 9 6 1 ) , p . 1 29 . Division du travail social, p . 46. Ibid., p . xlii. Ibid. , p. 29. Le Suicide (first pub. 1 8 97; Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1 9 60), p . 426. Marcel Mauss, " I n Memoriam: COeuvre inedite de Durkheim et d e ses col­ laborateurs," A mu!e sociologique, n . s . , 1 ( 1 92 3 ) , 9. L'Education morale (first pub. 1 92 5 ; Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1 963 ) , p. 1 3 9 . Ibid. , p. 1 4 7. Regles de fa methode sociologique, pp. 7 1 -72. Ibid. , p. 70. Ibid. , p . 68. Le�ons de sociologie (Paris: Presses Universitai res de France, 1 960), p. 1 42 . Mauss, " I n Memoriam," p . 1 2 . Edwin Hardin Sutherland, White Collar Crime (New York: Dryden Press, 1 949).

Chapter 3

The Division ofSocial rabor

133

2 8 . The Human Sciences and Philosophy, trans. Hayden V. White and Robert Anchor (f rst p u b . 1 966; London: Cape Editions, 1 9 69), p. 3 8 . 2 9 . Ibid. , p p . 3 8 , 40. 3 0 . "Crime et sante sociale," Revue philosophique, XXX ( 1 8 95 ) , 520-5 2 1 . 3 1 . Sigmund Freud, Civilization and Its Discontents (Garden City, N .Y. : Doubleday Anchor Books, 1 9 5 8 ) , p. 9 0 . 3 2 . A mu!e sociologique, I V ( 1 899- 1 90 0 ) , 6 5 - 9 5 . 3 3 . Ibid. , p. 70. 3 4 . Education morale, p. 1 5 4. 3 5 . Marcel Mauss, review of\'V: H . Rivers, The Todas, i n A n nee sociologique, XI ( 1 906- 1 90 9 ) , 3 1 4. 3 6 . Review of S.-R. Steinmetz, "Das Verhaeltniss zwischen Eltern and Kindem bei den Naturvoelken , " in A n nee sociologique, I I I ( 1 898- 1 8 9 9 ) , 446. 37. Education morale, pp. 1 64- 1 6 5 . 3 8 . Ibid. , p. 1 6 1 . 3 9 . Division du travail social, pp. 1 49ff. 4 0 . Ibid. , p. 1 5 0. 4 1 . Ibid. 42. "Sociologie et sciences sociales , " Revue philosophique, LV ( 1 9 0 3 ) , 477-478. 43. Pragmatisme et sociologic, pp. 1 9 1 - 1 92 . 44. Marcel Mauss, The G�ft, trans. Ian Cunnison (frst pub. 1 92 5 ; New York: Norton, 1 9 67). 45. Ibid. , p. 7 1 . 4 6 . Ibid. , p. 7 0 . 47. Ibid. , p. 1 . Mauss related the study of total social phenomena to a "holistic" methodology conceived in terms reminiscent ofHegel: "We are dealing then with something more than a set of themes, more than institutional elements, more than institutions, more even than systems of institutions divisible into legal, economic, religious and other parts. We are concerned with 'wholes,' with systems in their entirety . . . . I t is only by considering them as wholes that we have been able to see their essence, their operation and their living aspect, and to catch the fleeting moment when the society and its members take emotional stock of the mselves and their situation as regards others . . . . H i s torians believe and j ustly resent the fact that sociologists make too many abstractions and separate unduly the various elements of society . . . . Whereas fo rmerly sociologists were obliged to analyse and abstract rather too much, they should now fo rce themselves to reconstitute the whole . . . . The study of the concrete, which is the study of the whole, is made more readily, is more interesting and furnishes more explanations in the sphere of sociology, than the study of the abstract" (pp. 77-78 ) . Mauss's discussion of the foit social

134

Emile Du rkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

total, however, often seemed to lead more in the direction of apprehending the

48. 49. 50. 51. 52.

complex, overdetermined, and hybridized - rather than totalized - nature of certain "concrete" social and cultural phenomena or processes. Ibid. , pp. 73-74. Ibid. , p. 67. La Pensr!e sauvage (Paris: Plan, 1 962 ) , pp. 3 5 2 - 3 5 3 . Claude Levi-Strauss, "The Family, " i n H. Shapiro, e d . , Man, Culture, and So­ ciety (frst pub. 1 9 5 6 ; New Yo rk: Oxford University Press, 1 96 0 ) , p. 277. Le Totr!misme aujourd'hui (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1 96 2 ) , pp. 1 27 - 1 2 8 .

5 3 . Claude Levi-Strauss, "Ler;:on inaugurale," Jan. 5 , 1 96 0 , College d e France, No. 3 1 , pp. 43-44. 54. Victor Turner, The Ritual Process (Chicago: Aldine, 1 96 9 ) . 5 5 . Ibid. , p. 1 27. 5 6 . Ibid. , p . 1 2 8 . 5 7 . Ibid. , p . 1 2 5 . 5 8 . Herbert Spencer, First Principles (New Yo rk: Appleton, 1 8 6 4 ) , p. 407. 59. Quo ted i n Gilbert Highet, The Art ofleaching (New York: Knopf, 1 9 54), p. 207. 60. Division du travail social, p . 226. 6 1 . Ibid. , p . 1 2 0 . 6 2 . Ferdinand Ti:innies, Co mmunity and Society, Charles Loomis, trans. and ed. (New Yo rk: Harper Torchbooks, 1 963) , p . 64. 6 3 . Quoted in Harry Alpert, Emile Durkheim and His Sociology (f rst pub. 1 93 9 ; New Yo rk: Russell & Russell, 1 9 6 1 ) , p . 1 8 5 . 6 4 . Review ofTi:innies, Gemeinschafi and Geseflrchafi, Revue philosophique, X). I I ( 1 8 8 9 ) , 42 1 . 6 5 . Division du travail social, p. 1 47. 66. See Durkheim's review of Celestin Bougie's Essais sur le regime des castes (Paris: Alcan, 1 9 0 8 ) , in Annee sociologique, Xl ( I 906- 1 90 9 ) , pp. 384-387.

One of Durkheim' s basic points i n this review is that hierarchy is not due to the division of labor itself but, in castes, to a specific sort of ritual principle. Bougie had analyzed castes in terms of a combination of heredi tary division of labor, hierarchical organ ization, ritual rep ulsion, and endogamy. For a more extensive structural analysis of hierarchy, see Louis Dumont, Homo hierar­ chicus (Paris: Gallim ard, 1 9 6 6 ) . See also the course given by Roger Bastide, "Formes elementaires de Ia stratifcation sociale," Centre de Documentation U niversitaire, Paris. Bas tide observes that even in "primitive" societies where there is no signifcant stratifcation among groups, there is always stratif ca­ tion among individuals on the basis of performance. I n terestingly enough,

Chapter 3

67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 7 4. 75. 76.

77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89.

The Division ofSocial rabor

135

Bastide retains the general neo-Kantian frame of reference of the Durkheim school, but he argues that "the fault o f Kant was to base his thought upon a particular culture, i . e . , that of bourgeois and puritan German society, in order to disengage the a priori form of the moral law" (p. 8 3 ) . Bastide, i n m y opinion, makes too much o f intimations of stratification in The Division of Labor. True, Durkheim spoke of the central state in organic solidarity, b u t he always conceived of it in a democratic fo rm that involved a highly specialized type of stratification. And Durkheim had little to say about so­ cioprofessional hierarchy. Bastide, moreover, observes that Levi-Strauss "is in the process of rewri ting the Critique ofPure Reason'' (p. 82) , b u t he fails to notice that Levi-Strauss is often much closer to the Critique ofjudgment in his emphasis upon the centrality of aesthetics and perception. But Bast ide is to the point in calling for a continuation o f Durkheim's work of rewriting the Critique ofPractical Reason in a way that would be less ethnocentric and genuinely comparative, fo cus upon values and the process of evaluating, and concentrate upon entire societies instead ofanalytically abstracted structures detached fro m history. Division du travail social, p. 1 8 0 . !bid., p . 1 8 1 . !bid. , p. 1 8 9. Ibid. , pp. 1 90- 1 9 1 . Ibid. , pp. 1 9 1 , 1 93 . Ibid. , p p . 1 94- 1 9 5 . Revue philosophique, XXI I ( 1 8 86), 7 3 . Division du travail social, p . 1 94 . Ibid. , p. 207. !bid. , p. 8 . Ibid. , pp. 344, 346. !bid. , p. 345. Ibid. , p. 3 6 1 n . !bid., p . 3 5 8 . Ibid., pp. 3 5 8 - 3 5 9 . Ibid., p . 347. Ibid. , p. 367. Ibid., pp. 368-369. Ibid., p. 376. "Albert SchaefHe," Revue philosophique, I ( 1 8 8 5 ) , 8 8 . Division du travail social, p . 3 7 8 . !bid., p . 347. Ibid., p. 374.

I36

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

9 0 . Ibid. , p p . 3 8 3 , 3 6 3 . 9 1 . Ibid. , p . 364. 92. IV ( 1 90 1 - 1 9 02) , 1 06- 1 07 . 9 3 . Division du travail social, p p . 404-406.

4 Suicide

and Solidarity

There is on�y one truly serious philosophical problem: suicide. To judge that life is or is not worth living is to answer the fimdamental question o[philosophy. - Albert Camus, Le Mythe de Sisyphe In a coherent and animated society, there is from all to each and fro m each to all a continual exchange of ideas and sentiments - something like a mutual moral support - which makes the individual, imtead of being reduced to his own forces alone, participate in the collective energy and find in it sustenance for his own lifo when he is spiritual& exhausted. - Suicide

The Object and Limitations of Suicide

An obvious difference separated Suicide from The Division of Labor. The Division of Labor b egan with concepts. Suicide began with a concrete problem that was conceived as an avenue of approach to the understanding of soci ety and culture as a whole. This shift in focus did much to dissipate the air of detached abstraction that hung like a pall over Durkheim's first major work. Another significant difference was the direct emphasis on social pa­ thology in modern society and the clearer conception of the necessity and direction of structural change to achieve legitimate social order. Suicide was of primary i n terest to Durkheim, not as an isolated tragedy in the lives of discrete individuals, but as an i n dex of a more widespread state of pathol­ ogy i n society as a whole. Along with other symptoms of modern social pathology, suicide, when in terpreted sociologically, pointed to basic causes of disorder and disorientation which revealed the relation of personal crisis to collective malaise.

I38

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

And more clearly than i n The Division of Labor, Durkheim showed awareness of the value and limi tations of individualism in society. Excessive individualism was symptomatic of social disintegration. B u t in the normal state of modern society, individual rights would be protected in a manner that would not entail self-defeating, atomizing extremes. Underlying the differences between the two works, however, were conti­ nuities and indications ofless significant developments in Durkheim's ideas. The fo cus of Du rkheim's analysis remained the relation of self and soci ety. And the root principle of organization - methodological and normative at the same time - was the distinction between normality and pathology in society. The attack upon utilitarianism continued. And it was more ob­ viously conjoined with the rej ection of violently apocalyptic socialism. The selection o f the problem o f suicide itself seems t o indicate that for Durkheim the greatest internal threat to the stability of modern societies was disinte­ gration, not with a bang but a whim per. The higher suicide rate among the socially privileged (managers, members of the lib eral professions) indicated for him that all segments of modern society had a real existential interest i n fundamental change. Indeed, t h e a n o m i e absence of meaning i n experience had special relevance for privileged groups that were liberated from economic need and from the incentive to carry on provided by the desire for affluence. With the penchant for indiscriminate overstatement often characteristic of the Annie school, Gaston Richard partially recognized this point in his review of Suicide i n the fl rst volume of the A nnie sociologique: This b o o k is one of those works which j ustify all the hopes which enlightened ob servers of the great modern crisis place i n social sci­ ence. Parties (and at times individuals as well) use social science, b u t it can be put to the uses of none of them. Durkheim proves i t . Socialists a n d economists are dismissed b a c k t o b a c k with a proof o f their incompetence. What c a n remain of t h e thesis of class confl ict considered as a fundamental law of social structure if it is proved that the regime of unlimited competition destroys the happiness and the existence o f the capitalist class even more than that of the proletariat? Now, is not the thesis of class confl ict more than ever the fo undation of so-called scientifl c socialism? On the other hand , how can one celebrate with the old fai thfuls of the Manchester school the emancipation of economic forces if one sees how these

Chapter 4

Suicide and Solidarity

13 9

unchained forces can b e h o m i cidal - how the quest for wealth engenders disgust fo r existence? 1 The main lines of Durkheim's argument were as clear-cut as they were compelling. After dealing with initial problems of defl ni tion, Durkheim began b y distinguishing between the suicide rate and the individual case of suicide. The rate, which displayed a constancy o r tendential regular­ ity over time, was the specifl cally sociological phenomenon. It could not b e explained b y a random distribution of purely idiosyncratic motives or i n ter-individual i m i tation. W h e n t h e s u i c i d e rate rose above or fe ll below a certain threshold, it b e came an index of social pathology. While Durkheim left this threshold undefl ned, his analysis implied that its de­ termination bore u p o n the relation of the suicide rate to the disintegration of sub stantively rational structures and socially germane affective bonds i n soci ety. The explanation of the rate depended initially upon its corre­ l a t i o n with social co n ditions, i nstitutional structures, cultural values, and symb olic systems. The meaningfulness of this correlation depended upon its interpretation with reference to the intervening variable of solidarity or integration in society. Thus, the subject o f social sol idarity and its relation to substantive ra­ tionality retained i n Suicide the central i m p o rtance it had ass umed i n The Division ofLabor. The higher-order typology in terms of which Durkheim classifled various social and cultural phenomena i n Suicide had as its fo cal point the nature and degree of solidarity in society: the polar opposites of egoism and altruism, anomie and fatalism, were relevant to the suicide rate through the functional relationship between social solidarity and the phenomena which they characterized. On the basis of these considerations, Durkheim arrived at his famous suicide " l aw." This is perhaps the o n l y signiflcant law-like statement i n sociology, b u t i n the works o f socio logists i t has received divergent fo rmu­ lations. Although D u rkheim himself never provided a proposition which formulated his "law," i t may b e stated thus: the suicide rate varies inversely with the increasing degree of soli darity in society, until the degree of soli­ darity reaches a certain threshold, at which point the covari ation becomes direct. But this " l aw" is m u ch less signifi cant than the i n te r p retative effo rt Durkheim made to make sense of it.

140

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

The elementary ambiguities apparent i n The Division ofLabor none­ theless continued to plague Suicide. Indeed, Durkheim's social metaphysic became increasingly manifest. The metaphysical component of his thought was never concerned with the substantial existence of some sort o f "group mind" detached from individual members of society. Rather it dealt with the more subtle problem of the conception of society and social solidarity as providing the essential meaning and ultimate reality b eh i n d all forms of cultural symb olism. D u rkheim never fully saw how social solidarity itself might be enriched when it became one aspect of a more comprehensive universe of meaning. His ultimate explanatory gesture was invariably reductionistic. In the terms of his social metaphysic, all cultural phenom­ e n a b e ca m e external signs of social real i ty - icing on the cake of social custom o r social action. If, as it is of ten said, man has a dual nature, i t is b e c a u s e there is s u p e r i m p osed u p o n physical man a social m a n . Now the latter presupposes ne cessarily a s o c i e ty which h e expresses and serves. When s o c i e ty d i s i n tegrates, when we no longer feel it acting and living aro u n d and a b o u t u s , all that there i s of the s o c i a l i n u s finds itself devoid o f obj ective fou n d at i o n . There is o n l y an artificial c o m b i n a t i o n of illusory i m ages, a phantasmagoria which a little reflection s u ffices to whisk away. C o n s e q u e n tly, there is n o t h i ng to serve as an e n d for o ur actions. Yet this social man is the w h o l e of civilized m a n ; i t is h e w h o represents the value of existence.2 I n his m e taphysical m oments, D u r k h e i m w a s a l m os t led to lose a good cause through bad arguments by con ceiving a necessary condition and a vital necessity as exclusive, self-contained realities. The social matrix of cultural and symbolic experience became mater et magistra. In fact, Suicide already contained the i n terpretation of religion which would b e more fully developed i n The Elementary Forms: "The power which has imposed itself u p o n m an's respect and which has become t h e object of his adoration is society, of which the gods were o n ly the hypostatized fo rm. Religion is i n a word the system of symbols through which society becomes conscious of itself; i t is the manner of thinking appropriate to the collective b eing."�

Chapter 4

I n c e r t a i n ways

Suicide and Solidarity

!41

Suicide was a n advance over The Division of Labor

b e c a u s e i n t h e fo r m e r t h e a m b i g u i t i e s o f a s o c i a l i z e d a n d C a r t e s i a n i z e d n e o - K an t i a n i s m b e c a m e so t r a n s p a r e n t t h a t t h e y w e r e a l m o s t i n c o n s e ­ q u e n t i a l . D u rkheim's c o n f u s i o n w a s e s p e c i a l ly apparent i n h i s idea of t h e r e l a t i o n o f psychol ogy t o s o c i o l o gy. B y "psych o l o g y " , D u r k h e i m m e a n t a n u m b e r o f t h ings w h i c h w e r e n o t a l t o g e t h e r i d e n t i c a l . H e m e a n t t h e s t u d y o f (1) t h e psychophysical s e l f a n a l y t i c a l l y c o n s i d e r e d i n i s o l a t i o n fr o m s o c i e t y a n d c a p a b l e o n l y o f s e n s a t i o n ; (2) the m o s t g e n e r a l , i l l - d e ­ fi n e d p s y c h i c t r a i t s o f t h e h u m an b ei n g, e . g . , s e x u a l desire o r p at e r n a l affe c t i o n ; (3) t h e i n n e r , p r i v a t e , and u n o b s e r v a b l e a s p e c t s o f t h e self; ( 4) t h e i n dividualized a s p e c t s o f t h e s e l f; and (5) the s i n g u l a r i n di v i d u a l i n h i s o r h e r c o n crete p a r t i c u lari ty. S o c i o logy w a s d i rectly co n ce r n e d w i t h none of t h e s e m e a n i n gs o f t h e p s y c h o l o g y o f the i n d i v i d u a l . I n c o n t r a s t , s o c i o l o gy w a s directly concerned w i t h s o c i a l psychol ogy and t h e w a y i n w h i c h c o l l e c tive fe a t u r e s w e r e i n t e r n a l i z e d b y t h e p e rs o n . T h e confusion i n D urkheim's thought a p p e a r e d in two ways. First, the l a n g u age he used i n m a k i n g the above p o i n t s was a t times a m b i g u o u s . S e co n d , he a t t i m es s e e m e d t o c o n c e i ve o f t h e p e r s o n as a m e r e c o m p o s i t e o f t h e s o c i a l s e l f a n d t h e psychophysical s e l f. It w a s t h i s s e c o n d s o u r c e o f confusion that stemm e d fro m h i s C ar t e s i a n i z e d n e o - K a n t i a n refo r m u l a t i o n o f the dualism between m i n d a n d b o dy. Thus, D u rk h e i m a t times seemed t o argue i n

Suicide tha t t h e i n d i v i d u a l h a d n o role i n t a k i n g h i s o r h e r o w n

l i f e . O n e's p s y c h o p h y s i c a l c o n s t i t u t i o n p r e d i s p o s e d o n e to a greater o r lesser degree t o t h e causal a c t i o n o f s p e c i fi c a l l y s o c i a l fo rces. I n d i v i d u a l s were fe lled b y " s u i c i d o g e n e t i c " s o c i a l fo rces a c t i n g like some fan t a s t i c d e a t h ray. O n e i n s t a n c e o f D ur k h e i m's c o n f u s i o n w a s i n t h e d i c h o t o m y h e see m e d t o p o se b e tween c o g n i t i o n a n d i n t e n t i o n i n acts o f s u i c i d e . H e b e g a n b y defi ning s u i c i d e as "every case o f d e a t h w h i c h results d i r e c t l y o r i n d i rectly from a p o s i tive o r negative a c t of the v i c t i m h i m s e l f w h i c h h e k n o ws will p r o d u c e this result"4 Un l e s s i n vestiga t i o n ( e . g . , t h r o u g h the u s e o f d e p t h psychology) reveals o t h e r w i s e , a n a c t w h i c h is p e r ­ fo r m e d b y a p e r s o n w h o knows t h e c o n s e q u e n c e o f h i s a c t i s p r i m a facie c o n s i d e r e d i n t e n t i o n a l . Yet - b ec a u s e of h i s s u s p i c i o n of p s ychology - D ur k h e i m , i mm e d i a t e l y b efo re o ffe r i n g his defi n i t i o n , i m p u g n e d a n i n t e r e s t i n i n t e n ti o n s w i t h an argument w h o s e g e n e r a l i ty s e e m e d t o

Emile Durkheirn: Sociologist and Philosopher

14 2

exclude even t h e cognitive e l e m e n t i n h i s own defi nitio n . " I n t e n t i o n i s t o o i n t i m a t e a t h i n g t o b e s t u d i e d fro m t h e o u t s i d e b y m o r e t h a n gross a p p r o x i m a t i o n s . It even escapes self- o b servati o n . " 5 Durkheim has a t times been mistakenly criticized for including a cognitive element in his definition of suicide. But the value of his definition in this respect is in its recognition that suicide is a relatively complex act that requires initiative and the coordination o f thought and activi ty. A more relevant objec­ tion is that Durkheim was not clear about the relation o f his conception of t h e role of cognition to h i s criticism of the focus o n manifest intentions and to the problem o f a more general theory of m o tivation. Yet a crucial chapter of Suicide itself (Book II, chapter vi) attempted to relate sociological catego­ ries to psyc h o logical expressions and personality types. Thus, any idea that Durkheim simply ignored psychological factors obvio usly misses the mark. The b asic point i s t h a t h e was often confused or ambiguous, in part because of the Cartesianized, neo-Kantian strand o f his thought, which led him at times to postulate a dualistic division b etween the "outer" and the "inner" .

m

.

expenence. At t i m e s the main target o f D u rkheim's attack was t h e use of naive intro­

spection and the psychological categories o f official gatherers of statistics to pro­ vide adequate accounts o f motivation. But Jack C. D o uglas has observed: Unfortunately fo r Durkheim's own arguments, the official categor­ izations of a death as caused by "suicide" were generally most dependent on their imputations of an intention to die by one's own action: since one of the critical dimensions o f meanings involved in the statutory definitions of "suicide" as a cause o f death and in the general com­ monsense meaning of "suicide" i n the Western world is precisely that of "intention to d i e , " the official categorization of "suicide" can in general be only as valid as official categorizations of"intention." Since Durkheim thought official categories of intentions or mo tives t o be completely invalid and unreliable, h e s h ould have concluded the same thing about o ffi cial statistics on suicide.6 Douglas' conclusion becomes more forceful when it i s realized that shared attitudes toward suicide influence t h e reporting of suicides, so that the more solidary groups also tend to b e more reluctant a b o u t reveal i n g suicides to t h e outside world. Furthermore, the i m p o rtance of concealment assumes

Chapter 4

Suicide and Solidarity

143

major proportions given the small fraction of the p o p u l a t i o n committing suicide ( b etween one hundred and three hundred p e r million). Indeed, some statisticians have argued that, even aside fro m problems of concealment, the n u m b ers involved are too small fo r statistically significant variations and, i n any event, fo r i n ferring far-reaching s o c i a l and cultural p r o p o s i t i o n s about m i l i e u s o r contexts.7 Ambiguity i n the conception o f the relation o f psychology to sociology also appeared in D u rkhei m's discussion of psychopathology and suicide. Although h e recognized a "social factor" i n psychopathology, h e restricted his discussion t o making inverse or inconclusive correlations b etween rates of suicide and rates of" i nsanity" in terms of age, sex, religion, and nationali ty. He d i d n o t address h i mself t o t h e p r o b l e m s of t h e fu n c t i o n a l a n d c u l t u ral definition of psych o p athology and the relation of rates of psych o p a t h o logy to cultural variables. But only by considering these p r o b l e m s could he have arrived at a more pertinent conception of psych o p athology, its significance i n different types of civilization, and its possible relation to suicide and sociopathic states. Curi ously, however, his own discussion o f personality types stressed the special i m p o r t a n c e i n modern suicides o f what would today be called manic-dep ressive syndromes (which he correlated with anomie-egoistic suicide). 8 Ambiguity arose as well in D urkheim's conception of case histories. I n general, h e recognized t h e fully complementary relationship o f t h e u s e o f case histories a n d an analytic approach centering o n instituti onal a n d cul­ tural conditions. At times he accurately saw the specificity o f case history in its fo cus o n t h e concrete individual in whom general factors assumed a particular confi gu ration: "We cannot d ed u c e all the particularities which an individual case may p resent, because there are some which depend u p o n the specific nature of the s u b j e c t . Each s u i c i d e gives t o his act a personal mark which expresses his temperament [and] the special conditions in which he is placed, and which consequently cannot b e explained by the social and general causes of t h e p h e n o m e n o n . " 9 At o t h e r ti m es , however, t h e s o c i o l o ­ gistic reformulation o f t h e mind-body dualism led Durkheim to con ceive the individual personality as a mechanical combination of psychophysical and social factors: "Everything depends upon the i n tensity with which the suicidogenetic causes have acted upon the individual."10 Whether because of m e t h o dological and m e taphysical i n h i b i t i o n s o r because o f the unavail-

14 4

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

ability of usefu l documents, the fac t remains that Durkheim did n o t u s e case h i s t o r i e s a n d other empirical evidence t o i l l u s t r a t e h i s argument. Here again there was a continuation o f the institutional and legal fo rmalism of

Th e Division ofLabor i n the failure to substantiate an analysis with concrete evidence and to consider the way in which social factors are experienced b y people. And like the earlier work,

Suicide often rested on a (much more

successful) coordination of the m o dels of earlier theorists. H i s t o r i ans like Roger Lacombe and Albert Bayet were especially sensitive t o t h e absence of documentation which might reveal whether and how the institutional contexts and analytic variables discussed by Durkheim manifest themselves operatively in actual events and experience. As Bayet puts it i n his

Le Suicide

et Ia morale: What is really a grave difficulty is that one m u s t take the author's word fo r things. Where are the usages which prove that Protestants "punish s u i cide"? How is t h e "drawing away" from those who touch t h e suicide e x p ressed? W h a t facts p e r m i t one to say that c o m m o n morality blames s u i c i d e ? Du rkheim does n o t t e l l u s . No d o u b t h e beli eves t h a t t h e morality o f his time i s h i s own a n d he knows i t . . . . B u t the testimony o f the greatest p h i l o s o p h e r cannot, fro m the sci­ entific point of view, replace o b s ervations s u bjected to control and criticism.11 On a conceptual level, certain ambiguities evident in the typology of

The

Division ofLabor also persisted i n Suicide. In keeping with the emphasis o n modern social p a t h o l ogy, t h e category o f egoism replaced t h a t of organic solid ari ty, and anomie became a central problem. But the analytical dis­ sociation o f reality was at times carried over from Durkheim's first major work. Thus Durkheim seems a t p o i n t s to have b e l i eved that a concept l i ke egoism applied to a discrete set of historical phenomena ( e . g . , Protestant­ ism) and that the concept o f anomie applied to other phenomena ( e . g . , capitalism). Durkheim d i d n o t ask whether h i s analytic variables a p p l i e d simultaneously t o a number of i n s t i t u t i o n a l contexts ( e . g . , whether Protes­ tantism or capitalism, to a greater or lesser extent, was characterized b y b o t h egoism a n d anomie) or whether i n s t i t u t i o nal contexts or symbolic systems were historically related to one another in ways which could be illuminated b y t h e appli cation o f models (vide Weber i n

The Protestant Ethic).

Chapter 4

B u t j us t as t h e t y p o l o gy i n

Suicide and Solidarity

145

The Division ofLabor was b a s e d i m p l i c i tly

u p o n a n o t i o n of the t r a n s h i s t o r i c a l c o n d i t i o n s o f s o c i a l n o r m a l i ty, t h e

Suicide t y p o l o gy w a s b a s e d i m p licitly u p o n a n o t i o n o f t h e transhistorical c a u s e s of social p a t h o l o gy. I n fac t , the i d e a of a coincidentia oppositorum seems t o s u rface in the n o t i o n t h a t any extremely p a t h o logical social s t a t e w o u l d i n s o m e way display a p a r t i c u l a r c o m b i n a t i o n o f t h e general c a u s e s o f s o c i a l p a t h o l o gy. One v i r t u e of t h e c o n c e p t o f a n o m i e was i t s a b i l i t y to m e d i a t e t h e m i n d - b o d y d u a l i s m ; i t s h o w e d h o w organically r o o t e d desire a n d aggressiveness existed i n d i a l e c t i c a l r e l a t i o n t o b i n d i n g n o r m s a n d sym b o l s , e r u p t i n g c h a o t i cally i n c a s e s o f n o r m ative a n d symb o l i c breakdown o r e m erging p r e d i c t a b l y w h e n certain n o r m s a n d s y m b o l i c systems t h e m s e l ves p re s c r i b e d o r c e l e b rated excess a n d u n l i m i t e d asser­ ti o n . And D u r k h e i m c o n c l u d e d that a n o m i e and egoism were "generally only two d i ffe r e n t aspects of t h e same state of s o c i e t y. " 12 T h us, in

Suicide

t h e s e c o n d a n d m o r e H e g e l i a n s t r a n d of D u rk h e im's t h o u g h t s t r ongly asserted i ts e l f and t e n d e d t o overlay his C a r t e s i a n i z e d neo- K a n t i a n i s m w i t h a m o r e d i a l e c t i c a l n o t i o n o f e x p e r i e n c e a n d analysis. In o n e c r u c i a l r e s p e c t , h o w ever, this was n o t t h e case. A l t h o u g h D u r k h e i m i n t e n d e d h i s s t u d y o f s u i c i d e to s e r v e a s a m e a n s o f a p p r o a c h to t h e analysis o f s o c i e t y a s a w h o l e , h e d i d n o t a d e q uately investigate t h e relation of his variables to social p h e n o m e n a in the g l o b a l soci al c o n t e x t . T h e o nl y a r e a in w h i ch he e x t e n d e d h i s analysis was in a discus­ sion o f h o m i c i d e . Durkheim fai l e d i n

Suicide to relate h i s s o c i o l o gi c a l

a n d c u l t u r a l variables n o t o n l y t o t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l and i n t e r - i n d i v i d u a l m a n i festations ( s u i c i d e and h o m i ci d e ) , b u t t o m o r e s p e c i fi c a lly s o c i a l fo rms of a c t i o n and r e a c t i o n . Ye t , o n e t y p i c a l r e s p o n s e t o a n o m i e and t h e a n x i e t y i t p r o v o k e d w a s t h e a t t e m p t t o "reintegrate" e x p e r i e n c e t h r o u gh collective a c t i o n and group m o b i l i z a t i o n . I n d e e d , i t w o u l d s e e m t h a t a n o m i e l e d t o s u i c i d e o n l y i n a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h e g o i s m . I n cases where a t o m i s t i c i n d i vidualism was not present o r c o u l d b e ove r c o m e , a n o m i e m i gh t g i v e way t o t h e form a t i o n of g r o u p s wh i c h r e s p o n d e d t o severe d i s i ntegration b y s e e k i n g new and p e r h a p s more d e m a n d i n g , even au­ t h o r i t a r i a n o r fan a t i c a l , fo r m s of s o l i d a r i t y and a t t i m e s engaging i n collective v i o l e n c e . T h e p recise m an n e r i n w h i c h t h i s c o u l d take p l a c e d e p e n d e d , o f c o u r s e , u p o n s p e cif1 c h i s t o r i c a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s a n d m o des o f g r o u p m o b il i z a t i o n .

14 6

Emile Durkheirn: Sociologist and Philosopher

Here there was a basis fo r convergence with the ideas of Marx - a basis upon which D urkheim himself failed to b u i l d . Durkheim was to make a t least an oblique reference t o capitalism in his discussion of anomie. But he did not provide an i n tensive and direct investigation of the structural contradictions in a capitalist economy. Nor did h e see class-consciousness as an in regrating force that counteracted the effects of anomie in the "internal milieu" of a group. The very focus upon suicide as the key problem for an analysis of modern society may b e seen as diverting attention fro m this possibility and from the revolutionary potential Marx believed it held. At the other end of the ideological spectrum, the relation of anomie to the rise of extreme authoritarianism was another possibility Durkheim ignored. This matter has received extensive coverage in subsequent li terature. Karl Mannheim, for example, observed: The secret of taboo and the collective formation of symbols in prim­ itive societies is mainly that the fre e expression of i m p ulses i s held in check by the various mechanisms of social control and directed towards certain objects and actions which benefit the group. Only the impul­ sive energies which have been set free by the disintegration of society and are seeking i n t egration a b o u t a new object have those eruptive destructive quali ties which are customarily and vaguely regarded as characteristic of every type of mass behavior. What the dictatorships in certain contemporary mass-societies are striving to do is to coordinate through organizations the impulses which the revolutionary period un­ chained and to direct them towards prescribed objects. The conscio usly guided fi xation of mass i m p ulses upon n e w obj ectives takes the place of earlier forms of wish fi xation which fo und their objectives organi­ cal ly, that is to say, through a slow selective p rocess. S o , for instance, the attempt is made to create a new religion, the fu nction o f which is first to d estroy the old emotional setting, and then to make these disintegrated i m p ulses more subservient t o one's own aim through the use of new symbols. 1 3 I n a certain context o r group, anomie might foster suicide. In a comple­ mentary aspect of the gro up's life, in another context, or in the same context over time, anomie might lead to various types of group m obilization and ideological assert ion. Problems of this sort, however, could be investigated only by historical analysis within the context of society as a whole over time

Chaper 4

Suicide and Solidarity

147

in a manner that went beyond one-dimensional correlations ofvariables such as anomie with phenomena such as suicide rates. On the basis of the foregoing considerations, one might conclude that Durkheim's Suicide has limited value as an attempt to use a particular problem as a means of approach to an analysis of society as a whole. It may be argued that Durkheim was basing highly significant interpreta­ tions and practical conclusions upon statistically insignificant information. In this respect, two things may be said in defense of Durkheim. A crucial aspect of his argument was that social and cultural forces that account f or suicide rates are operative, consciously or unconsciously, in people who are not moved to take their own lives. To put it crudely, the few people who commit suicide in modern society are indices of a much larger number of distraught or disoriented people who are handling their malaise in more or less constructive ways. One of the apparent implications of Durkheim's discussion is that, as a rule, people in primitive societies, when left to their traditional forms of existence, tended to sacrifice theirlives in defense of their values, while people i n modern societies were driven to the extreme act as a sign of personal negation and a vote of no confidence in society, either in spite of shared values or because of an absence of values. Durkheim clearly perceived the crisis of meaning and legitimacy in moder n societies. The second defense is that, from a normative perspective, even a small number of suicides represent a morally and spiritually scandalous sacrifice of life, especially when the "sacrifice" is meaning less.

Anomie and Egoism Durkheim's typology in Suicide attempted to provide a conceptual framework for the systematic classification of social and cultural causes of extreme!y high or extremely low suicide rates, which served as one objective index (among others} of states of social pathology. The typology may be represented diagrammatically thus: anomie egotsm

altruism fatalism

Emile Durkheirn: Sociologist and Philosopher

148

Anomie and fatalism were conceptually p o l a r o p p osites, as were egoism and altruism. Anomie signified the absence of a n i n s t i t u t i onally grounded a n d i d e o logically legitimated sense o f substantive limits in society and the personali ty. The absence of an ingrained sense o f limits was fo r Durkheim the sociocultural cause o f disorientation and aggression i n society. In the normal s o c iety, a normative sense o f limits became i n t i m e a perso n's second nature, indeed h i s or h e r m o d e of being; i t w a s , m oreover, the only possible b asis of solidarity i n society. Fatalism, in contrast, was caused by t h e setting of limits that were excessively authoritarian in rep ressive or o p pressive ways a n d which, by that token, resulted in rules which were themselves obstacles t o solidarity. "Egoism" referred, in its most general sense, to a state i n which t h e p r i n c i p l e o f indi viduation was carried to t h e extreme of particularistic and self-centered atomistic individualism. Conversely, "altruism" denoted a state of excessive c o m m u n i ty, which in its figuratively incestuous i n t i m acy submerged the individual i n the group and i n h i b i t e d solidarity in society as a whole. The

Suicide typology had the merit of transcending certain limitations of t h e "organic" and "mechanical" schema o f Th e Division of Labor. I t also clarified Durkheim's idea of the relation of sociology to morali ty. On the level of society as a whole, the argument i n

Suicide implies that any normal

or healthy social system would be based upon some o p t i m al c o m b i n a t i o n of community, a reciprocal relationship a m o n g different p a r t s (individuals, roles, groups), and an autonomously accepted, disciplined sense of substan­ tive l i m i ts to personal o r collective asser tion. In this light, t h e fu ndamental moral fu nction o f institutions and values in society was seen as the provision of the o b j e ctively given and s u b j e c tively i n ternalized foundation fo r these qualities in a

conscience collective that furthered viable solidarity in society

as a whole. Integration i n the normal o r good ( b u t n o t perfect) society thus involved simultaneo usly the relatively ( b u t not totally) coherent nature of institutional norms and symbolic systems, the a u t o n o m o u s and spontane­ o u s acceptance of norms and symbols by the i n dividual, and the creation of meani ngful moral solidarity i n society as a whole. In

Suicide it also b ecomes clear that Durkheim did n o t conceive of the

normal or healthy society

as

a crystal palace. Even the normal society would

contain a marginal leaven of anomie, egoism, and extreme altruism. Some types of society would normally develop certain of these characteristics more than

Chapter 4

Suicide and Solidarity

149

other types. Community was developed i n "primi tive" societies to a n extent impossible and undesirable in large and functionally differentiated modern societies, while egoism in modern societies was an excessive development o f the cardinal emphasis on individual rights and personal responsibility. Mo reover, certain milieus within a society would normally have certain extreme tenden­ cies that, within limits, were necessary and positive fo rces in the development of society as a whole. A measure of anomie corresponded to an element of "free play" in society and the personality: anomie indeterminacy and daring risk were conditions of progress and prerequisites o f an ability to respond creatively to changes in relevant conditions of existence. And anomie would b e especially typical o f artistic and innovative milieus. Egoism was to some e x t e n t a c o n c o m i t a n t of intel lectual originality. To this e x t e n t , Durkheim recognized the importance of the considerations that preoccupied a theorist like Gabriel Tarde or were included i n We ber's notion o f personal election as an element of charisma. But D urkheim considered pathological the distorted, unbalanced, or runaway development and generalization o f these qualities in society. The sociopathic began at the p o i n t at which the conceivably valuable exception in society tended to become a h armfu l rule. Thus, fo r D urkheim as for Aristotle, a vice was i n the last analysis an excessive development of a virtue. In fact, the concept of anomie in its primary meaning of an absence of a sense of legitimate limits recalls the notion of hybris. And implicit in suicide and its typology was an optimal point ofintersection of D urkheim's variables that cor­ responded to the G reek idea of a golden mean. Nowhere else was Durkhei m's indeb tedness t o the classical tradition of Western philosophy more telling. And nowhere else was the vision of his own France - with its insistence on

mesure - as the guardian of what was valid i n this tradition more apposite. In the normal society, the golden mean - normatively incarnated in the

conscience collective - would restrict hybris to the exceptional individual or the extraordinary fea t whose shocking singularity amb ivalently fascinated and repelled society as a whole. D urkheim's concept of anomie as t h e absence of a normative sense of le­ gitimate limits at times covered a great deal of territory rather indiscriminately. The meaning of anomie as an operational concept, its relation to egoism, and its connection with such "structural" problems as stratification, exploitation, scarci ty, and group conflict have been sources of confusion.

150

J:rnile Durkheirn: Sociologist and Philosopher

T h e b as i c cause o f generalized a no m i e was r a p i d and u n c o n t r o l l e d change i n t h e c o n d i t i o n s , i n s t i t u t i o n s , o r values c o n s t i t u t i v e o f the s o c i a l system i n t h e largest s e n s e . T h e relevant effe ct of r u n away change w a s t h e unsettling displacement, uprooting, and disorientation of the groups or categories affected b y h i s t o r i c a l change. Ra p i d transformation m i g h t have p o s i t ive value fo r s o c i a l develo p m e n t o n l y at certain e u p h o r i c phases of t r a n s i t i o n ( e . g . , a classical revo l u t i o n ) . A n afte r - b i r t h of b an a l i z e d and misdirected

hybris plagued modern s o c i e ty. P r o m e t h e u s had b e e n taken

d o w n fro m his p r e d e s t i n e d rock and m a d e over into a face in t h e crowd. And tragedy had b e c o m e triviali zed. M o d e rn society n e e d e d s t r u ct u r a l reform that w o u l d bring legitimate s t a b i l i z a t i o n a n d p u t a s t o p to ir­ r a t i o n a l , r u n away c h ange i m p o s e d by the s t a t u s q u o and i ts h i s t o r i c a l t e n d e n c i e s . F o r i n m o d e r n s o c i e t y t h e p a t h o logical fun c t i o n i n g o f t h e s t a t u s q u o fre q u e n t ly exacerbated an o m i e a n d h e l p e d d e t e r m i n e t h e i r ­ r a t i o n a l c o m p o n en t s o f s o c i o l o g i cally and p h i l o s o p h i cally u n i n fo r m e d , merely s e l f- i n d u l g e n t p r o tests against i t . I n a p a t h o l o gi c a l s t a t u s q u o , o n e o f t h e legitimate fu n c t i o n s o f s o c i o logy ( i n D u r k h e i m's s e n s e ) was t h e d i ffu s i o n of a c o n s c i o usness of p r o b l e m s w i t h i n t h e s o c i e t y and o f t h e ways i n w h i c h t h e y c o u l d b e o v e r c o m e in an a t t e m p t t o achieve s u b s t antive r a t i o n a l i t y and social j us t i c e . High s u i c i d e rates c o n s t i t u t e d a p r o b l e m o f t h i s s o r t . And D u rk h e i m's classical s t u d y o f t h e i r causes a n d c o n c o m i tants c o n c l u d e d w i t h a r e c o m m e n d a t i o n o f s t r u c t u r a l reform and a call t o a c t i o n . A l i m i t e d m e a n i n g o f "an o m i e , " a s i t s e t y m o l ogy suggest e d , w a s " a s t a t e of c o m p l e t e n o r m l essness and m e a n inglessness o f e x p e r i e n c e at­ t e n d a n t u p o n i n s t i t u t i o n a l and m o r a l b r e a k down . " The p s y c hological expression of ano m i e i n the i n d i v i d u a l p e r s o n a l i ty was the fe e l i n g o f a n x i e t y a n d fr u s t r a t i o n . I n t h e a b s e n c e o f m e a n i n gful s y m b o l i c systems and norms that c o n t r o l l e d anxiety and p r o v i d e d a c o n n e c tive tissue in s o c i e ty, t h e i n d i v i d u a l b e cam e prey t o l i m i t l ess desires and m o r b i d fears. In one i m p o rt a n t s e n s e , D u r k h eim's c o n c e p t of a n o m i e s i t u a t e d H o b b es's d e fi a n tly defensive and power-hungry m a n as a p e rs o n a l i t y type w i t h i n a s p e c i fi c , p a t h o l o gical state of s o c i e ty. H o b b es i a n m a n d i d n o t r e p r e s e n t " h u m a n n a t u r e " b u t only o n e p at h o l o g i c a l p o s s i b i l i t y o f h u m an n a t u r e that emerged and w a s p r o n o u n c e d i n an an o m i e s t a t e o f s o c i e ty. D i s t r u s t a n d an o b s essive fe a r o f o t h e r s b ec a m e a prevalent m o de o f s o c i a l i n ter-

Chapter 4

Suicide and Solidarity

15 1

a c t i o n o nly w h e n n o r m a tive s t r u c t u r e s fai l e d t o create an i n s t i t u t i o n a l fo u n d a t i o n fo r s o l i d a ri ty. The term "anomie" also referred to the presence of extreme distortions and i m balances in the social system, which might lead to the nightmarish state of normlessness. In this sense, "anomie" recalls Marx's notion of structural contradictions. Durkheim fo rmulated this notion in terms of a contradiction between fel t needs and expectations on the one hand, and values and insti­ tutionalized means of satisfaction on the other. Structural contradictions were a basic cause of passing ruptures in the social system that might have more or less durable effects fo r the overall shape of social life. M oreover, the general theory of anomie revealed that the effect of either a depression o r an economic boom might be similar in the uprooting, social displ acem e n t , and moral disorientation o f people. In a depression, the economic means at one's disposal dropped below one's customary level of expected satisfactions. I n a windfall situation, one's means soared above one's accustomed needs and might further unsettle one's level of expectation. Both imb alances distorted the traditional structure of experience and generated anxiety. Rapid change i n economic posi t i o n , which might come to the indi vidual in t h e appearance of good or bad luck, thus had similar sociological and socio-psychological ef­ fe cts. Implicit in this entire line o f argument was a return to the theme of the social, moral, and psychological costs of economic growth which preoccupied Durkheim i n his fi rst major work. 1 4 As has already been observed, fro m D u rkheim's viewpoint exploitation

could b e seen as a variant o f anomie, i n s o far as it i n volved a contradiction b e tween institutional practices o r social conditions and the felt needs o r values o f an o p p ressed gro u p , i f n o t of s o c i e t y as a w h o l e . T h e one area i n which D urkheim proved u n a b l e to a p p l y this insight w a s gender, the relation b e tween the sexes, and their bearing on marriage. Durkheim was b y and large unable to think critically a b o u t the category o f gender and, i n contrast to his general insistence on sociological e x p l anations fo r social phenomena, had at b e s t of i t . I n

an

equivocal, i n part naturalized or essentialized understan d i n g

The Division ofLabor h e relied o n a neo-Aristoteliean and common­

sensical psychology to argue that opposites attract, and h o m osexual desire o r the possibility of stable, m o rally legitimate relations, including marriage, b e tween homosexuals or lesbians seemed entirely b eyond his ken. I n Suicide he provided an overly general, prej udi cially gendered explanation of specifi c

152

I:rnile Durkheirn: Sociologist and Philosopher

differences i n suicide rates b etween unmarried or divorced men and women, i n virtue of which women were less negatively affected b y celibacy or divorce ( o r, conversely, b enefi ted less fro m m arriage ) . H e simply appealed to his transhistorical model o f a hypothesized, presocial organic b alance w h i c h was u p s e t by the passage to society and culture (and had t o b e institutionally recreated) in order to argue that women, excluded fro m anomie social areas and confined to the conj ugal fami ly, had greater proximity to the p utative organic or instinctual e q u i l i b r i u m . This s i t u a t i o n presumably m a d e them less in need o f the regulatory restraints of marriage o n sexual desire. In this manner h e did not fo cus analytically and critically on the very problem of exclusion but instead partially naturalized that very exclusion of women from eco n o m i c and profes s i o n a l activities and could envision an i n creased social role fo r them only through an i n tensifi cation of gendered differences: b ecause of t h e i r presumed "natural" aptitudes, women would become increasi ngly specialized i n aesthetic fun c t i o n s . H e did not o ffer the seemingly obvious sociological explanation t h a t women confi ned, if n o t claustra ted, within the conjugal family might be prone to a variant of "fatalistic" suicide i n good part because of t h e i r e x c l u s i o n fro m o t h e r areas o f social and public life. (A reading of Haubert's

Madame Bovary would have been e n o u gh to sug­

gest such an explanat i o n . ) He thus either kept women within t h e conj ugal fam i ly, which on his own analysis b r o u ght t h e m ( i n contrast t o men) little of social value and even had adverse e ffects o n them when the family was childless, o r relegated them to what he saw as less "serious" sides of social life, implicitly ignoring them in his treatment of the corporative groups that were the key to his idea of beneficial social refo r m . Nonetheless, D u rkheim's overall sociological a p p r o a c h , w h i c h insisted on the analysis and reform o f social causes - not merely sym ptoms - of social problems, provided the bases for a non-essentialized analysis o f the fam i ly, gender, and sexual relations that he himself was unable to develop. For example, in his discussion o f a n o m i e , Durkheim wrote: Discipline can be useful only if it is considered j u s t by the peoples subjected t o it. If it maintains itself only through habit and force, peace and harmony exist only in appearance. The spirit of unrest and discontent is latent. And superfic ially restrained appetites waste I i tt l e time i n becoming unleashed. This is what happened in Rome and

Chapter 4

Suicide and Solidarity

153

Greece when the beliefs on which the old organization of the patricians and plebeians rested were shaken, and in our modern societies when aristocratic prejudices began to lose their sway. 1 5 I n t h e context o f t h e classical i d e a of exploitation, o n e clearly defined group benefited fro m the injustices imposed upon another clearly defined gro u p . A l ienation, however, m i g h t r e s u l t from a contradiction between n e e d s o r values and institutional patterns or s o c i a l conditions t h a t created a fe eling of frustration, meaninglessness, and hostility to the "system" even when a group had n o t b een directly subjected to invidious exploitation. Indeed, alienation might be experienced b y groups that were p rivileged o r that materially benefited fro m exploitation. The fr ustrations of the privileged in an anomie situation generated a type of restlessness that, in the absence of constructive alternatives, might feed the s u i c i d e rate o r find other nega­ tive ou tlets. In this respect, a little-noticed aspect o f D urkhei m's argument was crucial. He went beyond the ideas o f structural contradictions and gaps to a n o t i o n of institutionalized or ideological a n o m i e . Where institutional and ideologi­ cal anomie existed, limitless or excessive assertion was actually prescribed or lauded, with w h a t Durkheim considered ty pically damagi n g consequences fo r society as a whole. H e saw this fo rm of le

mal de l'injini (infinity sick­

ness)16 in numerous aspects o f modern culture, e . g. , i n romanticism. But i t was especially i n h i s conception o f the economy that h e advanced beyond the analysis of

The Division of Labor to a perspective that anticipated the

similarities b e tween lib eral capitalism and a certain sort o f socialism. Governmental power, instead of being the regulator of economic life, has become its instrument and servant. The most opposite schools - orthodox economists and extreme socialists - agree that it should be reduced to the role of a more or less passive intermedi ary between different social functions. One side wishes it to be simply the guard­ ian of individual contracts. The other side delegates to it the task of collective b o okkeeping, i . e . , to chalk up the demands of consumers, to transmi t them to producers, to inventory aggregate income, and to distribute it according to a set formula. But b o t h sides refu s e gov­ ernment the right to subordinate other social organs and have them converge toward a higher goal. O n all sides, men declare that nations

154

Emile Durkheirn: Sociologist and Philosopher

ought to have as their sole or principal obj ective the achievement of industrial prosperity. Thus the dogma of economic materialism serves as the basis of these seemingly opposed systems. And since these theories merely express the state of opinion, industry, instead of being viewed as a means to an end which transcends it, has become the supreme end o f individuals and societies. 1 7 F o r Durkheim this state of affairs a n d the ideologies that legitimated i t constituted a paradigm case of institutionalized and id eological anomie. T h u s t h e appetites which in dustry activates have been freed fro m all limiting authority. The apotheosis o f well-being h a s , i n sanctifying these appetites, placed them above all human law. To check them seems to be a sort of sacrilege . . . . Here is the origin of the effervescence which reigns in this part of society [the economy] and fro m i t has spread to all the rest. I t is because the state of crisis and anomie is constant and, so to speak, normal. From the top to the bottom of the ladder, desires are stimulated without the possibility of satisfaction. Nothing can calm them, because the goal toward which they aspire i s i n fi nitely beyond anything that can be attained . . . . H enceforth the least setback leaves one unable to recover . . . . O n e may ask whether it is not especially this moral state which today m akes economic catastrophes so produ ctive of suicides. For in a society with a healthy moral discipline, men are b e tter able to cope with the blows of fortune . . . . And yet these dispo­ sitions have become so inbred that society has grown to regard them as normal. I t is continually repeated that it is man's nature to be eternally dissatisfied, to advance constantly without rest or respite toward an indefinite goal. The passion for infinity is daily presented as a mark of m o ral distinction, whereas i t can appear only within unregulated consciences which elevate t o the status of a rule the lack of regul ation from which they suffer. The doctrine o f the most rapid progress a t any price has become an article of faith . 18

Such statements indi cate a frequentl y ignored dimension of Durkheim's concept of anomie, bring out its critical edge, and refu t e the idea that he identified social health and normality with conformity to any and every kind of status quo. O n the contrary, his normative and philosophically grounded idea of social normality enabled him to work out something like a concept

Chapter 4

Suicide and Solidarity

155

of the pathology of nor malcy within certain extstmg states of soci ety. 19 It even provided the basis for a critique of some o f his own more questionable analyses or arguments. We are now i n a position t o understand better D u rkhei m's idea o f the re­ lation o f anomie to egoism and the more cogent elements of his conception of the relation o f sociology to psychology. Egoism, in the sense o f atomistic in­ dividualism, obviously had a large area of analytic and empirical overlapping w i t h i ndividualistic forms o f anomie, and both might b e i n s t i t u t i onalized o r i d e ologically j ustifi ed. But Durkhei m's neo-Ka n t i a n assumptions made possible a d i s t i n c t i o n between anomie and egoism which, while allowing fo r events involving both anomie and egoism, was analytically "clear and d i s t i n c t . " In this sense, " an o m i e" referred to a p a t h o logy ( a n d pathos) of practical reason and "egoism" t o a p a t hology of theoretical reas o n . Suicides o f b o t h types [a nomie a n d egoistic] suffer fro m w h a t might be called infi nity sickness

[le mal de l'inji ni] . B u t this sickness d o e s

n o t t a k e t h e s a m e fo r m i n the t w o c a s e s . I n e g o i s m , i t i s c o n s c i o u s i n telligence w h i c h is affected a n d w h i c h b e c o m e s h y p e r t r o p h i e d b e y o n d m e a s u r e . In a n o m i e , i t i s s e n s i b i l i t y which i s overexci t e d a n d u n h i n g e d . I n t h e former, t h o u g h t , through constant t u r n i n g b ac k u p o n i tself, n o longer has a n o b j e c t . In the latter, p a s s i o n , n o l o n ge r r e c o g n i z i n g any l i m i ts , no l o n g e r has a g o a l . T h e fi rst loses i tself in the infi n i t y o f the d r e a m ; the s e c o n d , in the infi nity

o f d es i r e . 20

Thus anomie, i n this more special sense, was related to the "practical," a p p e titive, and active fac ulties: desire, passion, and will, especially the will to power. Egoism was related to t h e imaginative, intellectual, cognitive, a n d " t h e o retical" fac u l t i e s . I n fact, the m o r e p h i l o s o p h ically s p e c i a l meani ngs o f "anomie" a n d "egoism" were closest t o Du rkheim's c o n c e p t i o n of personality types and psychological expressions of his sociological variables. D e s p i t e its lack of empi rical substantiati o n ( e . g . , through the analysis of case studies), B o o k I I , chapter v i , of

Suicide is p r o o f o f t h e i n adequacy o f t h e preval e n t i d e a

t h a t Durkheim, even o n a theoretical level, ignored t h e problem o f social psychology and the internalization of social norms and conditions. Here he argued that anomie was expressed in anxiety and manic agitation, egoism

156

J:rnile Durkheirn: Sociologist and Philosopher

in depression and melancholy. In fact, his conception of their socio-psycho­ logical manifestations helps to explain why he correlated anomie, b u t n o t the m o r e effete, p assive, a n d inner-directed egoism, w i t h the possibility o f h o m i c i d e . A n d i t was from literature and philosophy t h a t he derived t h e examples of t h e relation of social factors to individual personali ty, which h e d i d n o t provide i n t h e fo rm o f empirical case studies. H e cited t h e cerebral a n d i n d e c isive heroes of Lamartine as cases approximating the pure form of egoism. Drawing on classical philosophy, he distinguished b e tween the more detached and introspe ctive stoical, and the more disabused and skeptical epicurean, variants of egoism. I n a rare m o m e n t of tragic i r ony, h e observed of the egoistic frame of mind: " H owever individualized each one may b e , t h e r e i s always s o m e t h i ng w h i c h remains c o l l ective: i t i s t h e depression and the melancholia which result fro m t h i s exaggerated i n d i v i d u a t i o n . One communes i n sadness when one has n o t h i n g else i n comm on . " 2 1 Later, in his

Moral Education, D u r k h e i m was even more b i t t e r : " H u m a n activity . . . dis­ simulates no thingness by decorating it with the specious name of infi nity." 22 In

Suicide he offered as an exam p l e approximating t h e pure fo rm of anomie

the o u t l o o k o f Rene, t h e h e ro o f C h a t e a u b r i a n d , who e x c l a i m e d : "Is it my fau l t i fl find limits everywhere, i f what i s fi n i t e has n o value fo r m e ? " 2 3 But, as w e have already observed, Durkheim d i d recognize the p o s s i b i l i ty - and indeed the probability in certain states of society - of a combination o f t h e i d e a l types o f a n o m i e and egoism i n t h e "manic-depressive" personality which displays "an alternation o f depression and agitation, dream and action, waves of desire and the meditations of the melancholic." 24 Still, Durkheim d i d not sufficiently entertain t h e possibility that certain areas of society and culture, such as art and the thought o f contestat ory intellectuals, might, even in "normal" or n o r m atively legitimated condi­ tions, represent relatively safe havens for radical experiments and even h y p e r b o l i c o r excessive i n i tiatives involving extreme states that were b o th significant in themselves a n d had a t least i n d i r e c t bearing on social life. N o r d i d h e d e v o t e e x t e n d e d a t te n t i o n (as d i d M i khai l Bakh t i n ) to certain social i n s t i t u t i o n s (for example, carnival) in w h i c h legitimated transgres­ s i o n m i g h t be located and, to s o m e extent, made a p a r t o f the o n g o i n g r h y t h m of s o c i a l life. D u rk h e i m d i d s e e a l i m i t e d role i n m o d e r n societies fo r anomie as well as fo r certain s o c i a l

milieux as special b e arers of a n o m i e

a n d e g o i s m , b u t h e did n o t provide a d i fferentiated view of t h e i r p o s s i b l y

Chapter 4

Suicide and Solidarity

157

creative as well as destru ctive c o n t r i b u t i o n s to s o c i e ty as a w h o l e . While h e d i d l a t e r envisage feasts as effervescent events t h a t recreated social values i n ways t h a t m i g h t a t t i m e s b e disconcerting, D u r k h e i m's thought w a s clearly i n h o s p i t a b l e to unrestrained advocacy or celebration o f excess in any area o r to the c o n c e p t i o n o f limits as mere pretexts fo r breaking t a b o o s . H e nonetheless d i d have o p e n ings i n h i s t h o u g h t for a m o r e sustained under­ standing o f actual and p o s s i b l e interactions between normative l i m i t s and excessive, a t times radically transgressive, challenges t o them. But h e did not develop them into a n u a n c ed, complex b a sis fo r analysis and j u dg­ m e n t . After D urkheim, of course, the p r o b l e m of l i m i t s and excess b e c a m e a fla shpoint o f French c r i t i c a l t h e o ry, with structuralists often stressing a s o m e t i m es fo r m a l i d e a of l i m its a n d p o s ts t r ucturalists a n o t i o n of excess which went b a c k to G e o rges Bataille's understanding of dep ense (excessive expenditure) via a rather one-sided reading o f t h e gift presumably in terms of p o tlatch - a r e a d i n g that t e n d e d t o reverse Durkhei m's stress on l i m i t s and t o e l i d e M a uss's affi nity with D urkheim i n t h e e m p h a s i s o n t e m p e red fo rms o f gift exchange related to "amiable rivalry." A l t h o ugh h e did n o t fu l l y i n vestigate its i m p o r t fo r collective b e h avior, the problem of the relation of scarcity to aggression and conAict in society was basic to Durkhei m's notion o f anomie. He recognized two fo rms of scarcity relevant t o social lif e. The first was

de facto scarcity i n the form, fo r

example, of insufficient natural resources in relation to p o p ulation and the existing state o f technology. The second was a form that depended on the cultural definition of scarcity, as well as o n t h e institutional creation or social conditioning of scarcity effected by t h e apportionment of things o f social and cultural value and, o f course, of any economic s u r p l u s . The problem of social order and solidarity was concerned with the dialectical relation of these two types of scarci ty, fo r instance the ability o f the second to shape o r distort the first - an a b i l i ty that i n certain ways might increase w i t h the development of science and technology. Durkhei m's initial conception of t h e p r o b l e m im p l i e d t h e circularity a n d tendenti ousness of argu m e n t s defe n d i n g institutions, which thems elves aggravated scarci ty, b y an indiscriminate re­ liance on the universal prevalence of scarcity. B u t , within limits, i t also i m p l i e d the relativity o f exploitation and the ethnocentrism of arguments which restricted the possibility of plenitude to modern societies possessed of advanced technology. Defi nitions of what constituted legitimate expectation

158

J:rnile Durkheirn: Sociologist and Philosopher

a n d n e e d , beyond the requirements o f b i ological s u rvival, varied according t o social type. One o f Durkheim's contentions was that the relative poverty of traditional societies was itself often a basis fo r the limitation of desires and expectations to a level a t which they could be institutionally satisfied with available resources. This was the basis fo r the correlation o f poverty, in certain societies, with low suicide rates. And especially in "primitive" societies, the institutional definition of legi timate needs oft e n seemed to be consensually accepted by all interested groups. In societies undergoing a process of "modernizati o n , " the development of s o c i a l order a n d soli darity amounted i n large p a r t t o t h e creation o f insti­ tutions and traditions t h a t viably realized newer values and were consen­ sually accepted as t h e basis fo r a d e fl n i t i o n o f legitimate needs. In modern societies, partly because o f the fu nctional i m p eratives of t h e advanced degree of divisi o n of labor, achievement tended to replace inheritance as the basis o f status in society. The problem of social order, however, resided in the relation o f status to stratification, scarci ty, and anomie. In

Suicide,

Durkheim seemed to assume the existence of s o m e s o r t of stratification i n a l l societies. B u t , a s in

The Division of Labor, h is treatm e n t of stratification

was minimal and hesitant and tended t o raise questions rather than furnish answers. Once again, h e fai l e d to i n q u i r e into the principles or principal causes of stratification i n various types o f s o c i e ty. And h i s fo cus was clearly o n anomie. Durkheim relied on the truism that, whatever the elements of stratification in s o c i e ty, they would have t o b e complementary, rather than contradictory, to fo rms of reciproc i ty, and consensua l ly accepted as j u s t , if solidarity was to prevail i n society as a whole. I f fo rms of stratification, e.g. , in economic reward, were to be eliminated or even substantially reduced, a sense o f legitimate limits enshrined in a

conscience collective would be all

the more necessary to induce the more talented or powerfu l to accept equal treatment with the mediocre or powerlessY The elementary and reiterated point of Durkheim's argument was that runaway a n o m i e , i n c l u d i n g i t s institut ionalized vari ety, made the problem of solidari t y and social order insoluble, because i t both maximized scarcity and eliminated the possibility of reciprocity in social relations. In a state of society i n which desires were perpetually stimulated and status always i n d o u b t, m u tually invasive and aggressive relations were inevitable. A society that combined achievement values and anomie faced devastating problems,

Chapter 4

Suicide and Solidarity

159

for it gave rise to the type of person who was constrained to be preemptively rapacious in his o r her dealings with others and anxiously uncertain i n his or her every action. Through a combination of institutional change and advanced technology, modern societies might be able to transcend the cruder forms of economic exploitation. B u t economic exploitation, despite its importance, was not the sole cause of restlessness and conflict in society. And affluence alone was not a solution to the social problem of scarcity. In the absence of consensually accepted norms which defined within fl exible limits an optimal set of compatible alternatives i n the j u s t allocation of resources, any surplus - however great it might be in absolute terms - would b e socially and psychologically experienced in terms of uncooperative competition for scarce values. And a n o m i e on t h i s level would p revent t h e s o l u t i o n of th e problem of creating social milieus and symbolic forms which would permit people to fe el at home in the world, at least t o some viable extent. In some measure, Durkheim tried to provide more concrete answers to these problems i n his corporatist proposals and his theory of morality and religi o n . H i s underlying concern, however, was t o overcome uncontrolled scarcity and a n o m i e b y creating appropriate institutional norms and c u l t ural values. This overcoming required the divorce of achievement from limitless achieving, i t s correlation with viable self-fulfillment, and i t s reconciliation with the humanistic ideal which asserted that human b eings were equal in a sense m o r e basic than all the senses in which they were unequal. D u rkheim more than intimated that in a state of society marked by extreme anomie and egoism, people were in fac t a l ready equal in a respect perhaps as fu ndamental as all the respects in which they were unequal - i . e . , in their common anxiety and isolation. The problem was to use this condition, which so easily lent itself psychologically t o destructive compensatory reactions, as a motivation for the creation of a j ust society. Only thro ugh a sense o f j us t institutional limits could society conjoin modern achievement values with the humane classical ideals o f personal maturation and legitimate social order as the coordinate fo u n d a t i o n s o f s e l f-fulfi l l m e n t and s o l i d arity. I n d e e d , i n one of his very first articles Durkheim enunciated the idea that was to serve as the inspiration o f Suicide and o f his social philosophy of finitude i n general: " H o w I prefer the words of the old sages who recommend b e fore all else the full and tranquil possession o f oneself. N o d o u b t , the s p i r i t as it develops needs to have b efore it vaster horizons; b u t for all that it does not ch ange

/ 60

J:rnile Durkheirn: Sociologist and Philosopher

its nature and remains finite."2 6 One might add that, in t h i s context, the very desire fo r transcendence might b e displaced i n the direction o f radical transgression, which would also pose problems for a viable relation b e tween normative limits and challenges to t h e m . S o c i ety and personality as complemen tary int egrated wholes whose finite fu llness was activated and agitated b y a marginal leaven o f anomie: this was D u rkheim's essential vision throughout his life. And he increasingly saw the healthy society as one that b o t h institutionally constrained and spontaneously evoked the commitment o f all b u t the incorrigibly criminal a n d the extraordinarily creative. It accomplished this feat by fo unding the d o m i n a n t sense of solidarity and "wholeness" in a

conscience collective that

represented a c u l t urally relat ive vari a n t of substantive reason t h a t A e x i b l y disciplined t h e imagination and controlled d e s i r e a n d will.

Altruism and Fatalism Durkheim began h i s discuss i o n of altruism with t h e fo l l owing general pronouncement: In the ordering of life, nothing i s good without measure [mesure] . A b i o logical characteristic can fulfill the ends i t m u s t serve only i f i t does n o t g o beyond certain limits. T h e same principle applies to social phenomena. If excessive individuation leads to suicide, insufficient individuation produces the same effect. \'Vhen a man is detached from society, h e readily kills himself; he also kills himself when he is too strongly i ntegrated into societyY Thus a l t r u i s m , in contrast t o egoism, was c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of a s o c i a l c o n t e x t m a r k e d b y excessive i n t e g r a t i o n a n d s o l i darity, e s p e cially i n e x t r e m e c o m m u n a l fo r m s . F a t a l i s m , i n c o n t r a s t t o a n o m i e , character­ ized a social context marked b y "an excess of r e g u l a t i o n t h r o u gh w h i c h s u b j e e r s find t h e i r future p i t i lessly w a l l e d u p and t h e i r p a s s i o n s violently i n hi b i te d b y a n o p pressive d i s c i p l i n e . " 2 R But D u rk h e i m beli eved t h a t nei­ t h e r altruism n o r fatalism was signifi cant i n modern s o c i e ty. In h i s view, modern s o c i e ty in the West was characterized by egoism and a n o m i e , by m i n i m a l c o m m u n i ty, and by i n s t i t u t i o n a l structures that m i g h t be rigid

Chapter 4

Suicide and Solidarity

1 61

and authori tarian b u t were often comparatively b enign in nature. More over, for h i m , o p p ressive or repressive fe atures of m o d e r n i n s t i t u t i o n s w o u l d b e m e t , n o t b y fatal i s t i c resignation, b u t b y m i l i t a n t , i m p a t i e n t p r o t e s t t h a t often a t t a i n e d b y i ts d e m a n d s a n o m i e h e i g h t s c o m p l e m e n t a r y t o t h o s e o f t h e d o m i n a n t system. T h e p e c u l iarly u n s t a b i lizing force of t h i s c o m b i n a t i o n of factors d i d n o t e s c a p e D u r k h e i m , although he fa iled t o relate i t to t h e p o s s i b l e genesis o f n e o f atalistic o p p ression a n d authori tar­ ian regi m e n t a ti o n in s o c i ety. For Durkheim extreme altruism was a trait of traditional, and especially of "primitive," societies. D urkheim's discussion of the p o s s i b l e extremism of self-sacrificial devotion t o o thers made apparent the s u p e r fi c i a l i ty of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s that present h i m as the u n c o n d i t i o n a l advocate of solidarity i n s o c i e ty. All forms of excess were antipathetical t o his b a s i c p h i l o s o p hy, a t least i n s o fa r as t h e y b e c a m e generalized i n s o c i e ty. I n extremely a l t r u i s t i c contexts, s u i c i d e m i g h t i n certain cases b e o b l i g­ a t o r y ( e . g . , the practice of s u t t e e a m o n g widows in I n d i a ) , b e considered a sup ererogatory virtuous act ( e . g . , martyrdom for a c a u s e ) , or simply b e t h e result o f a t o t a l involve m e n t i n t h e collectivity a n d its m a n y religious c u s t o m s . Another fo rm of suicide classified by Durkheim as altruistic was t h e self-immolating t y p e i n w h i c h a n offense a g a i n s t a d e e p l y rooted value created a sense o f g u i l t so strong that suicide b e c a m e a mode of expiation. E x a m p les o f a l t r u i s t i c suicide i n o n e fo r m or another a b o u n d e d in tradi­ tional societies. S i m i l a r to the obligation o f s u t t e e was the i n j u n c t i o n t h a t retainers n o t s u rvive t h e d e a t h of t h e i r c h i e f or patron. Danish warriors c o m m i t t e d s u i c i d e to escape the ignominy o f dying i n b e d . For the G o ths, natural death was shamefu l ; t h e m y t h i c a l punishment fo r i t was condem­ nation to eternal stagnation i n caves fi lled with venomous animals. The Visigoths h a d a high rock, named t h e R o c k o f Ancestors, fro m which old men threw themselves when they were t i r e d of l i fe a n d fel t themselves to b e a burden to t h e c o m m u n i ty. Among the Spanish Celts a fut u r e life of glory was reserved fo r s u i c i d e s , while hell a w a i t e d t h o s e who died of illness o r old age. These might b e called suicides of strength. Altruistic suicide also had i t s a p p e a l to the weak who had n o other viable alternatives. S u i ci d e s expressing p r o t e s t m i g h t b e directed b y t h e o p p r e s s e d a g a i n s t a p o werful oppressor a n d , in r i t u a l form, be conceived as i m p o s i n g u p o n the adver­ sary a b urden of guilt of crushing p r o p o r t i o n s . I n a sense, r i t u a l s u i c i d e

J:rnile Durkheirn: Sociologist and Philosopher

1 62

might fu n c t i o n as the symbolic vengeance of the weak, who "altruisti cally" conferred u p o n t h e i r e n e m i e s an imaginary gift of d e a t h . Isolated instances o f altruistic s u i c i d e o f course occurred i n modern society. There was, fo r example, the m o th e r who sacrificed her life i n order t o save her child fr o m harm. But the institutional context that Durkheim treated extensively as e m b o dying a modern vestige o f "primi tive" morality was the m i l i tary. In fact, this was the only section of his chapter on altruistic suicide i n which D u rkheim cited statistics. They showed higher suicide rates among military men than among civilians and a tendency for the suicide rate to increase with the duration o f mili tary service. The statistics indicated that the nature o f military organization and the t y p e of social psychology it fo stered e x p l a i n e d t h e rate d i fferentials. As was t h e case a m o n g " p r i m i ­ tive s , " the extreme s p i r i t o f abnegation and collective solidarity induced m i l i t a r y m e n t o place l i t t l e value o n t h e i r own i n d i v i d u a l existence a n d t o b e ready to risk t h e i r lives for a point d'honneur. T h e

Suicide rate of the

military over t i m e , however, was following a downward trend. D urkheim fo und the reason in the decline o f the old m i l i tary spirit and the influence of modern values and c o n d i t i o n s i n fos t e r i n g a m o re flexible disci p l i n e and greater individualism within the mili tary itself?9 T h e nature and significance of altruistic suicide were of course q u i t e d i fferent from those of egoistic o r a n o m i e s u i c i d e . Al t r u i s t i c s u i c i d e was prompted b y an affirmation of the norms and values of society and was at t i m e s even honored by the relevant group. Egoistic and anomie suicides were induced by despair, anxiety, and s u ffering and were generally c o n d e m n e d b y soci ety. In his discussion of egoistic suicide, however, Durkheim touched o n t h e possible genesis i n modern society o f extreme a n d , indeed, fanatical "altruistic" c o n texts which depressed the rate of suicides caused by egoistic conditions. H i s brief but p o i n t e d discussion - his only significant refer­ ence i n

Suicide t o social conflict - reveals his awareness o f the " i n tegrating"

fu n c t i o n of social c o n fl i c t . G reat social co m m o ti o n s , like great p o p u l a r wars, i n A a m e collective sentiments, s t i m u l a t e party s p i r i t a n d p a t r i o t i s m , p o l i t ical fai t h and national fai t h , and by concentrating activities toward the same goal, determine, at least fo r a time, a stronger integration o f soci ety. T h i s

Chapter 4

Suicide and Solidarity

1 6.3

salutary infl uence is n o t d u e to the crisis i t s e l f b u t to t h e struggles of which the crisis is the cause. Since they oblige men to come together to conf rant a c o m m o n danger, the individual thinks less of h i m s e l f and m o r e o f the c o m m o n cause. M o reover, o n e understands how this integration m a y n o t be p u rely m o mentary but may a t times s u rvive t h e causes which were i t s immediate o c c a s i o n , e s p e c i ally w h e n it i s i n t e nse. 30 Earlier, in h i s discussion of the correlation of intellectual p u rsuits and egoism, Durkheim had applied the same principle of the integration of groups and personalities through shared social antagonism to the Jews, who a voided suicide b y c o m b i n i n g intellectualism w i t h ethnic s o l i d arity. It is a g e n e r a l law t h a t r e l i g i o u s m i n o r i t i es , in o r d e r to be able t o m a i n t a i n t h e m s elves m o r e s e c u r e l y against t h e h a t r e d s o f w h i ch t h e y are t h e o b j e c t s , or s i m p l y t h rough a s o r t of e m u l a t i o n , m ake an effo r t to be s u p e r i o r in knowledge t o s u r r o u n d i n g p o p ulations. T h u s P r o t e s t a n t s t h e m s e l ves s h ow m o re taste fo r l e a r n i n g when they are a m i n o r i ty. The Jew seeks e d u c a t i o n , not t o replace his collective prej u d i ce s with t h o u g h t - o u t n o t i o n s , b u t s i m ply t o b e b e t te r a r m e d i n t h e struggle. Fo r h i m t h i s i s a m e a n s o f c o m p e n ­ s a t i n g f o r t h e d i s a d v a n t a g e o u s s i t u a t i o n w h i c h i s c r e a t e d fo r h i m b y o p i n i o n a n d a t t i m e s b y t h e l a w. S i n c e l e a r n i n g i n i tself h a s l i ttle effect on vigorous t r a d i t i o n s , h e s u p e r i m p o ses h i s i n t ellectual l i fe o n his c u s t o m a r y activity w i t h o u t h a v i n g the fo r m e r c u t i n t o t h e latter. H e n c e t h e c o m p l e x i t y o f h i s p h y s i o g n o my. P r i m i t i v e i n c e r t a i n w a y s , h e is i n o t h e r w a y s a c e r e b r a l a n d refi ned t y p e . T h u s h e j oi n s t h e advantages o f l i t t l e g r o u p s o f t h e p a s t w i t h t h e b e nefits o f t h e i n t e n s e c u l t u r e o f o u r g r e a t c o n t e m p o r a r y s o c i e t i e s . H e has all t h e i n t e l l i g e n c e o f m o d e r n s w i t h o u t s h a r i n g t h e i r d es p a i r. 5 1 I t wou ld, o f course, b e d i ffi c u l t not t o see a n element of biographical nos­ talgia in this portrait, as well as a partial i n t i m a t i o n o f Durkheim's reformist hopes fo r professional gro u p s . D u r k h e i m devoted only a brief foo t n o t e t o "fatalistic" s u i c i d e , fo r h e believe d t h i s type t o b e largely o f h i s t o r i c a l i n t e r e s t . Although h i s c o n c e p t o f fat a l i s m s e e m s t o h a r k b a c k t o t h e d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e c o n s t r a i n e d o r

1 64

Emile Durkheirn: Sociologist and Philosopher

fo rced d i v i s i o n o f l a b o r in h i s fi r s t m a j o r w o r k , D u r k h e i m d i d n o t refer to t h i s p r o b l e m in t h e l a t e r b o ok. I n p a r t , t h i s was b e c a u s e the i d e a of fat a l i s m in

Suicide was not r e l a t e d t o t h e existence of e x p l o i tative s t r u c ­

tures alone. I t d i a l e c t i c a l l y c o m p r i s e d b o th t h e o p pressive or repressive nature o f i n s t i t u t i o n a l n o r m s and the nature of i n d i v i d u a l or collective r e s p o n s e t o t h e m . F a t a l i s m , in o t h e r w o r d s , i m p l i e d the kind of resig­ n a t i o n t o " m o r a l or m at e r i a l d e s p o t i s m " that l e d , n o t to s p o n t a n e o u s o r organized p r o t e s t , b u t t o s u i c i d e ( o r p e r h a p s t o c r i m e ) . 3 2 F r o m h i s t o r y D u r k h e i m d r e w examples o f t h e s ui c i d e s of slaves. F r o m m o d e r n soci­ e t y, h e cited the less i n s t i t u t i o n a l l y p e r t i n e n t instances o f wives w i t h o u t children a n d o f h u s b a n d s t o o i m m a t u r e t o a s s u m e t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f m arri age; h e d i d n o t r a i s e t h e q u es t i o n o f t h e r e l a t i o n o f t h e s e cases to the s o c i o c u l t u r a l defi nition o f t h e role o f t h e m a r r i e d w o m a n , t h e gendering o f r o l e s i n g e n e r a l , t h e r e l a t i o n o f t h e s e x e s , or t h e n a t u r e o f t h e m o d e r n family. D urkheim's b r i e f d i s c u s s i o n o f fa t a l i s t i c s ui c i d e h a s t h e m e r i t of j usti­ fying t h e inclusion i n t h e d e fi n i t i o n o f s u i c i d e of a cognitive factor t h a t i m p l i e d t h e a b i l i t y o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l t o assess t h e o b j ective s i t u a t i o n a n d t o take a fo rm o f a c t i o n t h a t r e q u i r e d a s i g n i fi c a n t m e a s u r e o f i n i t i a t i v e . For s u i c i d e t o b e a t y p i c a l r e a c t i o n t o o p p r e s s i o n , a u t h o r i t a r i a n i s m w o u l d have t o b e s t r o n g e n o u gh t o check m o r e effective forms o f p r o t e s t , b u t n o t s o s t r o n g a s t o e l i m i n a t e all p o s s i b i l i t y o r h o p e o f resistance. I t h a s been remarked that in situations approximating total oppression, the suicide r a t e , i n s t e a d o f rising, tends t o d r o p . T h i s was, for example, true o f Nazi c o n c e n t r a t i o n c a m p s . 3 3 In t h e context o f e x t r e m e a u t h o r i t a r i a n i s m , c o n d i t i o n s m i g h t i n d u ce d i s e m p o w e r m e n t , a n i n a b i l i t y t o m a k e obj ective assessments, a loss of the sense of p e r s o n a l i d e n t i t y a n d "ego b o u n d a r i e s , " a n d e v e n w h a t Fre u d t e r m e d " i d e n ti fi cation w i t h t h e aggr e s s o r. " T h u s a s i t u a t i o n of e x t r e m e s o c i a l p a t h o l o g y m i g h t exclude even the o p ti o n of s u i c i d e as an e x i s t e n t i a l r e s p o n s e . Although D u rkh e i m fai l e d t o i n v e s t i g a t e a d e q u a t e l y t h e g e n e s i s a n d n a t u r e o f extremely a u t h o ri t a r i a n a t t e m p t s a t i n t e g r a t i o n , i t m a y b e o b ­ served t h a t h i s b el i e f t h a t m o d e r n Western s o c i e t i e s w o u l d give b i r t h , n o t t o fatalistic s u i c i d e s , b u t t o a c o m b i n a t i o n o f l i b eralized i n s t i t u t i o n al n o r m s ( o r a t l e a s t b e n i g n a u t h o r i t a r i a n i s m ) a n d fo r m s o f p r o t e s t s h o t through with a n o m i e h a s b e e n b o r n e o ut b y a t least c e r t a i n devel o p m e n t s

Chapter 4

Suicide and Solidarity

1 65

s i n c e h i s d e a t h . O n e instance has b e e n t h e m u t a t i o n of sexual n o r m s a n d a t t i t udes. D ur k h e i m's own t i m e w a s t h e p e r i o d d u r i n g w h i c h F r e u d t r e a t e d h y s t e r i a c a u s e d b y e x t r e m e l y r e p r e s s i v e sexual n o r m s . S i n c e t h a t t i m e , p u r i t a n i c al o ffi c i a l m o r ality has b ee n i n creasingly u n d e r c u t by a sexual revo l u t i o n that has c o m b i n e d greater p e r m i s siveness with d i s o r i ­ e n t a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g i t s l e g i t i m a t e l i m i t s . E v e n p r o p h ets o f l i b e r a t i o n have b e e n l e d t o speak o f "repressive d e s u b l i m a t i o n . " T h e confused s t a t u s o f sexual a t t i t u d e s is o n l y one a s p e c t o f t h e m o d e r n c r i s i s o f l e g i t i m a c y w h i c h D ur k h e i m p e r c e i v e d . A s Erik Erikson h a s o b s e r v e d : "The p a t i e n t o f t o d ay s u ffers m o s t u n d e r t h e p r o b l e m o f w h a t h e s h o u l d b e lieve i n a n d who he should - or indeed might - b e or become; while the patient o f e a r l y p s y c h o a n alysis suffered m os t u n d e r i n h i b i t i o n s w h i ch prevented h i m fr o m b e i n g what o r w h o h e t h o u g h t h e was."3 4 The " i d e n t i ty crisis" i n i t s extreme forms i s of c o u r s e a psychological analogue o f a n o m i e . I n w h a t w a s for D u rkh e i m a " healthy" o r i n tegrated s o c iety, m u c h o f t h e c r i s i s w o u l d b e taken o u t o f t h e s e a r c h for i d en t i ty, a n d " i d e n tity" itself might be more fl exible and even fl ui d t o t h e extent that it was not a n x i e ty- r i d d e n a n d defensive.

Durkheim and Weber If asked to name the sociological classic par excellence, m o s t sociologists would hesitate b e tween

Suicide and The Protestant Ethic. But the extent to

which these two works are complementary as c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o the analysis of m o d e rn social and cultural history has been little recognized. Both Durkheim and Weber, in their conception o f m o d e r n soci ety, stressed the i m portance of the c o m p arative m e t h o d in investigating m aj o r processes o f cultural transformation. Their fo ci converged o n the relation of ideologies or value systems to i n s t i t u t i ons, a trait of Durkheim's work t h a t became increasingly p r o m i n e n t with his growing i n terest i n religi o n . In

The Division of Labor, D u rkheim treated anomie and a crisis of transition i n terms o f the b reakdown of one type of social system u n d e r the i m p a c t of demographic pressure and the rise of newer i n s t i t u t ions a n d v a l u e s . B u t i n comparison with Weber's elaborate i nvestigation o f feudal i n s t i t u t i o n s , sym b o l i c systems, u r b a n i z a t i o n , a n d b u reaucracy, t h e level of discussion

/ 66

J:rnile Durkheirn: Sociologist and Philosopher

in D urkheim's fi rst m a j o r work was of m i n i m a l historical interest. D e s p i t e the fac t t h a t i t shared Durkheim's constant tendency to devote insufficient attention to the precise nature and historical specificity of symbolic beliefs a n d i n s t i t u t i o n a l practices,

Suicide was often more to the p o i n t . Suicide at­

tempted an analysis of t h e functions and consequences of instituti ons and values whose historical genesis and symb o l i c nature Weber later investigated in

The Protestan t Ethic and the Spirit of Cap italism ( 1 92 0 ) . I n d e e d , t h e o v e r a l l r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e i d e as o f D u rk h e i m

a n d W e b e r reveals a n a p p ar e n t p ar a d o x t h a t w o u l d m e r i t e x t e n s i v e i n v e s t i g a t i o n . T h e b a s i c a s s u m p t i o n s o f t h e s e t w o thinkers w e r e often d i a m etrically o p p o s e d . W e b e r ' s t h o u g h t rested on tragic and i r o n i c as­ s u m p t i o n s . He c o m b i n e d a N i e t z s c h e a n m e t a p h y s i c with a n e o- K a n t i a n m e t h o d o l ogy . F o r \Y./ e b e r , a s for N i e t z s c h e , reality w a s a n o m i e . M e aning­ ful s t r u c t u r e s were fictive p r o j e c t i o n s o f the h u m a n m i n d . Any n o t i o n of a c o r r e s p o n d e n c e b e tween c o n c e p t and r e a l i ty was o u t of the q u e s t i o n . A c o n c e p t d i d n o t represent reality; i t actively s h a p e d or even c o n s t r u c t e d i t . K n o w l e d g e , fo r W e b e r , t h u s h a d a h i g h l y p r o b l e m a t i c b as i s . F u n d a ­ m e n t a l co n A i c t , m o reover, w a s a n i n e s c a p a b l e fac t of life. H u m a n values, which were c r u c i a l i n the attempt t o i m p o s e order o n chaos, often e x i s t e d i n a s t a t e o f i n c o m m e n s u r a b i l i t y and i r r e c o n c i l a b l e c o n fl i c t w i t h o n e a n o t h e r . T h e c h o i c e o f v a l u e s w a s , i n the l a s t analysis, the s u b j e ctive, existential d e c i s i o n of t h e i n d i v i d u a l , and this u l t i m ately irrational deci­ sion d e t e r m i n e d one's entire p e rs p ective o n reality. ( D urkheim p r o v i d e d a largely c r i t i c a l a p p r a i s a l o f the t h o u g h t o f N i e tz s c h e in his

Pragmatisme

et sociologie. B u t he seemed to know Ni etzsche's ideas only fro m second­ ary sources.) S o c i ological m e t h o d , fo r Weber, involved t h e elaboration o f "one-sided" analytical models ( o r "ideal types") of t h e attempts of p e o p l e t o i m p ose o r d e r on chaos. I n a sense, i t w a s ultimately a higher-order fi c t i o n o r c o n t r o l l e d , fo rmally rational, u t o p i a n exercise: a metafi ctive stylization of more or less effective and reali ty-co nstituting social fictions, utopias, and im aginaries. Moreover, Weber m a i n t a i n e d that research in social s c i e n c e was initially guided by subj ective values, b u t o n c e significant p r o b l e m s were selected, the results o b tained might in some restricted sense b e o b j e ctive and value-neutral. I n terms of its conclusions, social science confronted an irrational universe with fo rmally rational m e t h o d s , b u t it remained s i l e n t ab o u t s u b s tantive values.

Chapter 4

Suicide and Solidarity

1 67

D u r k h e i m o s c i l l a t e d b e tween a C a r t e s i a n i z e d n e o - Ka n t i a n a n d a m o re H eg e l i a n d i al e c t i c a l c o n c e p t i o n of s c i e n c e . H i s t o ry, fo r h i m , was t h e scene of a s t r u ggle between m e a n ingful order and a n o m i e chaos. B u t t h e prevalence o f o r d e r was n o r m a l , a n d excessive a n o m i e w a s p a t h o ­ l o g i c a l . I n c o n t r a s t t o We b er, D u r k h e i m d i d n o t fi n d t h e knowledge o f r e a l i t y t o b e i t s e l f h i g h l y p ro b le m a t i c . D u rk h e i m's e p i s t e m ology was a v a r i a n t of t h e " c o r r e s p o n d e n c e " t h e o r y o f t r u t h . And it u l t i mately was s u b o r d i n a t e d t o a very t r a d i t i o n a l k i n d of m et a p h y s i c . Except for a n i r r e d u c i b l e m argin o f a n o m i e , e s s e n t i a l r e a l i t y w a s r a t i o n a l l y s t r u c t u r e d , a n d s c i e n c e c o u l d d i s cover i t s l a w s . D u rkheim's i d e a o f s o c i a l s c i e n c e c l o s e l y i n t e g r a t e d c o g n i t i v e and n o r m a tive a s p e c t s . Val u e s c o u l d b e r a t i o n ally k n ow n . A n d a v i a b l e h ar m o n y o f values was p o s s i b l e i n t h e n o r m al s o ci e ty. F r o m D u rk h e i m's p e r s p ec t i v e , Weber was t h e o r i z i n g f r o m w i t h i n a n a n o m i e c o n t e x t a n d p r o p o s i n g , a t b es t , a t e n u o u s b as i s for r a t i o n al i t y w i t h i n t h e confi nes o f a n o m i e . F r o m Web e r's p e r s p ec­ tive, D u r k h e i m w a s b e i n g irrelevantly t r a d i t i o n a l , h o p e l e s s ly n a i v e , a n d b l i n d l y u t o p i a n . T h e a p p a r e n t p a r a d o x , however, i s t h a t , o n t h e b asis o f s u c h a n t i t h e t i c a l a ss u m p t i o n s , D u rk h e i m a n d Web e r a r r i v e d a t l ar g e l y c o m p l e m e n t a r y r e s e a r c h i n t e r e s t s and s p e c i fi c a n alyses i n t h e i r inves­ t i g a t i o n of c u l t u r e and s o ci e ty. D ur k h e i m c l a s s i fi ed P r o t e s t a n t i s m u n d e r e go i sm and s om ew h a t s k e t c h i l y e x p l a i n e d i ts c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h r e l a tively h i g h s ui c i d e rates ( i n c o n t r a s t w i t h J u d a i s m a n d C at h o l i c i s m ) b y drawing a t t e n t i o n t o t h e a b s e n c e o f s o l i d a r i t y i n a r e l i g i o u s s o c i e t y t h a t i n s t i t u t i o nalized i n d i ­ v i d u a l i s t i c fre e e n q u i ry. P r o t e s t a n t i s m r e d u c e d t o a m i n i m u m t h e n e x u s b e t w e e n s y m b o l i c c u l t and e x i s t e n t i a l c o m m u ni t y t h a t D u r k h e i m w a s l a t e r t o p r e s e n t as t h e e s s e n c e o f t h e r e l i gi o us p h en om e n o n . Web e r m ay n o t have s h a r e d t h e p h i l o s o p h i cally c r i t i c a l i n t e n t of D u r kh e i m , b u t h e d i d c o n c u r i n t h e essentials o f t h e a n a l y s i s . In i t s extreme i n h u m a n i ty t h i s doctrine [predestination] must above all have had one consequence fo r the l i fe of a generation which surrendered to its magnificent consistency. That was a fe eling of unprecedented inner loneliness of the single individual. I n w h a t was for the man of the age o f the Reformation the most i m p o r t a n t thing in l i fe , h i s eternal salvation, h e was forced t o m e e t a destiny which

/ 68

J:rnile Durkheirn: Sociologist and Philosopher

had been decreed fo r h i m fro m eternity. No o n e c o u l d h e l p h i m . N o priest . . . . N o sacraments . . . . N o church . . . . Finally, even no G o d . For even Christ had died only for t h e elect, fo r whose b e n e fi t God had decreed his martyrdom fro m eternity. This, the complete elimination of salvation through the Church and the sacraments (which was i n Lu­ theranism by no means developed to its final conclusions), was what fo rmed the absolu tely d ecisive d i fference from Catholicism. The great historic process in the devel o p m e n t of religi o n s , the elimination of magic from the world

[die Entzauberung der Welt - disenchantment] ,

which had b egun w i t h the old Heb rew p r o p h ets and, in conjunction w i t h Hellenistic scientific thought, had repudiated all magical means t o salvation as superstition and sin, came here t o its logical conclusion. The genuine Puritan even rejected all signs of religious ceremony at the grave and b ur i e d his nearest and dearest w i t h o u t song o r ritual in order that no superstition, n o trust i n the effects of magical and sacramental forces o n salvation, should creep i n . 3 5 T h u s Dowden, w h o m Web er q u o t e d , wrote: " T h e d e e p e s t c o m m u n i t y [ w i t h G o d ] is fo u n d n o t i n i n s t i t u t i o n s o r c o r p o r a t i o n s or churches b u t i n t h e secrets o f a solitary h e a r t . " 3 6 T h i s c o n c e p t i o n o f t h e essential religious situation as that o f a s o l i t ary individual whose salvation had b e e n decided b y a totally transcendent, h i d d e n divinity might be s e e n as a symbolic representation which s i m u l t a n e ously made sense o f, and fun c t i o n e d t o s u s t a i n , a sense of m e l a n c h o l i c i s o l a t i o n and a n o m i e a n x i e t y in a p e r i o d o f historical t r a n s i t i o n . This m i g h t have various c o n s e q u e n c e s i n c l u d i n g the form a t i o n of extremely i n t e g r a t e d groups u n d e r c h a r i s m a t i c l e a d e r s , a s i n the c a s e o f Cromwell's "army o f s a i n t s . " Here people r e a c t e d t o ex­ treme i s o l a t i o n and anxiety, fostered by religious s y m b o l i s m , by seeking demanding a n d m i l i tantly fanatical fo rms of social integration. But what concerned We b e r was another h i s t o r i c a l p o s s i b i l i ty : the relationship of the religious doctrine o f predestination and

Deus Absconditus ( " H i d d e n

G o d " ) t o a n e t h i c of "this-worldly asceticism" w h i c h c o m b i n e d anxiety ab o u t o n e 's fa te with a rigorous fo r m of i n d i v i d u a l i s t i c self- d i s c i p l i n e , achievement, and fo rmally r a t i o n a l activity i n o cc u p a t i o n a l life. T h i s re­ lationship Web er, of c o u r s e , conceived as vital in the fo r m a t i o n of an e l i t e o f c a p i t a l i s t i c entrepreneurs w h o s e i n fl u e n c e h e l p e d d e t e r m i n e t h e s h a p e o f m o d e r n s o c i e t y i n the Wes t .

Chapter 4

Suicide and Solidarity

1 69

It i s necessary to n o t e , w h a t h a s o ften b e e n forgotten, t h a t t h e Refo r m a t i o n m e a n t not t h e e l i m i n a t i o n o f t h e C h u rch's c o n t r o l o v e r everyday l i f e , b u t r a t h e r t h e s u b s t i t u t i o n o f a n e w fo r m o f c o n t r o l f o r t h e p revious o n e . I t m e a n t a rep u d i at i o n of a c o n t ro l w h i c h w a s very lax, at t h a t t i m e scarcely p e r c e p t i b l e i n p r a c t i c e , and h a r d l y m o r e t h a n for m a l , i n favo r o f a r e g u l a t i o n o f t h e w h o l e o f conduct w h i c h , p e n e t r a t i n g t o a l l d e p a r t m e n t s of p r i v a t e a n d p u b l i c ! i fe , w a s infi nitely b u r d e ns o m e a n d earnestly enforced. 3 7 T h u s , where D u r k h e i m stressed the role of a n o m i e i n m o de r n his­ to ry, Weber e m p h asized the b i r t h o f a new " n o m i e " o r disciplinary e t h i c . B u t Weber h i m s e l f t e n d e d t o s i t u a t e t h e n e w " n o m i e " o n t h e fo r m a l l y r a t i o n a l l e v e l o f t h e a d j u s t m e n t o f means t o ends; a n d h e perceived a c e r t a i n t y p e o f i n s t i t u t i o n al i z e d a n o m i e o n t h e level o f e n d s in m o d ern activity. W h a t were t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s a m o n g t h e religious d o c t r i n e of p r e d e s t i n a t i o n , t h e t o t a l i n v e s t m e n t of the sacred in the t r a n s c e n d e n t , t h e new fo rmally r a t i o n a l " n o m i e " o r e t h i c o f a s c e t i c s e l f- d i s c i p l i n e i n a calling, c a p i t a l i s m , a n d t h e e l e m e n t o f i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d a n o m i e or l i m i tlessness o n t h e level o f e n d s which, according t o D ur k h e i m , was t h e negation of s u b stantive r a t i o n a l i ty ? In a s e n s e , the p r o b l e m o f the P r o t e s t a n t sectarian w h o b elieved i n p r e d e s t i n a t i o n d e c r e e d by a h i d d e n G o d w a s for Web e r t h e p r o b l e m o f o b j ective i n d i c e s . It w a s t h i s n e e d fo r a v i s i b l e sign of a s t a t e of e l e c t i o n which o n e c o u l d never directly know or b e e n t i r e l y sure of t h a t p rovided t h e i n tel l i g i b l e b u t u n i n te n d e d l i n k between t h e Protestant religious p r o b l e m a t i c a n d t h e e t h o s o f c a p i t a l i s m . Worldly s u c c e s s i n t h e form o f l i m i tless c o m p e t i t i v e a c h i e v i n g p ur s u e d w i t h a s c e t i c r i g o r a n d fun c t i o n a l r a t i o n a l i ty, a n d conceived a s t h e struc­ tural m o t i v a t i o n o f work in a n o c c u p a t i o n a l calling, b e c a m e the visible index o f p e r s o n a l salva t i o n . Although h e n o t e d t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f o t h e r fac t o r s , i t w a s t h e c o m b i n a t i o n o f i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d l i m i tlessness o n t h e level o f ends a n d fu n c t i o n a l l y r a t i o n a l c a l c u l a t i o n a n d d i s c i p l i n e o n t h e level o f means t h a t s e e m e d to b e the t r u l y d i s t i n ctive c r i t e r i o n o f t h e c a p i t a l i s t e t h o s i n Weber's m i n d . The i m p u lse t o acquisition, p u r s u i t o f gain, o f mo ney, has i n itself nothing to d o with capitalism. This i m p ulse exists and has existed among waiters, physicians, coachmen, artists, prostitutes, dishonest

170

J:rnile Durkheirn: Sociologist and Philosopher

officials, soldiers, nobles, crusaders, gamblers, and b eggars . . . . Un­ limited greed fo r gain is not in the least identical with capitalism, and is still less its s p i r i t . . . . But capitalism is identical with the p u r s u i t of profit, and fo rever renewed profit, by means of continuous, rational, capitalistic enterprise . . . . We will define a capitalistic economic action as

one which rests o n t h e expectation o f profit by the utilization of

opportunities fo r exchange, that i s on (form ally) peaceful chances of p r o fi t . 3 8 T h i s c o n c e p t i o n o f c a p i t a l i s m was n o t , i t m a y be a d d e d , d e p e n d e n t u p o n t h e p r i v a t e ownership o r even control o f t h e m e a n s o f p r o d u c t i o n ; i t r e ferred to the issues o f h o w i n s t i t u t ions functioned a n d the n a t u r e o f control. Web e r i d entifi ed as traditional, i n c o n trast w i t h t h e capitalistic ethos, the a t t i t u d e based on a sense of legitimate limits in the m u t u a l a d j u s t m e n t o f needs a n d i n s t i t u t i o n alized m e a n s o f sati sfacti o n . Web er's perspective e n a b l e d him to emphasize t h e new "no mie" i n volved i n s o b e r b o urgeois self- d i s c i p l i n e a n d rationality i n t h e a d j u s t m e n t of means t o e n d s . F r o m D u rkhei m's perspective, this s i t u a t i o n would a p p e a r as o n e case o f a c o m b i n a t i o n o f a pathology o f "practical" reason ( i n s t i t u t i onalized l i m i tlessness o r anomie) and a s u b s i d i ary patho logy o f "theoretical" reason (funct i o n a l rationality directed to l i m i tless e n d s ) . T h u s Weber b e l i eved h e had fo u n d a g e n e t i c l i n k b e t w e e n religious a n d e c o n o m i c p h e n o m e n a w h i c h i n t h e e p o c h o f classical l i b e r a l i s m t e n d e d t o separate i n t o d iscrete i n s t i t u t i o n a l s p h e r e s . i n s t e a d o f e l a b o r a t i n g a refo r m i s t project in t h e manner of D u r k h e i m , Web er d i s p assionately and i r o n i cally observed o f the fu ture: N o o n e knows who will live i n this cage i n the fu t u r e , or whether at the e n d of this tremendous development entirely new prophets w i l l arise, o r t h e r e will b e a great rebirth o f o l d i d e a s and i d e a l s , or, i f n e i t h e r , m e c h a n i z e d p e t r i fi c a t i o n , e m b e l l i s h e d with a s o r t o f convulsive self- i m p o rtance. For o f t h e l a s t stage o f t h i s cultural deve l o p m e n t , i t m i g h t well be truly s a i d : "Specialists w i t h o u t spirit, sensualists w i t h o u t h e a r t ; this nullity i magines i t has attained a level of civilization never b e fo re achieve d . " 3 9

Chapter 4

Suicide

and Solidarity

171

From Analysis to Reform

Suicide concluded with proposals for a corporatist reform of m o d e r n society. I n presenting his plea for corporative groups, Durkheim was sensitive to the heri tage o f suspicion associated with the i d e a o f corporatism because of the development o f corp orative organizations in the

ancien regime. Cer­

t a i nly, the uses to which corpo rative establishments were put under fascism, after Durkheim's death, have compounded this negative reputation. Yet the c o n t i n u i n g d i ffi culty i n resolvi n g the problems discussed b y Durkheim, as well as the emergence of corporative fe atures in all advanced industrial societies, may b e grounds fo r renewed interest in the specific nature of D u r k h e i m 's idea o f corporatis m .

Suicide contained Durkheim's most pointed c o n c e p t i o n o f the prob­ lematic nature o f modern society, and whatever one may conclude about his notion of reform, this work will c o n t i n u e to b e remembered fo r its insight into modern social d i s r u p t i o n and malaise. The modern age, fo r D u rkheim as for so many thinkers i n the nineteenth century, was an age of transition. It was a period intervening between an earlier type of integrated society and a h o p ed-for integrated society of the fu ture.

The Division of Labor in­

cluded an exploratory a n d i n conclu sive conceptualization o f these types of integration, and i t concluded with a discussion o f pathological phenomena i n modern s o c i e ty.

Suicide fo cused i n a more explicit and central way on

modern social p a t h o logy. In his key concept o f anomie, D u rkheim tried to account fo r the severe imbalances, dissociations, and contradictions of an age o f transition. The concomitant of anomie in the lives of people was profo u n d , at times traumatic, disorientation - what other social theorists discussed as alienat i o n . The sociological study of s u i c i d e was fo r Durkheim a precise way to investigate the disruptive features o f modern life. And his proposals for reform were based o n the fai t h that modern society would i n t i m e achieve legitimate order. In the concluding sections of Suicide, Durkheim remarked that the rise of synthetic p h i l o s o p h i e s of pessimism was one indication that the current of social malaise in modern life had passed all b ounds and had attained a pathological state. In normal states o f soci ety, maxims and sayings that expressed the n e cessary element of s u ffering i n life were n o t systematized into a dominant mood or

Weltanschauung. They were c o u n terbalanced i n

J:rnile Durkheirn: Sociologist and Philosopher

172

society and culture by sentiments of a different sort. B u t i n modern soci ety, pessimism had b e c o m e the basis of philosophical systems, and this devel­ o p m e n t was n o t restricted to isolated philosophers like Schopenhauer. One m u s t also account fo r all those who, under different names, start out under the influence o f the same spirit. The anarchist, the aesthete, the mystic, the socialist revolutionary, if they do not despair of the future, a t least agree with the pessimist in sharing the same feeling o f hatred or disgust for the s t a t u s quo and the same need t o destroy o r escape fro m reali ty. Collective melancholy would not have invaded consciousness t o this point if it had not been subject t o a morbid develo pment. Consequently, the development o f suicide which results from i t i s of the same nature.40 The primary intention of D urkheim was t o grasp the over-all nature of the social system, both in its dominant institutions and the reactions evoked by them. Only on this basis could a rational conception of reform be elaborated. Moral issues were uppermost i n D u rkheim's idea of refo r m , but his under­ standing of m o rality was a special one related to the reconstruction o f society. There is

no

more accurate introduction to h i s conception of reform and i t s

relation t o morality t h a n his own words i n the conclusion t o

Suicide.

J u s t as s u i c i d e does n o t proceed fro m m an's diffi c ulties i n life, so t h e means o f arresting its progress is n o t t o make t h e struggle less diffi cult and l i fe easier. I f m o r e p e o p l e k i l l themselves today than fo r m e rly, t h i s is n o t b e c a u s e we m u s t make m o r e p a i n ful efforts to m a i n t a i n o u rselves o r b e c a u s e o u r l e gi t i m a t e needs are less satis­ fi e d ; it i s b e c a u s e we do no t know the l i m i t s o f our legitimate needs and w e d o n o t perceive the meaning of o u r e ffo rts. I t is i n d e e d c e r t a i n that at all levels o f the social h i e rarchy, average well-being has i n creased, although this increase has not always taken place i n the m o s t e q u i t a b l e p r o p o r t i o n s . T h u s t h e malaise fro m which w e suffer does n o t come fro m an increase i n t h e n u m b e r and intensity of obj ective causes o f s u ffering; i t attests, n o t to a greater e c o n o m i c misery, b u t t o a n a l a r m i n g m o ral m i s e ry. B u t w e m u s t n o t deceive o u r s e lves a b o u t the meaning o f the word "moral." When one says o f an individual o r social problem that i t is entirely moral, one generally means that i t does not respond t o

Chapter 4

Suicide and Solidarity

17.3

any treatment b u t c a n b e cured only through repeated exhortations, methodical o b j u rgations, i n a word thro ugh verbal action. But i n r e a l i t y t h e m e n t a l s y s t e m of a p e o p l e i s a system o f defi n i t e fo rces which cannot be deranged or rearranged through simple injunctions. I t really corresponds t o t h e way social elements are grouped and organized. I t i s far fro m t h e truth that, in analyzing as "moral" the sickness of which the abnormal progress o f s u i c i d e i s the sym p t o m , w e i n t e n d t o reduce i t t o s o m e s o r t o f s u p erfi cial illness which can b e conjured away with s o ft words. O n the c o n t rary, the alteration o f m o r a l temperament which is thus revealed bears witness to a profo u n d alteration of o u r s o c i al structure. To heal t h e o n e , i t is necessary to reform the o th e r . 1 1 Durkheim w a s one of t h e first social thinkers t o see clearly t h e crisis of legitimacy and m ea n i n g i n m o d ern soci ety. His t h o u g h t indicated an awareness of the real s u ffering and genuine values distorted i n the ideo­ logical reactions o f prophets o f doom. But h e did not advocate a "politics of cultural despair" based on indiscriminate and destructive criticism of modernity, romantic nostalgia fo r an idealized past, and utopian visions of a t o tally integrated and authori tative socie tyY Nor did h e celebrate the symptoms of excessive disorientation and anomie as the distin ctive marks of modernity or the recurrent, transhistorical aporias o f Western m e taphysics. The intent of his proposals for reform was to extricate the valid element in inchoate and possibly dangerous strivings for community and shared values and t o embody this valid element i n a substantively rational conception of reconstruction in modern soci ety.

Emile Durkheirn: Sociologist and Philosopher

174

Notes

1.

I ( 1 896- 1 8 97 ) , 404-4 0 5 . The evolution of R i chard's ideas indicated that the

Annee school had its i nternal confl i cts. Richard i n time became one of the

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 1 0. 11.

12. 13. 14.

most hostile critics of Durkheim and a source of the idea that his thought was riddled with unresolved contradictions. The key issue that antagonized Richard (himself a Protestant) was the increasingly critical edge in Durkheim's sociology o f religion that came down quite negatively upon Protestantism. Le Suicide (first pub. 1 8 97; Paris: Presses Universitaires d e France, 1 9 6 0 ) , p . 228. Ibid. , p. 3 5 2 . Ibid. , p . 5 . Ibid., p . 4 . "The Sociological Analysis of Social Meanings o f Suicide," A rchives europee­ nnes de sociologie, VII ( 1 966), 2 5 9 - 2 6 0 . C f F. Achi l le-Delmas, Psychologie pathologique du suicide (Paris: Alcan, 1 93 3 ) . For the discussion of psychopathology, see Le Suicide, Book I , chap. i . Ibid. , p . 3 1 2 . Ibid. , p . 3 3 7 . Paris: Alcan, 1 92 2 , p. 3 . Roger Lacombe's strictures are to b e fo und i n his La Methode sociologique de Durkheim (Paris: Alcan, 1 92 6 ) , where he dwells on the point that correlations and statistics are relatively uninteresting i f in terpretations are not fleshed out and substantiated. Le Suicide, p. 3 2 5 . Man and Society in a n Age ofRecomtruction (New Yo rk: Harcourt, Brace & Wo rld, 1 94 0 ) , p. 62. Durkheim's assertion that prosperity fostered high suicide rates was challenged by his disciple Maurice Halbwachs i n his Les Causes du Suicide (Paris: Alcan, 1 93 0 ) . Halbwachs also stressed the need for a clearer conception of the rela­ tion of sociology and psychology and criticized Durkheim's tendency to focus upon one-dimensional correlations of suicide rates with factors abstracted from society as a whole. This stress on social psychology led Halbwachs to undertake an important and i n fl uential study of collective memory (por­ tions of which have been translated as On Collective Memory, ed., trans . , with a n i n tro. by Lewis A. Coser, Chicago: University o f Chi cago Press, 1 99 2 ) . Halbwachs noted the importance of urbanism, which overlapped with membership in Protestant sects, and proposed that types of civilization were more i n clusive and historically useful units of analysis. The assertion

Chapter 4

Suicide

and Solidarity

175

that the suicide rate tends to drop with prosperity was further supported by the statisti cal evidence and its i nterpretation in Andrew F. Henry and James F. Short, Suicide and Homicide (Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press, 1 954) . The key question was of course whether prosperity was related to uprootedness and frustration. If there was no positive correlation between suicide rates and peaks of a business cycle, there might still be one between suicide and long-term upward changes in a group's position related to basic processes of economic transformation. Neither Halbwachs nor Henry and Short addressed themselves to this broader historical question. The analysis of Henry and Short, however, had the merit of bringing to the center of analytic attention the role of stratification, the concept of relative deprivation, and the relation of the choice of an object of aggression (self o r other) to the situation of the relevant group. Suicide was generally fo und to b e a response to frustration among high-status groups, fo r whom a depression had greater impact in terms of relative loss. lv1oreover, a low-status group might become increasingly frustrated in the face of prosperity that it did not share. Aggression bred by frustration in low-status groups, however, fo und an outlet in homicide rather than sui cide, because the more integrated nature of these groups provided "love objects" upon whom anxiety and frustration might be projected. I n Durkheim's terms, anomie led to suicide only when i t was conjoined with eg01sm. 1 5 . Le Suicide, p. 279. Since the original publication of m y study, much attention has been devoted to the important problem of Durkheim's questionable treatment of gender and the way in which it was symptomatic of male anxi­ eties about femi nism and "devirilization . " See, for example, Gender and the Politics ofSocial Reform in France, 1870- 1914, ed. Elinor A. Accampo et al. (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1 99 5 ) ; Jennifer lv1. Lehm­ ann, Durkheim and Women (Lincoln: University o f Nebraska Press, 1 994); a n d Janet Hinson Shope, "Separate but Equal: Durkheim's Response t o the Woman Question," Sociological Inquiry 64 ( 1 994), pp. 23-36. See also the Cornell University dissertation of Judith Surkis, "Secularization and Sexuality in Third Republic France , " chap. 3. For a discussion of related problems in the German context, see the Cornell University dissertation ofTracie l\1atysik, " Ethics, femi ninity, and Psychoanalysis in Early Twentieth-Century German Cultures." 1 6 . Ibid., p. 324. In his Education morale (first pub. 1 9 2 5 ; Paris: Presses Univer­ sitaires de France, 1 9 6 3 ) , Durkheim continued his attack upon "this dissolv­ ing sensation of the infinite" (p. 3 5 ) . Nowhere more than i n his correlation of anomie and the quest fo r infinity was Durkheim closer to an important dimension of Greek philosophy.

176

J:rnile Durkheirn: Sociologist and Philosopher

1 7. Le Suicide, p p . 283-284.

1 8 . Ibid. , pp. 284-287. In psychoanalytic terms, i t may be observed that one case of anomie involved limitless ego ideals, while fatalism resulted from rigid and repressive superego demands. One form of anomie suicide may be fruitfully compared to what Herbert Hendin, in his Suicide and Scandinavia (New Yo rk: Doubleday Anchor, 1 96 5 ) terms "performance suicide." Of one of his cases Hendin writes: "His dreams under hypnosis were o f the most elemental kind. In one instance they revealed him running to catch a boat and j u s t m i s s i n g it. I n h i s associations 'missing the boat' symbolized the low opinion which he had o f his entire career. His legal ambitions were excessive and he fo und i t impossible to compromise with h i s grandiose s u ccess fantasies. The aggressiveness which stemmed fro m this grandiosity i nterfered with his actual performance, a constellation frequently observed in patients with extremely high and rigid standards for themselves. What is seen as fai lure causes an enormous amount o f self-hatred, and suicide amounts to a self-inflicted p unishment fo r having failed" ( p . 2 6 ) . Hendin suggestively but somewhat simplistically attempts to explain the Scandinavian suicide phenomenon of Sweden and Denmark with high rates but Norway with a low rate by patterns i n child-rearing and their socio psychological concomitants. His conclusions may readily be translated into Durkheimian terms. In Sweden, Hendin fo und a combination of anomie and egoism. L i mitless ends in performance and achieving were combined with isolation and coldness i n i n terpersonal rela­ tions. An expression in Swedish literally means "to kill with silence." I n Denmark, h e fo und a strongly integrated a n d excessively altruistic family structure that, with separation upon the children's reaching adulthood, gave way to uprootedness and feelings of dependency loss. I n No rway, a greater balance was established, and the verbal expression of emotion functioned as a sort of safety valve. 1 9. In his classical article "Social Structure and Anomie," Robert K. Merton posed the problem in terms of a contradiction between limitless cultural values and limited institutional means of attaining them. This was exemplified for him in the conflict in the United States between the pursuit of wealth and the available oppo rtunities open to members of society fo r making "big money." After being subjected to criticism on the grounds that he was identifYing normative conflict and anomie, Merton in a rejoinder admitted confusion in his earlier fo rmulation and argued that structural conflicts might lead to anomie in the delimi ted sense of normlessness. The original article and the rejoinder may be found in Social Theory and Social Structure (rev. ed.; Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press of Glencoe, 1 964), pp. 1 3 1 - 1 94 . Whatever the semantic gain in this revision, it served to divert attention from the problem of institutional-

Chapter 4

20.

21. 22. 23.

Suicide

and Solidarity

177

ized and ideological anomie which t-.1erton seemed to perceive earlier in the American desire for "just a little bit more" of the good things i n life regardless of how much o n e already had. In terms o f Durkheim's fo rmulation, the cases of normlessness, normative contradiction, and normatively constrained o r praised limitlessness shared t h e irrational quality of an absence of an institu­ tionally grounded sense of !egitimate limits that was essential fo r reciprocity and solidarity. I t would be interesting to trace the relations between anomie, egoism, and the stress on aporia and double binds in deconstruction. For a discussion relevant to this topic, see my History and Reading: Tocqueville, Foucault, French Studies (Toronto: University o f Toronto Press, 2 0 0 0 ) , esp. chap. 4. I t would also be o f interest to investigate the relations between anomie, egoism, and trauma. On this issue, see my Writing History, Writing Trauma (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2 00 1 ) . Le Suicide, p . 324. Compare Nietzsche o n the relation o f infinite desire to egoism: "From an infinite horizon he withdraws i n to himself, back into the small egoistic circle, where he must become dry and withered; he may pos­ sibly attain to cleverness but never to wisdom . . . . He i s never enthusiastic, but blinks his eyes and understands how to look for his own profit or his party's in the profit o r loss of somebody else" (Friedrich Nietzsche, The [lse and Abuse ofHistory, Indianapolis and New York: Library of the Liberal Arts, 1 9 57 , p . 6 4 ) . Le Suicide, p . 2 3 0 . P. 4 2 . Le Suicide, p . 3 2 5 . Although Durkheim referred to Chateaubriand, it may b e observed that a magnificent anatomy o f anomie - indeed a myth o f the times - was provided by Balzac in Le Peau de chagrin. See also Education morale,

p . 3 5 , where Durkheim refers to Goethe's Faust as the literary personage who may be viewed as "the i ncarnation par excellence of the sentiment of the infinite." 2 4 . Le Suicide, p. 326. Here one may refer to the protagonist in Dostoevsky's Notes From Underground. See my discussion in History, Politics, and the Novel (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1 98 7 ) , chap. 2 . 2 5 . Ibid. , p p . 278-279. 26. "La Science positive de Ia morale en Allemagne," Revue philosophique, X X I V ( 1 8 8 7 ) , p. 4 1 . O f major french writers fo llowing Durkhe i m , the one with basic assumptions closest to his own was probably Albert Camus. A highly illuminating essay could be written com paring these two figures who are rarely discussed together. From the initial insight into modern society as one characterized by anomie and anxiety, through a consideration of the problem of suicide, to the ultimate affirmation of a normative sense of l i m i t s , these

178

27.

28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41 . 42 .

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher two thinkers defended the type of conventional wisdom which they believed had become highly unconventional in the modern world. On Camus, see my History and Memory after A uschwitz (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1 99 8 ) , chap. 3 . Le Suicide, p . 2 3 3 . Compare t h e early Nietzsche o n the need for limiting horizons: "A living thing can only be healthy, strong and productive within a certain horizon; if it is i n capable of drawing one around itself, or too selfish to lose its own view in another's, it will come to an untimely end" ( The Use and Abuse ofHistory, p. 7 ) . L e Suicide, p . 3 1 1 . Ibid. , pp. 2 5 9 - 2 6 0 . Ibid., p . 2 2 2 . Ibid. , pp. 1 6 9- 1 7 0 . Ibid. , p. 3 1 1 . Elie Cohen, Human Behavior in the Concentratz'on Camp (New York: Norton, 1 9 5 3 ) , p. 1 5 8 . Childhood and Society (New York: Norton, 1 9 5 0 ) , p . 2 3 9 . The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit oJCapitalz'sm (New York: Scribner's , 1 9 5 8 ) , p p . 1 04- 1 0 5 . Ibid., p . 2 2 1 , n . 1 6 . Ibid. , p. 36. Ibid. , p. 1 7 . Ibid., p . 1 8 2 . L e Suicide, p . 424. Ibid. , pp. 444-44 5 . For an acute analysis o f nihilistic social criticism i n pre-Nazi Germany, see Fritz Stern, The Politics of Cultural N.Y.: Doubleday, 1 96 5 ) .

Despair (first pub. 1 9 6 1 ; Garden City.

5 Theory and Practice

It is not goodfor man to live on a war footing in the midst ofhis immediate com­ panions. This sensation ofgeneral hostility, the mutual defiance which resultsfrom it, the tension which it necessitates are deplorable states when they are chro nic. If we love war, we alro love the joys ofpeace. And the latter have all the more value for men to the extent that they are more profoundly socialized, that is to say (for the two words are equivalent) more profoundly civilized. - Preface to t h e second edition of

The Division ofLabor in Society

Economic fmctions are not ends in themselves. They are only means toward an end and organs ofsocial l�(e. Social life is above all a harmonious commu nity of �(forts, a communion ofmindr and wills with a common end. Society has no raison d' etre �(it does not bring men a little peace - peace in their hearts and peace in their commerce with each other. If industry can be productive only by troubling this peace and causing war, it is not worth the trouble it costs. - Professional Ethics and Civic Morals

Sociology, History, and Reform An intense involve m e n t i n t h e Dreyfus Affair, the t i m e - c o n s u m i n g p r e p a r a t i o n and editing of t h e

Annee sociologique, a growing i n terest i n

r e l i g i o u s sym b o l i s m , and a related concern with e l a b o r a t i n g h i s mystique­ laden social p h i l o sophy - all these factors c o m b i n e d to prevent Durkheim fro m carrying to c o m p l e t i o n two studies in c o m p arative h i s t o ry: a h i s t o r y of socialism and a h i s t o r y o f corporati s m . It i s i m p o r t a n t t o recognize t h e i n t i m a t e c o n n e c t i o n b e tw e e n t h e s e t w o unfi nished p r o j e c t s . T h e y were related b o th to each other and to his idea of necessary structural change

/80

J:rnile Durkheirn: Sociologist and Philosopher

i n m o d e r n s o c i e ty. I n d e e d , they represented the concrete b a s i s fo r h i s attempted

A ujhebung - h i s d i a l e c t i c a l synthesis - of radicalism, con­

servatism, and liberalism fo r t h e achievement of "normality" in m o d e r n s o c i e ty. T h u s i t makes s e n s e to t r e a t a s a u n i t i n t h e development o f h i s t h o u g h t those w o r k s i n w h i c h h e discussed c o r p o r a t i s m a n d socialism: the concluding chapter, o n "practical consequences , " in

Le Suicide; Le Socialisme; Lefons de sociologie (translated as Proftssional Ethics and Civic Morals ) ; LE ducatio n morale; and the i m p o r t a n t preface to the s e c o n d edi­ t i o n of De La Division du travail social. All these works were t h o u g h t o u t i n t h e p e r i o d extending roughly fro m 1 8 96 to 1 90 2 . This may be c o n s i d e r e d the m i d d l e p e r i o d in the deve l o p m e n t o f D u r k h e i m's t h o u g h t . Before i t c a m e and

The Division ofLabor

The Rules of Sociological Method. The broader a m b i t i o n o f t h e latter

m e t h o d o l o gi c a l treatise was to provide a sociological version o f D escartes's discourse on m e t h o d . It approached general theory through the u n c e r t a i n perspective i m p l i c i t i n Durkheim's fi rst major w o r k . From i t s conception o f s o c i a l facts t o its m e c h a n i s t i c theory of causation,

Th e Rules ofSociological

Metho d was t h e e x p l i ci t s t a t e m e n t of t h e m o re a n a l y t i c a l l y d i s s o c i a t e d , Cartesianized n e o - K a n t i a n s t r a n d of D u r k h e i m's t h o u g h t . I t p r e s e n t e d s o c i e ty p r i m a r i l y as a n "obj ectivated" action s y s t e m that s o c i o logists w e r e t o i nvestigate b y studying discrete, l i n e a r cause-and-effect r e l a t i o n s h i p s . In t h i s b o o k , D u rkheim t e n d e d to focus o n t h e m o s t obj ectifi ed aspects o f social lif e, disregarding the p r o b l e m of t h e internalization o f s o c i a l n o r m s a n d the m e a n i n gful nature o f h u m a n activity. Although o b j e ctivity i n s o ­ ciology was always his concern, h e s u b s e q u ently m o d i fi e d h i s narrow fo cus on the "exteriority" and "constraint" of social fa cts and provided greater insight into the meaning of his fam o u s d i c t u m that social facts should b e treated like "things." After t h e t u r n o f t h e century, h e was p r e o c c u p i e d with preparatory s t u d i e s fo r

The Elementary Forms and w i t h t h e revis i o n o f

his theoretical a s s u m p t i o n s t o a c c o m m o d a t e h i s m o r e m a t u r e c o n c e p t i o n o f t h e r e l a t i o n o f t h e o r y to p r a c t i c e a n d o f m e t h o d o l ogy t o p h i l o s o p h y. H e n c e , the specifics of his n o t i o n of structural change in modern s o c i e ty are to be found primarily in the works of his m i d d l e p e r i o d . T h e a r c h i t e c t o n i c goal of D u rkheim's i d e a o f structu ral reform was s i m p l e b u t a m b i t i o u s : conscious and s u b s tantively r a t i o n al s o c i a l control o f t h e economy and all forms of particularistic i n terest o r power. T h e el-

Chapter

5

Theory and Practice

181

ementary social units i n h i s proposed reform - corpo rative or occupational groups - would at some signifi cant level b e small e n o ugh t o provide a communal, fa ce-to-face m i l i e u fo r their members. B u t the broader scope of regi o n a l , national, and international exchange in large and highly comp lex modern societies required more inclusive organization, planning, and social control. Absolu tely fu ndamental a t all levels was the existence o f a u t o n o ­ m o u s l y accepted and deeply i nternalized institutional n o r m s w h i c h defi ned legitimate l i m i t s with respect t o differentiated functions and individual assert i o n , created t h e necessary conditions fo r reciproci ty, and provided t h e basic structure fo r decisions i n specific cases and controversies. T h i s , i n s t a r k o u t l i n e , was t h e motivating i d e a o f D urkhe im's venture i n cre ative a n d h i storically i n fo r m e d s o c i a l refo r m , w h i ch he explicitly refu s e d to d e t a i l in t h e form of an i t e m i z e d b l u e p ri n t . D e s p i t e his fe eling that s o c i a l a c t i o n involves u n p r e d i c t a b l e turns a n d creative elan, h e d i d give certain directives for the attainment of social "health" in m o d e r n times. In a c r i t i cal review o f a work which based i t s analysis o f socialism u p o n t h e t h o u g h t o f M a r x , D urkheim flatly asserted, "As fo r u s , a l l t h a t is es­ s e n t i a l i n s o c i a l i s t d o c t r i n e is fo u n d i n the p h ilosophy of Saint - S i m o n . " 1 This statement might b e taken a s the leitmotif o f L e Socialisme, Durkheim's only c o m p l e t e d work on the history o f s o c i a l i s m . 2 H e h a d b e g u n h i s study of socialism i n part because s o m e o f h i s b rightest students were b e i n g won over to Marxism. Polemical a n i m u s was not totally absent fro m h i s

Social­

isme. Brief b ut stringent criticism o f Marx was p layed o ff against extensive and lavish p r a i s e o f S a i n t - S i m o n . M a rx's Cap ital was indeed recognized as the "strongest work" of socialist t h o u g h t . 3 B u t this accolade was bestowed almost as a means of damning w i t h fai n t praise. It prefaced an argu m e n t t h a t Capital lacked convincing sci entifi c p r o o fs a n d s t o o d o u t o n l y b e cause of the even greater defi ciencies o f other socialist works, j udged fro m a s c i e n tifi c p o i n t of view. B u t this a t t i t u d e was p a r t of D u rk h e i m's b r o a d e r c o n c e p t i o n o f s o c i a l i s m as a n i n t e n s e , s y m p t o m a t i c r e s p o n s e and a fervid i d e o l ogy - "a cry of grief, s o m e t i m e s o f anger, uttered by men w h o fe el m o s t keenly o u r c o l l ective m a l a i s e . " 4 D e s p i t e the a p p arent element o f rash generalization in his estimation of socialist literature, D u rkheim's argument did lead him to conclude that, at least o n a s y m p t o m a t i c level, socialism had to b e taken s e r i o u sly. S c i e n t i fi c refutation of detailed p o i n ts of socialist thought was merely a "labor of Penelo p e . " A more d i a l e c ti cally a d e q u a t e

182

J:rnile Durkheirn: Sociologist and Philosopher

p e r s p ective was needed to discover the causes o f socialist i d e o logy i n society a n d to a s s i m ilate the elements o f truth s o c i a l i s m c o n t a i n e d . In certain respects, the thought o f Saint-Simon had a privileged position fo r Durkheim as an approach to a more adequate perspective. Indeed, he stated that "aside from Cartesianism, there is nothing more imp ortant in the entire history of French philoso phy. At more than one point these two phi­ losophies can legitimately b e reconciled with one another, for theywere both inspired b y the same rationalist fai t h . " 5 Thus Saint-Simonism took its place beside Cartesianism and neo-Kantianism as a constructive force i n shaping Durkheim's rationalist perspective. This c o n s i d e r a t i o n helps to s i t u a t e m o r e precisely the influence of C o m t e on Durkhei m's search fo r th e laws of social l i fe. Durkheim scored the injustice of Com te's reference to his association with Saint-Simon as a "morbid liaison in his early youth with a depraved j uggler. "6 According to Durkheim, Comte clearly owed Saint-Simon much m o r e than he sometimes acknowledged. But Durkheim admitted that it was no easy task to d iscover unity or coherence in Saint-Si m on's thought. His work was "a loose series of papers, i n numerable brochures, plans a n d lists of articles fo reve r o u t l i n e d b u t never realized . " 7 Durkheim w a s n o t one t o underestimate the importance o f organization and synthesis i n relation t o o u tb ursts o f genius and beguiling digressions. I n Socialism h e asserted that the honor o f being the founding father o f sociology, currently ascribed to Comte, should i n j u stice b e awarded to Saint-Simon. In a later article, D urkheim repeated the assertion that " i n a sense all the fundamental ideas of Com te's soci ology may already be found in Saint-Simon."8 But he added the stricture that the "truly creative act consists not in throwing out a few beau tiful i d eas which beguile the i n t elligence b u t i n grasping ideas firmly i n order t o make them fe cund b y placing them i n contact with things, coordinating them, providing i n i tial proofs i n a manner that makes ideas b o th logically assimilable and open to verifi cation b y oth­ ers. This is what Comte did for social science . . . and it is why he deserves to be considered its father and why the name s o c i o l ogy which he gave the new science remains definitive."9 Thus Saint-Simon was the charismatic inspiration for social science, b u t Comte was its systematic organizer. In his own analysis of Saint-Simon, Durkheim undoub tedly saw the earlier prophet of Paris through the prism provided b y the more disciplined thought of Comte. Aside fro m its relation

Chapter

5

Theory and Practice

183

to his Cartesianized neo-Kantianism, Durkheim's initial emphasis upon the "exteriori ty" and "constraint" of thinglike "social facts" may have owed a great deal to the leaden gray social world of C o m te . C o m t e , however, was explicit i n expressing his penchant for authoritarian h i erarchies and bureaucratic structures fo r exercising control. His idea of consensus and order has been fittingly described as a Catholicism without Christianity. Even C o m t e's latter­ day openness to the influence of brotherhood and love remained permeated with idiosyncratic fantasies, and it culminated intellectually i n a "religion of h u m anity" which was often little more than an individualistic worship of heroes of the past. D urkh e i m i n creasi ngly m oved away fro m t h i s fra m e of reference in an attempt to combine institutional constraint with c o m m unal s e n t i m e n t . This idea of social normality was also th e poi n t of departure i n h i s interpretation o f religion. l E C o m te w e n t t o extremes in h i s p o lytechniciens a d m i r a t i o n fo r fo r m a l rationality a n d b ureaucratic order, S a i n t- S i m o n , i n D u r k h e i m 's o p i n i o n , w e n t t o o far t o t h e o p p o s i t e extreme o f r o m a n t i c p a s s i o n a n d spontane i ty. T h i s j ud g m e n t was in fac t the s o l e b a s i s of t h e c r i t i c i s m of S a i n t- S i m o n i n D u r k h e i m 's w o r k o n s o c i a l i s m . I n one s t r a n d of h i s argu m e n t , Durkheim affi r m e d t h e m i n d - b o d y dualism i n uncom p r o m i s i n g fo r m . H i s reaction to S a i n t - S i mon's insistence o n the e r o t i c aspect of love was to remark that his predecessor fai led t o a p p r e c i a t e t h e Christian m essage. The pantheistic, pagan thrust o f Saint-Simon's

New Christianity subverted the Christian i d e a

t h a t " t h e divine, b o u n d and a s i f i m p r i s o n e d i n m atter, t e n d s to free itself to r e t u r n to G o d , from Whom it cam e . " 10 S u c h s e n t i ments, which were p r o m i n e n t i n D u r k h e i m's social m e taphysic, were stro ngly represented in the o u t l o o k of the fine jleu r o f r e p u b l i c a n s p i r i t u a l i s t i c p h i l o s o p h ers who were often D u rk h e i m 's i n t e n d e d a u d i e n c e and reference group. A second strand o f D u r k h e i m 's argument applied to the fan tasies of a total l i b e r a t i o n o f t h e e r o t i c that were prevalent a m o n g one group of S a i n t - S i m o n i a n s . I t also a p p l i e d t o i m ages of c o n s u m e r b l i s s , eulogies of u n l i m ired e n t r e p r e n e u r i a l d rive, a n d the g e n e r a l i z a t i o n of P r o m e t h e a n values. I n d e e d , D u r k h e i m argued t h a t the t h o u g h t of S a i n t - S i m o n and t h e worldly philosophy of t h e i d e o l ogists o f c a p i t a l i s m - the e c o n o m i sts - were d i ffe r e n t s y mp to m a ti c e x p r e s s i o n s of "the s a m e s o c i a l s t a t e " and shared "the s a m e s e n s u o u s a n d u t i l i t a r i a n tendency" and the s a m e "fu n d a m e n t a l p r i n c i p l e . " 1 1 F o r D u rkh e i m , t h i s p r i n c i p l e of endless n e e d

184

Emile Durkheirn: Sociologist and Philosopher

a n d limitless assertion as a d o m i n a n t s o c i a l force was p a t h o g e n i c i n all i t s m a nifes t a t i o n s , including t h e technocratic and the erotic. I n his basic c r i t i q u e o f S a i n t - S i m o n , Durkheim i n fact uttered certain strictures that were to be repeated verbatim i n h i s discussion of anomie i n

Suicide. H e

concluded that u l t i m ately Saint-Simon o ffered "as a remedy an aggrava tion o f the evil. " 12 What were the elements in Saint-Sim on's conception of reform that Durkheim b elieved were t o be detached fro m their anomie context and given new meaning in a desirable state of society? In contrast to insistently egalitarian as well as revolutionary views, D urkheim's very definition of so­ cialism depended p rimarily on the perspective o f Saint-Simon: "We denote as socialist every doctri n e which demands the c o n n e c t i o n of all e c o n o m i c fu nctions, or of certain among t h e m , which are a t t h e present t i m e d i ffus e to t h e directing a n d conscious centers of society." 1 3 I n contrast w i t h C o mte, Saint-Simon did n o t b el i eve that the division of labor necessarily led t o social disintegration. Saint-Sim on's idea of socialism embodied his conception of the manner in which organic soli darity among highly differentiated functions could be generated in modern soci ety. In accepting this conception of socialism, Durkheim rejected definitions based on the abolition of private property, collectivism, and the working class. On the s u b j e c t of property, he o b served that i\1arx himself envisioned the collective ownership only of the means of production. The basic ques­ tion was the relationship of familial inheritance, collective ownership of the means of production, and individual prop erty. Durkheim's own corporatist proposals would embody his specific answer to this question. But he noted in a prefatory manner that criticism of inheritance involved the most complete and radical affirmation of the right of private property in history. Inheritance was a vestige of "old familial communism." It had nothing to do with the achievement or work of the individual. "In order that property may be said to be truly individual, it is necessary that it b e the work o f the individual and of h i m a l o n e . " In t h i s sense, "private property is that which begins with the indivi dual and ends with him." Thus the decline of the importance of kinship had two institutional consequences that were yet to b e fully realized: the restriction of private prop erty to the individual who acquired i t and the creation of a more significant social agency in modern society for the trans­ mission of wealth and capital. 14

Chapter

5

Theory and Practice

185

M o reover, colle ctivism i n general was n o t s p e c i fi c to s o c i a l i s m ; ac­ cording to D u r k h e i m , "There has never b e e n a s o c i e t y in w h i c h private interests have n o t been s u b o rdinated to social ends; fo r this s u b o rdina­ tion i s t h e very c o n d i t i o n of all community l i fe . " 1 5 To the charge that collectivism meant a u t h o r i t a r i a n i s m , D u r k h e i m answered, "If there is an authoritarian s o c i a l i s m , there is also o n e which i s essenti ally demo­ cra t i c. " 1 6 N o r c o u l d exclusive concern for t h e fat e of the working class b e i d e n tifi ed with socialism. The b etterment o f workers' lives was o n e g o a l of t h e organ i z a t i o n o f the e c o n o m y, " j u s t a s class war i s only one o f t h e means b y w h i c h t h i s reorganization c o u l d r e s u l t , o n e a s p e c t of t h e h i s t o r i c devel o p m e n t p r o d u c i ng i t . " 1 7 S o cialists w e r e c o r r e c t i n arguing t h a t "there is presently an e n t i re s e g m e n t of the e c o n o m i c world w h i ch is not truly and d i r e ctly integrated into s o c i e ty. " Members o f the working class "are not full-fl edged m e m b ers o f s o c i e ty, since they participate i n t h e c o m m u n i ty's life only through an imposed m e d i u m " - the c a p i t a l i s t class w h i c h d e p rives workers o f s o ci a l j us t i c e . 1 8 Socialists were a l s o right in arguing that the legitimate d e m a n d s o f the e x p l o i t e d c o u l d not b e m e t by w e l fare d o l e s or c h a r i ty. " C h arity o rg a n i zes n o t h i ng . I t m ai n t a i n s t h e status q u o , i t can only attenuate the i n d ividual s u ffe r i n g that t h i s lack of organi z a t i o n engenders . " 1 9 Only through structural change that w o u l d provi d e i ns t i t u t i o n s fo r t h e r e g u l a t i o n o f t h e e c o n o m y a n d a l l groups involved i n i t , not thro ugh measures restricted to the working class alone, m i g h t social j u s tice b e created i n m o d e r n s o c i ety. What was Durkheim's conception of t h e relation of sociology to history and ethnograp hy, and what were the i m p lications o f the relationship fo r h i s i d ea of reform in m o d ern s o c i e ty? A general answer to these q u e s t i o n s is provided b y the d u a l b a s e s o f D ur k h e i m i s m : t h e h y p o t h e t i c a l "tree" of s o c i a l l i fe and the d i s t i n c t i o n b e tween "normality" and "patho logy." Durkheim clearly rejected the conception of unilinear evo l u t i o n in C o m te's fam o u s law of the t h r e e stages: Whatever Pascal may have said - and Comte mistakenly took u p his celebrated fo rmula - mankind cannot b e compared to a man w h o , having lived through all p a s t centuries, still s u b sists. Rather, humanity resembles an immense family whose d i fferent branches, which have increasi ngly diverged fro m o n e ano ther, have b e c o m e l ittle by little

/86

J:rnile Durkheirn: Sociologist and Philosopher

detached fro m the common trunk to live their own lives. Besides, what assurance i s there that this common t r u n k ever existed?20 In his guiding model of the tree of sociocultural lif e, Durkheim combined a fl exible theory of the transhistorical with a notion o f different "social species" or types. H i s conception of the common trunk and its relation to "primi tive" societies owed much to Rousseau. His idea of typological branches and its rela­ tion to history derived in large part from Saint-Simon. H e was also indebted to Saint-Simon i n his specific conception o f modern history, as well as in his more comprehensive ideas of social n o r m a l i ty and pathology. Aside from the influence of earlier social theorists, this chapter of D u rkheim's thought was of course also permeated with b i ological analogies, at times with confusing results. On the whole, however, D urkheim recognized the limitations as well as the value of the "organismic" metaphor. The trunk of the tree of social life represented the elementary conditions or "fu nctional prereq u i s i t e s" of society. They were approximated in the most clear and distinct fo rm i n "primi tive" societies. And at times Durkheim, with some misgiving, converted his logical model into an evo l utionary timetable b y arguing that the "common trunk" was indeed p resent in its pure fo rm in "totemic society." The more general methodological point was that "primi tive" societies in their relative simplicity presented privileged cases fo r "crucial experiments" which attempted to deduce the transhistorical bases of society and culture. In this respect, D u rkheim und erwent a significant change o f o p i n i o n . H i s early thought, e . g . , i n

The Rules ofSociological Method, tended t o denigrate

the importance of ethnography in comparison with histori ography.2 1 Under the combined impact of better ethnographic research i n the field and a shift in theoretical and philosophical focus, his later thought made ethnography t h e anchor p o i n t of general socio logy (or, in t h e sense of Levi-Strauss, of anthropology). In

The Elementary Forms, Durkheim chided historians fo r

ignoring the theoretical importance of ethnographic material for an under­ standing o f the transhistorical bases of society that the objects of historical research would reveal in different manifestations.22 One of the examples he was fo n d o f citing was the relation of Polynesian taboo to Roman sacer - a p o i n t which Marc Bloch would develop in his study of royal rituals of heal­ ing,

Les Rois thaumaturges.

Chapter

5

Theory and Practice

187

B u t D u r k h e i m never lost interest in the relation of so ciology to h i s t o r y a n d its i m p o rtance fo r t h e defi nition o f s o c i a l t y p e s . A n d t h i s i n t e r e s t was especially marked in the works of h i s m i d d l e p e ri o d . The p r o b l e m of the r e l a t i o n of h i s t o r y t o s o c i o logy gave rise, in D u r k h e i m's France, to disci­ plinary s q u a b b l e s and i m p e r i a l i s t i c p o s t u r i n g t h a t a c c o r d e d i l l with his idea of "organic solidarity." H owever i m p o rt a n t t h e s e debates may h ave b e e n for the p l a y of p e r s o n a l i ty, t h e defi n i t i o n of fi elds o f c o m p e t e n c e , c o m p e t i tive professional c l a i m s t o i n s t i t u t i o n al a u t o n o m y a n d a u t h o r i t y o v e r o b j e ct s o f d i s c o u r s e a n d p ra c t i c e , and t h e h i s t o r i c a l d e ve l o p m e n t o f t h e d i s c i p l i n e s , t h e i r i n t e l l e c t u a l fo u n d a t i o n w a s o ften m i n i m a l Y I n d e e d , i t i s s i g n i fi c a n t t h a t t h e d e b a t e over h i s t o r i c i s m never r e a c h e d i n F r a n c e t h e h e i ghts o f i n t ensity a n d divisiveness t h a t i t d i d i n G e r m a n y. O n e obvious reason was t h a t h i s t o r i c i s m h a d n o t m a d e as great an i m p a c t i n F r a n c e a n d , therefo r e , d i d n o t fo r m as i m p o s i n g a n o b s t a c l e t o think­ ers m o r e c o n c e r n e d with m o d e s o f e x p e r i e n c e o r i e n t e d t o t h e p r e s e n t o r fu t u r e . I n F r a n c e , realism i n the novel h a d , i n the works o f s u c h fi gures as B a l z a c , a p p l i e d t o c o n t e m p o r a r y r e a l i t i e s p r i n c i p l e s of u n d e rs t a n d i n g t h a t , i n G e r m a n y, h ad b e en largely r e s t r i c t e d to a n a p p r e c i a t i o n of t h e p a s t . And i n s o m e o n e like B a l z a c t h e r e s u l t was a v i s i o n a r y realism t h a t w a s s e n s i tive t o t h e r o l e o f sym b o l and m y t h i n c u l t u r e . Realism i n t h e novel d e c l i n e d t o w a r d t h e e n d o f t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n tu r y. To s o m e extent, D u r k h e i m i a n s o c i o l o gy, i n i t s a t t e m p t t o p e n e t r a t e c o n t e m p o rary social r e a l i t i e s , m a y b e s e e n as t h e h e i r o f the r e a l i s t i c novel. It is, h owever, t r u e that D u rk h e i m's early t h o u g h t s h a r e d fe atures o f n a t u r a l i s m , while his l a t e r t h o u g h t conceived v a l u e s a n d s y m b o l s i n a m a n n e r r e m i n i s c e n t o f sym b o l i s m . To t h i s e x t e n t , t h e develo p m e n t of his t h o u g h t p a r a l l e l e d t h e d i v i s i o n o f l i t e r a t u r e i n t o n a t u r a l i s t i c and s y m b o l i s t t e n d e n c i e s . B u t o n i t s m o r e d i a l e c t i c a l o r r e l a t i o n a l s i d e , D ur k h e im's t h o u g h t r e t a i n e d the i n t e n t i o n to b e fo u n d i n the v i s i o n a r y r e a l i s m o f a B a l z a c . And i t d i d t h i s i n a m a n n e r t h a t i n d i c a t e d n o t only a n i n creasing awareness o f t h e r o l e of a ffect a n d m y t h i n s o c i e t y b u t a l s o s o m e s e n s i t i v i t y t o t h e p r o b l e m o f i n t e g r a t i n g a c o n c e p t i o n o f m o d e r n s o c i e ty w i t h a n u n d er­ s t a n d i n g o f h i s t o r i c a l develo p m e n t . T h e goal of a c o m p rehensive o r even t o t a l i z i n g s o c i a l h i s t o r y was a feature of the D u r k h e i m i a n h e r i t age to b e preserved a n d develo p e d b y the A n nales s c h o o l under �1 a r c B l o c h a n d L u c i e n Febvre.

/88

J:rnile Durkheirn: Sociologist and Philosopher

O n a t h e o r e t i c a l level, Durkheim c o nceived the b a s i c r e l a t i o n s h i p b e tween h i s t o r y and s o c i o l o gy to b e o n e o f i n te r d i s c i p l i n a r y c o o pera­ tion in the d e fi n i t i o n o f signifi cant p r o b l e m s . He observed that s t u d i e s d e a l i n g w i t h s o c i a l p h e n o m e n a presented a strange d i c h o t o my. O n one s i d e , there was "a rather inchoate multitude o f sciences or quasi-sciences which had t h e s a m e o b j e c t but were ignorant of their kinship and the p r o fo un d unity of t h e facts they studied, o ften only vaguely sensing t h e i r rationality." On the other s i d e was sociology, " w h i c h was aware of t h i s unity b ut which g l i d e d t o o high above t h e facts to h ave a n y effe c t u p o n t h e way i n which they were s t u d i e d . " T h u s t h e m o s t urgent refo r m was "to make the s o c i o logical idea descend into the special t e c h n i q u e s and in t h a t way t r a n s fo r m t h e m i n t o real s o c i a l s c i e n c e s . " O n l y in t h i s way c o u l d sociology become m o r e t h a n an "abstract metaphysic s , " and t h e works o f specialists m o r e t h a n "monographs w i t h o u t e i t h e r l i n k s t o one a n o t h e r o r explanatory val u e . " 24 M e t h o d ologi cally, traditional histo riography approached the s t u d y o f society through a narrat i ve of events a n d t h e lives o f individuals. W i t h o u t a t h e o retical c o m p l e m e n t , n a rrative w a s n o t e x p l a n ato ry, because it d i d n o t address itself t o t h e p r o b l e m o f c o m p a r i s o n . " Hi s t o r y makes a l l c o m p a r i ­ sons i m p o s s i b l e , because i t arranges fa cts i n l i n e a r s e r i e s a n d o n d i fferent levels. Preoccupied w i t h distinguishing phenomena fro m o n e another and marking the place of each in time, the historian loses sight o f similarities."25 The recounting of a series of disparate facts d i d not c o n s t i t u t e a logical ordering p r i n c i p l e . For chronology was, as a rule, merely a more fam i l i a r fo rm o f c h a o s . H e r e D u r k h e i m did n o t address t h e specific k i n d o f order attributed o r i m p a r t e d t o fa cts t h r o u g h va r i e t i e s o f narrative w h i c h could not be reduced t o c h r o n o l ogy alone. His m o r e social-scientifi c idea of order would also be shared b y those affi l i a t e d w i t h the

Amzales which

would confront the p o s s i b i l i t i e s o f narrative only l o n g after D u rk h e i m's d e a t h . Durkheim's p o i n t was, however, well taken insofar as an argument o r evalua tive o ri e n t a t i o n e m b e d d e d i n a c o n v e n t i o n a l n a rrative is n o t c r i t i cally o p e n fo r inspection a n d d e b a t e and m u s t b e extricated and m o r e explici tly fo rmulated t o b e a n o b j e c t o f cognitively and e t h i c o p o l i tically responsible investigat i o n . T h e comp arative m e t h o d was fo r Durkheim t h e laboratory of a more analytic, explanato ry, and norm atively explicit approach to the s t u d y o f

Chapter

5

Theory and Practice

189

soci ety, fo r i t represented the social scientist's analogue of experimentation: "Claude Bernard remarked long ago that the essence of experimentation is not the operator's ability to produce phenomena artifici ally. Artifice is only one means whose goal i s t o place t h e fac t under study i n different circumstances and to see i t in d i fferent fo rms so that relevant comparisons may b e m a d e . " 2 6 But Durkheim was especially wary of the fo rmalistic temptations o f an analytic and model-building sociology. In a direct criti­ cism of Spencer and C o m t e , h e remarked that the sociologist's "excessively general interpretations are impotent in contact with the facts" and that this impotence had "in part produced the distrust that history has often fel t fo r sociology. " 2 7 H e also explicitly rejected Georg Simm el's conception o f sociology a s t h e elaboration of ideal-typical constructs ( e . g . , fo r m s of c o m ­ munity, differentiation, domination, stratificati o n , a n d conflict). Du rkheim recognized that a science had to be fo rmed on the basis o f abstract ideas and analytic distinctions. But h e insisted: "It i s necessary that abstractions be methodically elaborated and that they divide facts according t o their natural articulations. Otherwise abstractions degenerate into i m aginary constructs a n d a vain mythology. " 28 Methodo logica lly, these ideas often relied on a very con servative if n o t naive epistemology. B u t they also led t o a focus o n institutions and t o a desire fo r a close working relationship with history. "Institutions have to exterior i n c i d e n ts the same relationship as the mode and func tioning of organs i n the individual have to the various actions which fill our daily lives. Only through an institutional fo c u s can history cease t o be a narrative study and o p e n itself to scientific analysi s . " Events like "wars, peace trea­ ties, intrigues o f courts o r assemblies, or the acts of statesmen" seemed to follow no definite laws. In any event, " i f these laws exist, they are the m o s t difficult to discover." O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , " i n s t i t u t i o n s - while of course evolving - conserve their essential traits during long periods of time and sometimes during an entire collective existence, because they express what is most profo u n d l y c o n s t itutive o f any social o rganiz a t i o n . " I nstitutions also presented "striking similarities" in different societies. "Thus typologies b e c o m e possible and compara tive history is b o r n . "29 Hence sociology was in essence a comparative study of the genesis, struc­ ture, and functioning of institutions. To the list i n this definition, the later Durkheim would undoub tedly have added the problem of the relation of

190

J:rnile Durkheirn: Sociologist and Philosopher

institutions to beliefs, values, and i deologies. Referring to his own professor of history, for whom this problem was a central issue, Durkheim ob served in the preface to the first volume of the

Annee socio!ogique:

History can be a science only to the extent that i t explains, and expla­ nation cannot proceed except through comparison. Otherwise, even simple description is hardly possible; one cannot adequately describe a unique fact, o r a fact of which one has only rare instances, because o n e does not see i t adequately . . . . Fustel de Coulanges was fo n d of repeating that true sociology i s history: nothing is more incon testable, provided t h a t history is carried o n sociologi cal ly.30 Sociology, as Durkheim once p u t i t , was like the grammar of historyY C hanging the m e t a p hor, h e observed that history played, " i n the realm of social realities, a role analogous to that of the microscope in the study of nature."32 In a n important review of works by Gaetano Salvemini and Benedetto Croce, Durkheim argued that history as a "nomothetic" (law­ seeking) science and history as an " i d i ographic" ( particularizing) art were "destined to b e c o m e inseparab l e . " There was no opposition or paralyzing antinomy b e tween them, b u t "only differences of degre e . " S cientifi c hist ory, or sociology, could n o t do w i t h o u t the "direct observation of concrete facts." And history had to become informed by the general principles of sociol­ ogy. All history required selection among fac ts, and this, in turn, implied the use o f criteria that m a d e c o m p arison possible. "In reality, " Durkheim concluded, " t h ere are n o t two d i s t i n ct disciplines but two d i ffe rent p o i n t s of view which, far fro m excluding o n e another, presuppose o n e another."33 Except fo r his insistence on cooperation, Durkheim did not address the problem of institutional implications of this observation for the organization of disciplines in the university. We have already had reason to n o t e that D u rkheim's actual practice a t t i m e s diverged fro m t h e theoretical position indi cated above. P e r h a p s the one work i n which his analysis both came closest to the history of the historians a n d made an informative use o f narrative was his

Evolution p t!dagogique en

France.34 This work was restricted to the development o f education i n France. But it clearly was based on broad "comparative" knowledge of different social systems. Its fo cus was t h e development of ideologies of education in the context of t h e evolution of institutions. The result was a remarkable social

Chapter

5

Theory and Practice

191

history o f i d e as that revealed a sense of illuminating detail and a sensitivity to the complexity o f social life often absent in D urkheim's more famous works. Indeed, t h e highest accolade o n e c a n bestow u p o n t h i s s t u d y i s a criterion of all good history: its argument belies s u m m ary. How were Durkheim's methodological views related to evaluation and refo r m ? D u rkheim apparently did not believe that the historical process as a whole had a m e a n ingful plot or structure. H e did not, for example, subscribe to H egel's t h e o d i cy of h i s t o ry. History did not have a meaning. But people in society participated in the creation o f at least limited mean­ ing, which existed i n a tense dialectic with anomie fo rces.

At least by

implication, Durkheim seemed t o envisage the histor ical p r o cess as o n e of o s c i l l a t i o n between varying states of order and c h a o s - t h e "organic" a n d "critical" periods o f Saint-Simon. Yet Durkhei m's i d e a of the relation of c o n s c i o u s human action t o this process was never clearly stated. His evolutionary optimism seemed t o imply that there was an impersonal o r unconscious process that effected, over time, a development o f society i n the direction of int egration and viable order. Most often, h is tendency in h i s t o rical a n alysis was to d e - e m p h asize t h e role of intentional action in attempts to s h a p e meaningful fo rms of existence. At times he did attri b u t e some weight to individual deviance o r exceptional p erformance as a force fo r social change. For example, he presented great philosophers, like Socrates, as individuals who crystallized with heightened perceptiveness the tendencies o f an age and acted as heralds o f the fut u r e . B u t he certainly rejected a "great man" interpretation o f history. And gener­ ally he insisted in extreme fas hion o n the role of impersonal processes and institutional forces in a history devoid of proper names. O n e problem was t h a t D u rkheim proved unable to integrate fully, o r at least to relate intelligi b l y, a m e t h o d o logy geared t o causal analysis and o n e sensi tive to meanings. The q u e s t i o n of m e a n i n g a n d i t s l i m i t s w o u l d have required closer attention to the role of concrete agents in history, b o th as i n d i v i duals and in groups. I n h i s later e m p h as i s on i n ternalized values a n d "collective representations," Durkheim recognized t h e i m p o rtance o f the perception and ideo logical interpretation o f social and cultural phenomena. B u t h e never worked out an adequate notion of the dialectical relation of these factors to impersonal processes and long-term structural causation. H i s only a t t e m p t t o a c c o u n t for t h e genesis o f " collective representations" was

J:rnile Durkheirn: Sociologist and Philosopher

192

the vague i d e a that they somehow emerged fro m the "collective substratum" before attaining a relative autonomy i n entering into combinations with one another. 3 5 This i d e a amounted at best t o a r e fo r m u l a t i o n of the n o t i o n that social existence preceded social consciousness - a reformulation which was vaguer than the �1arxist variant, since it d i d n o t contain even a rudimen­ t a r y theory of the fo r m a t i o n o f ideologies. D u rkheim would have gained much fro m closer attention to the c o n t e m p orary German con troversy over methods

(Methodenstreit) , fro m which Max Weber benefi ted so greatly.

D urkhei m's d o m i n a n t p o s i t i o n was well expressed in an exchange with the historian Charles Seignobos. Seignobos himself took an extreme Rankean p o s i t i o n o n the i m p o rtance o f individual will in history a n d of eyew i t n ess reports i n h i stori ograp hy. D u r k h e i m asserted: The question i s t o know i f i n history o n e can really admit only c o n s c i o u s c a u s e s , t h o s e w h i c h m e n t h e m selves a t t r i b u t e t o t h e events a n d a c t i o n s of w h i c h t h ey a r e agents . . . . I t is n o t a question of events but o f inner m o tives which could have determined these events. H o w m a y one know these motives? There are only t w o pos­ sible procedures. Either o n e tries to discover them objectively by a n experimental method: neither the agents nor t h e witnesses of the events were able to d o t h i s . O r one tries t o arrive a t t h e m by an inner method of i n t r o s p e c t i o n . . . . Now everyo n e knows how m u c h consciousness is full o f i l l u s i o n s . For a long time, there has n o t been a psychologist who b e l i eves introspection can reach to profo u n d causes. Every causal relation is unconscious, and i t must b e found after the event; b y i n trospection o n e arrives only at facts b u t never at causes.36 O n the basis of this comment, one might have expected D u rkheim to pay more sustained attention to the problem of collective psychology in other than the c o m m o n-sensical terms on which he often relied. I have already mentioned this deficit in his thought. His n o t i o n of an unconscious remained inertly structural and largely unrelated to such processes as re­ p r e s s i o n , denial, and displacement. And he did n o t work o u t a concept o f s u b l i m a t i o n which would seem required fo r his understanding o f the elaborat i o n and internalization of desired and desirable norms and values. Another difficulty generated b y h i s a p p r o a c h i s that it seemed to leave his

Chapter

5

Theory and Practice

193

calls to action i n the present suspended i n mid-air, fo r i t o ffered little b asis for existential c o m m i t m e n t to a coll ective p r o j e c t . B u t in his conception of social a c t i o n in m o d e r n society, D urkheim d i d seem to s e e a signifi cant role for m o tivated inquiry into the causes of disorientation and conscious attempts t o c o n ceive and implement desirable change. A constant theme of his thought was that a historically informed s o c i o l ogy would give people s o m e measure o f control over the historical process. H o w d i d a soci ological consciousness offer this possibility? C o m b i n e d w i t h the "crucial e x p e r i m e n t , " c o m p a r ative history was a m e a n s of arriving at a n o t i o n of the t r e e of social life. Ethnogra phy, when s u b j e c t e d to theoretical e l a b o r a t i o n , was especi ally i m p o r t a n t fo r t h e deve l o p m e n t of an idea of t h e t r a n s h i s t o r i c a l b ases o f c u l t u r e and s o c i ety. C o m parative history illustrated and tested t h e results o f t h i s theo­ retical elaboration. M o r e specifi cally, i t m a d e possible the delineation o f s o c i a l types o r "species" a n d furnished t e s t cases o f ways i n w h i c h types of s o c i a l structure fun c t i o n e d in n o r m a l or p a t h ological ways. Relevant c o m p a r i s o n also i l l u m i n a t e d genetic processes o f " b e c o m i n g , " thereby providing know ledge of trends i n various social s i t u a t i o n s . In accordance w i t h C o m te's dictum "Sa voir pour prevoir; prevoir p o u r pouvoir" ( " Know in order to fo resee; foresee in order to b e able t o contro l " ) , knowledge offered effective insight into the dangers and p o s s i b i l i t i e s of alternative courses o f social a c t i o n . A s i d e from i n c o r p o rating b i ological analogies falling s o m e w h e r e b e ­ tween Darwin and Lamarck, D u rkhei m's c o n c e p t s of normality and pathol­ ogy were m o r e s o p h i s t i c a t e d versions o f S a i n t - S i m o n's i d e a of organic and critical p e r i o d s i n histo ry. Like S a i n t - S i m o n , D u r k h e i m beli eved modern s o c i e t y to b e , i n signifi cant ways, pathological. H e discussed at l e n g t h a n d w i t h a p p a r e n t agre ement S a i n t - S i m on's m o d e l o f evo l u t i o n i n Western E u r o p e in terms of a growing confl ict b e tween a religio-military and a scientific-industrial type of soci ety. In France, this had c u l m i n a t e d i n the great Revo l u t i o n , wh ose nature, causati o n , a n d consequences Durkheim saw i n a basically S a i n t - S i m o n i a n way: A two-fold need gave rise to it: the need to b e extricated from the past and the need to organize the present. The Revolution met only the first of these needs. I t succeeded in striking the final blows at the

194

Emile Durkheirn: Sociologist and Philosopher

old system. It abolished all that remained of feudalism - even royal authority - and all that survived fro m the old temporal power. But on the land thus cleared, the Revolution built nothing new. It asserted that o n e was no longer obliged to accept t h e old beli efs but did not attempt to elaborate a new body o f rational beliefs that all minds could accept. -' 7 The Revo l u t i o n had destroyed the old order, b u t it miscarried in the creation of t h e new. It gave b i r t h t o the highest ideals o f modern s o c i e ty, b u t i t d i d n o t specify and establish these ideals in institu tions and rational b e l i efs. At the start of t h e nineteenth century, aft e r the Revolu t i o n h ad run its course, the basic problem of a new social order was presented i n the same terms as i n 1 7 8 9 . Only the p r o b l e m h a d b e c o m e more urgent. A stabilized revolutionary settlement was, for Durkheim, necessary " i f one does n o t w i s h t o s e e e a c h crisis p r o d u c e another, exasperation the chronic state of soci ety, and fin ally, disintegration m ore or less the result." This was the way in which Saint-Simon had posed the social question, and fo r Durkheim i t could n o t " b e p o s e d with greater profu n d i ty. "3 8 Durkheim's later t h o u g h t frequently revealed t h e infl u ence of B ergson's i d e a s of creative evo l u t i o n and

elan vital. By means of these conceptions,

h e was able t o i ntegrate some of the Prometheanism o f Saint-Simon i n t o his perspective. T h u s h e stressed m o re o ften t h e creative s i d e o f a n o m i e a n d its relation t o newer c u l t u r a l possibilities. T h i s tendency can b e fo und in

The Elemen tary Fo r m s notably in its conception o f the generative role ,

o f collective effervescence. It is also evident i n the only completed s e c t i o n o f h i s projected

magnum op us " L a M o r a l e " :

Life, a l l lif e, is r i c h with an infi nite n u m b e r o f seeds o f every varie ty, of which s o m e are a t present developed and correspond especially to t h e present exigencies o f t h e m i l i e u b u t o f which many are dor­ mant, t e m p o rarily unused, and u n d evelo p e d . These will p e r h a p s b e awakened t o m orrow under new circumstances. All life is change and is refactory to static states. A living b e i n g is n o t made for a single e n d ; i t may lend itself t o very d i ffer e n t ends and to m u l t i p l e s i t u a t i o n s . . . . S o m u ch t h e m o r e i s t h i s t r u e o f h u m a n n a t u r e : his­ tory is not only the natural framework of human life; man is a p r o d u c t of h i s tory. 39

Chapter

I n his

5

Theory and Practice

195

Evolution p edagogique, D u rkheim insisted that i t was i m p o s s i b l e

a t a n y given m o m e n t t o d r a w u p a b l u e p r i n t o f h u m a n n a t u r e : F o r the wealth o f p a s t p r o d u c t i o n does n o t i n t h e l e a s t a u t h o r i z e us to assign a l i m i t to the production o f the future o r t o think that a d a y will e v e r c o m e when m a n , h a v i n g reached t h e e n d of h i s creation, will be condemned t o repeat himself p e r p e t u ally. Thus one arrives at a c o n c e p t i o n of m a n , n o t as a system of defi nite e l e m e n ts which may be n u m b e r e d , but as an infinitely fl ex i b l e and versatile fo rce capable of taking on the m o s t diverse aspects under the pressure o f ever renewed circumstances.40 Thus D urkheim arrived at a very fl exible idea of the hypothetical t r u n k of the tree of social life: i t represented a n u n l i m i t e d set o f c u l t u r a l p o s s i b i l i t i e s . E a c h t y p e of society w o u l d realize a limited s u b s e t o f t h e s e p o s s i b i l i t i e s i n normal o r pathological form. Although c u l t u r a l possibilities were unlimited i n theory, any combination of them i n a normal state o f s o c i e t y w o u l d i t s e l f b e l i m i t e d and w o u l d instill i n m e m b e rs o f society a normative sense of l i m i t s leavened only by a creative margin of a n o m i e . Especially significant i n L'Evolution p edagogique was Durkhei m's conception of t h e M i d d l e Ages. F o r Saint-Simon, o f course, t h e sociol ogical int erest of the m e d i eval period was its achievement of one p o s s i b l e fo rm of organic integrati o n . Although Durkheim never fully adhered t o an i d e alized view of the Middle Ages, he d i d present i t as a period based on a tense and creative balance b e tween fai t h and reason, s p o ntaneity a n d i n s t i t u t i o n ally grounded constraint. There was for D urkheim "something exciting and dramatic" in the spectacle o ffe red by "this tormented epoch tossed b e tween respect for t r a d i t i o n a n d the call o f free e n q u i ry." T h i s p e r i o d was fa r from b e i n g "plunged i n a s o r t of q u i e t u d e and intellectual t o r p o r . " It was in fact " i n t e r nally d i v i d e d and drawn in contradictory directions." D u rkhei m's reaction to t h i s state of affairs may c o m e as a surprise to those who have presented h i m as the rigid, if n o t a u t h o ritarian, c h a m p i o n of Cartesian constraint, fo rmal rationality, and still-life order i n s o c i ety. T h i s i s o n e of the m o m e n t s when t h e h u m a n s p i r i t was m o s t full of effervescence and creative of new things . . . . Men had n o t yet tried to separate these two inseparable aspects of human life [ i . e . , fai t h

196

J:rnile Durkheirn: Sociologist and Philosopher

and reason] . M e n had n o t yet undertaken the canalization and t h e damming u p o f t h e s e t w o great i n t e l l e c t u a l and m o r a l currents i n a v a i n attempt t o p r e v e n t t h e m fro m m e e ting! H o w m u c h more living was t h i s g e n e r a l and t u m u l t u o u s m e lee of all ideas and a l l sentiments than the artifi cial and a p p a rent calm o f t h e centuries which fo llowed! . . . We must indeed m o d i fy our national h u m or. We m u s t again fi nd the taste fo r fre e and varied life w i t h all the accidents and irregularities it i m p l i e s . 4 1 Images o f organic growth a n d relatively slow evolution a p p l i e d only t o development within a normal state o f society or organic p e ri o d . The creation of normality in m o d ernity was a c o l l e c t i ve p ro j e c t . And even w i t h i n the normal state, society was not a static o b j e c t b u t a living whole that overcame generalized anomie through a tense, dynamic balance of the essential elements of social " h e a l t h . " D urkheim o p p o s e d neither the study of history nor the vi tal element of creative change i n social life. H i s polemical a n i m u s was reserved fo r pathology i n t h e sense of generalized anomie, excess, and runaway change; and it i m p l i e d a repudiation of the type of " h i storicism" which legi t i m a t e d anomie or i t s concomitants in a "transitional" p e r i o d of uncontrolled change. Thus Durkheim observed o f his interest i n social structure: This branch o f sociology is n o t a science of the p u rely static. For t h i s reason, we deem i t improper to adopt this term [of C o m t e ] , which expresses p o orly the p o i n t of view fro m which society ought to be considered. I t is not a q u e s t i o n , as has s o m e t i m e s been s a i d [ b y J o h n Stuart Mill, following C o m t e ] , o f considering s o c i e t y at a given moment, i m m o b ilized by an abstraction, b u t on the contrary, of analyzing its fo rmation and accounting for i t . No d o u b t the phe­ nomena that have to do with structure have s o m e t h i n g more stable about them than h ave functional phenomena. B u t b e tween these two orders of f act there are only differences of degree. S t r u cture itself is encountered in becoming [le devenir] , and one can i l l u m i n a t e i t only i f one does n o t lose sight o f the process o f becomi ng. Structure is formed and disi ntegrated continu ally. I t is life that has arrived at a certain degree of consolidation. To distinguish i t fro m the life fro m which i t derives or fro m the life which i t determines w o u l d a m o u n t t o dissociating i n s e p a r a b l e thingsY

Chapter

In his

5

Theory and Practice

197

Moral Education , Durkheim returned to his conceptiOn of the

state o f modern society with a renewed sense of urgency: "We are a t present passing through a critical period. Indeed there is not in history a crisis as grave as that of European societies during the past century."43 I n

Socialism,

Durkheim remarked upon t h e significant relationship among the rise of sociology, socialism, and religious revival in modern society. Along with other later works,

Th e Elementary Forms o ffered insight into the role of this

relationship i n D urkheim's own thought, and it revealed a sense in which revolutionary turmoil harbored a positive component and a guide to the creation o f social health. For

The Elementa ry Fo rms contained a striking

parallel b e tween social revo lution and t h e origins o f collective life, which fo r Durkheim were c o i n c i d e n t w i t h th e genesis of religi o n . Revo l u t i o n appar­ ently involved, in his m i n d , a return to the p r i mordial passage fro m nature to culture i n the m o d i fi e d form of a transition fro m one type of society to another. And the secular was implicated in more or less unconsci ous dis­ placements of the religi o u s . Indeed there was a sense in which a revolution was a return to the origins o f soci ety, a kind of origin ary, sacralizing, primal leap fro m one social type to a n o ther. And the very values and ideals t h a t served as guides t o future action were generated i n liminal, revolutionary epochs o f "collective effervesce n c e . " "Coll ective effervescence" itself meant, for Durkheim, not a m anifestation of crowd psychology i n general, b u t a spontaneous, sacralizing

elan vital o p e n to communitas and the q u asi-reli­

gious possibilities i n social lif e. (These possibilities included, as they did in the French Revolution, displaced religious or secularized fo rces that might take instituti onally anti-clerical fo r m . ) As he put i t in an i m p ortant article, the revolutionary apogee of the critical period was evangelical, in t h e ety­ mological sense of the word: Life is lived with such i n t e nsity and with s u c h abandon t h a t it fills consciousness and clears i t almost completely of egoistic and vulgar preoccupations. The ideal tends to become one with reality; this is why men have the impression that the time i s a t hand when it will become reality and when the kingdom of G o d will be realized on earth.44 But life at this millennia! pitch of quasi-religious intensity could not be continued a s the basis of a stable, ongoing social system:

J:rnile Durkheirn: Sociologist and Philosopher

198

T h e illusion is never durable b ecause this exaltation cannot last: i t is t o o exhausting. Once the critical moment has passed, t h e social fab r i c loosens u p , i ntellectual and sentimental commerce slows d o w n , and in dividuals fal l to their ordinary level. Then everyth i n g which was said, d o n e , and felt d u ring the period offecund torment survives only in the form of a memory - a prestigious m e m o r y to be sure, like the reality it recalls, but with which it is no longer confo u n d e d . 4 5 T h e truly successful revo l u t i o n , according to D u r k h e i m , was o n e that gave b i r t h in t i m e to a " n o r m a l " society. T h e normal society wou l d e m b o d y a twofold rhythm of collective life i n w h i c h ordinary, day-to-day activities that contaminated ideals with utilitarian concerns and self-interest w o u l d alternate with s p e c i a l s y m b o l i c activities. I n these c o m m u n a l a n d festive activities, the "prestigious memory" and extraordinary intensity of value­ creating revolutionary times w o u l d b e revived. These "ritual" activities would themselves reinvigorate norms and sym b o l s b y giving them a sense of i m m ediacy in the experience of m e m b e rs of soci ety and b y generating a living fo rce which could be carried into the daily round. Through ritual, the values created during the "great times" o f the past would become available as a source of renewal for l i fe in the present. Most i m p o rtant, perhaps, the

commu nitas - the communal i d e n ti t y among equals - approximated in liminal events like revolution would, to s o m e viable extent, b e instituted in ritual a s a c o m p o n e n t o f social solidarity. Memb ers o f society w o u l d ritually realize

commmu nitas, the vital fo rce o f all stable - but not static - society.

And this realization would flow into daily life

as

a quasi-mythical b e l i e f or

affectively charged, living fai th that m i tigated the dangers o f b o th structural d i fferentiation and self-interest. Thus, paradoxically b u t understandab ly, the m o s t historically turbulent of events - revolution - w ould be most successful, in D u rkhei m's o p i n i o n , when i t gave rise t o the most stabilizing features of social lif e: ritual and myth. This conception of the revitalizing and reinforcing fu nction o f communal ceremonies and feasts i n d i cates the sense i n which Durkheim b elieved that all " h ealthy" societies required rituals related to the "ritual attitude" of sacred respect for b a s i c commitments and values. Needless to say, these special, ritual activities would be compatible with reason only i f the values and norms they legitimated were neither fanatically irrational nor systematically contradicted by ordinary experience. H i s idea of the condition of ritual i n

Chapter 5

Theory and Practice

199

a normal state of society is i m p l i e d i n D urkheim's analysis rather than fully elucidated. But it is at least consistent with his over-all argument to observe that rituals which exacerbate irrational policies and fantastic visions without modulating them simply reinforce the unhinged and u n b alanced nature of a d u b i o u s status q u o . B u t , as long as they were limited or framed without can­ celing all risk, the o u t b u rsts of anomie excess, affective overA ow, or chaotic unity i n ritual (ordinarily illicit sexual unions, sacrilegious b u ffoonery, role inversion, and other forms of radical

communitas) fun ctioned cathartically

within the total economy of cultural life to assure viable balance. And i n revol utionary transi tions, they might i n their extreme fo rms get o u t o f hand and at times b e vehicles o f desirable social change. In a more explicit way, Durkheim saw t h a t , in the "normal" state of soci ety, ordinary realities a n d operative institutions would n o t hypocritically or self-decep tively contradict cultural values but represent only "standard deviations" fro m them. In a "pathological" context where values and n o r mative expectations were sys­ tematically upset in practice, the ritual settings that d i d exist might function as purdy escapist illusions or be seen thro ugh as vulgar shams. The task of structural change i n modern societies marked by s i g n i ficant p a t h o l ogy was t o revive the ideals o f classical revo l u t i o n s o f t h e past and to realize t h e m viably through a s o r t of cultural revo l u t i o n of good fai t h . T h e criterion o f success i n t h i s endeavor w o u l d b e t h e genesis o f a desir­ able rhythm o f social life. Val ues and norms c o n s t i t u tive o f t h e

conscience

collective would guide o r d i n ary practice w i t h an allowance fo r "standard deviations" due to normal human fai lings. The conscience collective would be p e r i o d i c ally recreated i n pure fo rm i n "ritual" contexts o f communal s p o n ta n e i ty and j o y. T h u s the "normal" o r norm atively d esirable s o c i e ty w o u l d combine the "constraint" of obligatory institutional norms with the "collective effervescence" of m o tivated c o m m i t m e n t , commu nal spontane­ i ty, affective i n t e n s i ty, and a dynamic leaven of a n o m i e o p e n n e s s . Norma­ tive constraint would not be i n c o m p a t i b l e w i t h charismatic expressiveness and a n e l e m e n t o f r i s k . O n l y i n such a society c o u l d q u asi-religious sym­ bolism fu n c t i o n authentically as t h e sacred canopy of legitimacy for the social order. D u rk h e i m's correlation o f s o c i o l ogy, religious revival, and social change provided t h e background for h i s reform p r o p o s a l s .

200

J:rnile Durkheirn: Sociologist and Philosopher

Cmporatism

D urkheim's corporatism is frequently ignored o r at m o s t considered to be an example of personal predilection that was extraneous to the m a i n body o f this thought. It was, on the contrary, a n integral c o m p o n e n t of his perspective, which applied his general idea of social normality t o the problem of structural change in m o d e r n society. Essential to this vision of modern social normality was a triangular model o f the state, the corporative group, a n d the individual, existing in a tense dialectical balance. Durkheim's conception of the situation and needs of modern society was based upon an analysis o f historical evo l u t i o n in Western Europe. Corpo­ rative groups such as the co m m une, the guild, and the estate had b e c o m e increasingly restrictive at the same time t h a t t h e i r i m p o rtance declined with the growing power of the central state. At first the conBict b etween the state a n d corp orative groups had a positive function. F o r i t was the concrete historical basis of individual rights. "It is fro m the conBict o f social forces that individual liberties are b o rn . "46 B u t the extreme deve l o p m e n t of this process of rising state power and individual emancipation fro m increasingly o p p ressive int ermediary or secondary groups threatened to have negative consequences. I t u n i ntentionally culminated in a social situation in which the state, as the sole significant organized p ower, confronted the atomized individual. This confrontation "had long since been prepared by progres­ sive centralization under the

ancien regime. " B u t "the great ch ange which

the French Revo l u t i o n accomplished was t o carry this leveling process to a p o i n t hitherto unknown. "47 Without the countervailing protection of secondary groups, the i n d i ­ vidual liberties fi rst won through the intervention o f the state became b o t h of d u b i o u s existential value for the individual and of uncertain duration i n t h e face of s t a t e power. "Thus, by a s e r i e s o f endless oscillations, we p a s s alternatively fro m a u t h o r i t a r i a n r e g u l a t i o n , which excessive rigidity makes impotent, t o systematic abstention which cannot last because of the anarchy i t p rovokes . " 4 8 Simultaneo usly, the largely uncontrolled development of t h e e c o n o m y gave r i s e to classes w h o s e relations w e r e n o t b a s e d u p o n generally accepted norms but u p o n unequal market power.49 The problem of modern society, according to Durkheim, was to create broadly agreed-upon institutions which viably realized the democratic values

Chapter

5

Theory and Practice

201

brought t o the forefr o n t o f consciousness during the classical revolutions of the past. Before proposing a normative triangle of state regul ation, i n ­ dividual rights, a n d decentralized c o r p o r a t i s m , D u r k h e i m reviewed other conceivable options. H e explici tly rejected authoritarian state collectivism a n d rigidly cen­ tralized bureaucratic control. The state was "too distant fr om the complex manifestations" of economic and occupational life. It was "a h e avy ma­ chine . . . cut out only fo r general and simple tasks . " Its invariably uniform acti ons lacked "the fl exibility needed to ad just to an infinite diversity o f par­ ticular circumstance s . " I t was "always o p pressive and leveling. " 5 0 In brief, the state, through its centralized bureaucracy, maximized authoritarian structure; and t h r o u g h i d e o logies like m i l i tant n a t i o n a l i s m , i t provided

communitas

only i n aggressively violent and irrational ways. The study of the family and kinship had a n i m p o rtance to Durkheim which i s not adequately refl ected i n the relatively small amount o f p u b lished material h e devoted to the subject. In general, h e saw a process o f "concen­ tration" o f the family i n the course o f European history: over time t h e basic k i n s h i p u n i t h a d c o m e to include fewer persons perfo r m i n g fewer fu nctions. The modern nuclear family continued to have a n i m p o rtant social role fo r Durkheim, p articularly in nurturing children, tempering men's desires, and countering sexual excess. And h e was a staunch defender of the sanctity of marriage and an adamant o p p o n e n t of divorce by m u t ual consent - views which at times b r o ught him close to ordinary conservatism. B u t he did n o t beli eve the family to b e a fo cal p o i n t for over coming modern anomie. O n e problem a r e a on w h i c h he, like t h e disciples of Saint-Simon, placed special emphasis was that o f inheritance. The institution of inheritance implies that there are rich and p o o r from birth, i . e . , there are i n society two great classes, linked, however, by all sorts of intermediaries; one is obliged, in order to live, to have the other accept i t s services at any price whatsoever; the other is able to do without these services, thanks to the resources it possesses, even though these resources do not correspond to services rendered by those who enjoy them. As long as an opposition as dear-cut as this exists in society, more o r less successfu l pal l iatives will mi tigate the injustice of contracts; but, i n principle, the system will fU nction under conditions which do not permit it t o be j ust. 5 1

202

J:rnile Durkheirn: Sociologist and Philosopher

F a m i l i a l i n h e r i t a n c e was a vestige fro m t h e p a s t w h i c h i n h i b i t e d e q u a l i ty o f o p p o r t u n i t y i n e d u c a t i o n a n d i n t h e c h o i c e o f a n o c c u p a t i o n t h a t w a s i n k e e p i n g w i t h o ne's t a l e n t s . " I t i s evi d e n t t h a t t h e e d u c a t i o n o f o u r children o u g h t n o t t o d e p e n d u p o n c h a n c e , w h i c h d e t e r m i n e s t h e i r b i rth i n o n e p l a c e r a t h e r t h a n another, a n d t o c e r t a i n p a r e n t s r a t h e r t h a n o t h e rs . " 5 2 I n d e e d , D ur k h e i m a s s e r t e d t h a t "a d a y w i l l c o m e w h e n a m a n i s n o l o n g e r p e r m i t t e d t o leave, even b y t e s t a m e n t , h i s for t u n e t o h i s d e s c e n d a n t s , j us t as h e i s n o l o n g e r p e r m i t t e d to l e a v e t h e m h i s func­ tions and t i t l e s . " 5 3 As a practical p r o p o s a l , however, D ur k h e i m s e e m e d t o a d v a n c e a c o m p r o m i s e fo r m u l a t h a t restricted fam i l i a l i n h e r i t a n c e t o a p e rcentage of the family wealth roughly p r o p o r ti o n a l t o t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f t h e fa m i l y a s an i n s t i t u t i o n i n m o d e r n soci ety. T h i s idea b o t h accorded w i t h existing fam i l i a l s e n t i m e n t and allowed for a s t o r e o f wealth t h a t c o u l d b e u s e d for s o c i a l p u r p o s e s . B u t given t h e dangers o f excessive s t a t e p o w e r and r i g i d b ureaucratic c o n t r o l , t h i s s o l u t i o n created t h e p r o b l e m o f e s t a b l i s h i n g a r e p o s i t o r y for t h e transmission o f w e a l t h i n s o c i e ty. And greater e q u a l i t y of o p p or t u n i ty in t h e access to e d u c a t i o n a n d t h e c h o i ce o f o c c u p a t i o n s d i d n o t s o l v e t h e p r o b l e m o f t h e n a t u r e o f s o c i a l s t r u c t u res o r affect t h e p r i m a r y s o u r c e o f generalized a n o m i e i n m o d e r n s o c i e t y : t h e e c o n o my. According to D ur k h e i m , e d u c a t i o n itself was p o w e r l e s s to act as a m a j o r lever fo r b a s i c s o ci a l change. It c o u l d p l a y a r o l e o n l y w i t h i n a b r o a d e r m o v e m e n t for r a t i o n a l refo r m . E d u c a t i o n was "only t h e image and reflection of s o c i e ty . " I t was " h e al t h y when p e o p le s e n j o y [ e d ] a state o f h e a l t h . " B u t i t b e ca m e " c o r r u p t e d with t h e m , w i t h o u t b e i n g able to m o dify i t s e l f through i t s own i n i t i a t i ve . " E d u ca t i o n c o u l d reform itself only i f s o c i e t y was r e fo r m e d . To reform s o c i e ty, o n e had t o attack "the causes of t h e evil" fro m which society s u ffer e d . 54 Here D u r k h e i m d i d n o t d o j us t i c e t o t h e i n creasingly i m p o r t a n t p o s i t i o n o f e d u c a t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n s i n m o dern s o c i e t i e s as agencies o r affi l i a t e s o f government, partners of e c o n o m i c e n t er p r i s e , loci o f research and deve l o p m e n t , m o re or less contested s i t e s for t h e g e n e r a t i o n a n d d i s s e m i n a t i o n of knowledge a n d i d e o l ogy, and m e d i a of selection and training. But his c o n c e p t i o n of p r i o ri t i e s in s t r u c t u r a l reform was c o g e n t . T h e s t a t e o f t h e e c o n o m y was t h e b a s i c c a u s e o f m o d e r n s o c i al p a t h o l o gy . On t h i s p o i n t , D ur k h e i m s e e m e d t o agree w i t h M arx. B u t

Chapter

5

Theory and Practice

203

D ur k h e i m's largely m o ral c o n c e p t i o n o f t h e p r o b l e m was n o t grounded i n anything c o m p a r a b l e t o M arx's attem p t t o provide a detailed i n s t i t u t i o n a l analysis o f t h e s o u r c e o f " c o n t r a d i c t i o n s " i n t h e e c o n o m y. T h e m o s t b l a m a b l e acts are so o ften absolved by success t h a t t h e l i m i t b e t w e e n w h a t i s p e r m i t te d a n d w h a t is p r o h i b i te d , w h a t i s j us t a n d w h a t i s n o t , n o longer h a s a n y t h i n g fi xed ab o u t i t ; i t s e e m s s u s c e p t i b l e t o a l m o s t a r b i t r a r y change b y i n d i v i d u a l s . S u c h a n i m p recise and i n c o n s t a n t m o r a l i t y is n o longer a b l e t o c o n s t i t u t e a d i s c i p l i n e . T h e r e s u l t is t h a t t h i s e n t i r e s p h e r e of collective l i fe is in large p a r t d e p r i v e d of t h e m o d e r a t i n g a c t i o n of r e g u l a t i o n . I t i s this a n o m i e s t a t e t h a t is t h e c a u s e o f t h e i n cessantly recur­ rent confl icts and the v a r i o u s disorders o f which the e c o n o m i c w o r l d o ffers s o sad a s p e c t a c l e . S i n c e n o t h i n g restrains t h e active fo rces a n d assigns them b o u n d s that they are o b l i g e d to r e s p e c t , t h e y tend to develop w i t h o u t l i m i t a n d co m e i n t o c o l l i s i o n w i t h o n e a n o t h e r, b a t tl i n g a n d w e a k e n i n g t h e m s e l v e s . To b e s u r e , t h e s t r o n g e s t s u c c e e d i n c o m p l e t e l y crushing t h e weakest, o r i n s u b o rd i n a t i n g t h e m . B u t i f t h e c o n q u e r e d m us t for a t i m e resign themselves t o s u b o r d i n a t i o n under c o n s t r a i n t , they do not consent t o i t . C o n s e q u e n tly, t h i s c a n n o t c o n s t i t u t e a stable e q u i li b r i u m . Tru c e s i m p o s e d b y violence a r e never a n y t h i n g b u t p r o v i s i o n a l , and t h e y s a t i s fY n o one. H u m an p as s i o n s halt o nl y b e fo r e a m o r al p o w e r t h a t they r e s p e c t . If all a u t h o r i t y of this k i n d is lacking, t h e law o f t h e strongest p r e v a i l s . And, l a t e n t o r a c t i v e , t h e s t a t e o f w a r i s n ecessa r i l y c h ro n i c . T h at such a s t a t e of a n a r c h y i s a m o rb i d p h e n o m e n o n i s s e l f- evi d e n t , s i n c e i t c o n t r a d i c t s t h e v e r y e n d o f a l l s o c i e ty, w h i c h is t o s u p p ress, o r a t t h e v e r y l e a s t t o m o d e r a t e , w a r a m o n g m e n b y s u b o rd i n a t i n g t h e p h y s i c a l l a w o f t h e strongest t o a higher law. 55 D u r k h e i m saw the deve l o p m e n t o f lab o r u n i o n s and m a n a g e m e n t groups as an initial but inadequate step i n the right direction. Procedures l i k e collective b ar g a i n i n g d i d n o t o v e r c o m e excessively a n o m i e r e l a t i o n s ; t h e r e s u l t w a s an e x t r e m e l y p r e c a r i o u s s t ability t h a t was q u i t e c o m p a t i b l e w i t h e g o i s m a n d p o w e r confl icts. Syndicates o f em ployers and l a b o r u n i o ns are distinct fro m one another, which is legitimate and necessary, b u t there is n o regular

204

Emile Durkheirn: Sociologist and Philosopher

contact b etween t h e m . There exists no c o m m o n organization which brings them together w i th o u t denying their i n d i v i d u a l i t y a n d i n which t h e y m a y elaborate i n c o m m o n a regulation t h a t , b y fixing t h e i r m utual relations, i s i m p o s e d u p o n b o th with a c o m m o n au­ thori ty. C o n s e q u e n tly, it is always t h e law of the strongest which settles c o n fl icts, and the state of w a r prevails c o m p l e t e ly. Except fo r actions w h i c h fal l u n d e r c o m m o n m o r a l i ty, e m p loyers and work­ men are, i n their m u t u a l relations, in t h e same s i t u a t i o n as two a u t o n o m o u s states, b u t of unequal power. Like p e o p l e s through the m e d i u m o f t h e i r govern m e n t s , they can make contracts. B u t these contracts i n d i cate o n l y t h e respective state o f military fo rces conf rooting one a n o t h e r. They are l i k e treaties w h i ch i n d i c a t e the respective state of m i l i t a r y fo rces b e tween two b elligerents. They consecrate a de facto state; they cannot create a j us t state [ u n Itat

de droit] . 5 6 T h e professional or corporative group was the crux of Durkheim's idea of a possible means of creating a tense balance among the elements of social j ustice and health in modern society. In a sense, D u rkheim's corporative idea applied t h e principle o f Occam's razo r - t o make o n l y a s many assumptions as necessary - to the intricate problem of social "normality" in the context of the advanced degree of the division of labor and the generalized exchange of goods and services. Through fu nctional decentraliza t i o n , the corporative gro up could simultaneously provide a counterweight to the central state and a social context in which

communitas and a more cum ulative articulation of

social and cultural experience might develop. Acting i n accordance with the fundamental economic and occupational functions of modern society, the corporative group would also have a role in the inheritance of wealth, educa­ tion, economic regulation, welfare services, political representation, and artistic creation. Most important, it would be a center of genuine communal com­ mitment - to a signifi cant extent a real existential (not simply an im aginary) gro up - with the moral power to restrain anomie and transcend egoism. In the corporative group, people would come to know one another and enjoy what might be called a supplementary kinship. D u rkheim derived his idea of the need fo r corporative groups partly from a h i s t o r i c a l survey that his proposed c o m parative h i s t o r y o f this fo r m o f so cial organization was t o h a v e detailed. O n t h e b a s i s o f t h e lessons

Chapter

5

Theory and Practice

20 5

he drew fro m h i s investigation of c o m p arative h i s t o ry, h e felt j us t i fi e d i n asserting that c o r p o r a t i s m c o r r e s p o n d e d t o a permanent fu nctional n e e d i n s o c i e t i e s w h i c h had passed beyond the stage of an agri c u l t u ral e c o n o m y. C o m p arison itself, however, did not solve s p e c i fically m o dern p r o b l e m s ; i t m e r e l y helped one t o distinguish similarities and d i fferences, revealed n o r m a l and pathological fu nctioning i n d i fferent social types, and enabled o n e better t o situate s p e cifi cally m o d e r n c o n d i t i o n s , dangers, and p o s s i b i l i t i e s . I n G r e e c e , a t least u n t i l the Ro man c o n q u e s t , c o r p o r a t i o n s were u n ­ k n o w n , b e c a u s e e c o n o m i c o c c u p a t i o ns w e r e socially d e s p i s e d a n d con­ signed t o fo reigners. In Rome, o n the con trary, they dated fro m the earliest t i m e s o f t h e R e p u b l i c . S i g n i fi c a n tly, t h e Roman corporat ive group d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d of t h e R e p u b l i c was a religi o u s confraternity. Under t h e Empire, however, corporative groups b oth reached their fullest development and, i n p a r t b e c a u s e of c i v i l w a r s a n d invasi o n s , fell u n d e r the d o m i n a t i o n of the state. " T h i s was the ruin of the i n s t i t u ti o n. " 5 7 The central p o i n t here, fo r D u r k h e i m , was that an adequate c o m p a r i s o n h a d to consider s o c i e t i e s a t comparable stages o f development. O n e could n o t , fo r e x a m p l e , generalize about the viability of an institution on the basis o f its decadence or a b u s e . After t h e fall of Rome, " i f a n economist had taken stock of t h e situation, h e w o u l d reasonably have concluded, a s e c o n o m i s ts l a t e r d i d , that corporative groups had n o t , or at least n o longer h a d , any r a i s o n d' etre, that they had dis appeared once a n d fo r all, a n d h e u n d o u b tedly would have treated any a t t e m p t to r e c o n s t i t u t e them as retrogressive and unrealizab l e . " 5 8 T h e r e b i r t h o f c o r p o r ative g r o u p s i n t h e M i ddle Ages showed that t h e hypothetical e c o n o m i s t living i n t h e " D ark Ages" w o u l d have b e e n wrong. In fact, the i m p o rtance o f c o r p o rative groups in the m e d i eval p e r i o d was greater than i n Rome. I n Rome, the c o r p o rative group was n o t a p ub l i c i n s t i t u t i o n . B u t i n t h e M i d d l e Ages i t b e c a m e t h e v e r y fo undation of the c o m m u n e . In a d i ffer e n t fo rm, it retained moral and religious functions and was a c e n t e r o f communal feasts and b a n g uets. And, as i n Rome, it provided a locus of i n t i m acy less restricted than the fam i l y and m o r e p e r s o n a l than the c i ty. A p o i n t w h i c h would b e c o m e increasi ngly relevant with the deve l o p m e n t o f D u rkheim's thought was that in b o t h cases "all religious c o m m unity constituted a moral m i l i e u , j ust as all moral discipline tended i n t i m e t o assume a religious form . "59 I f t h e case of Rome revealed

206

J:rnile Durkheirn: Sociologist and Philosopher

the danger o f state d o m i n a t i o n , the

ancien regime p oi n t e d to t h e danger

o f the possible d o m i n a t i o n of one s o c i o e c o n o m i c group by another. I n t h e m e d i eval p e r i o d , stratifi cation w i t h i n t h e c o r p o r a tive group was often n o t rigid or highly marked, s i n c e the a p p r e n t i c e c o u l d as a r u l e b e c o m e a m a s t e r i n his t u r n . B y t h e e n d of t h e

ancien regime, c o r p o r a t i o n s h a d

b e c o m e instruments through w h i c h masters exploited workers. T h i s de­ velopment led t o the fo r m a t i o n o f trade u n i o n s o u t s i d e the pale o f the c o r p o rative organ i z a t i o n . 60

B u t there is no i n s t i t u t i o n w h i c h does n o t a t s o m e t i m e degener­ ate, e i th e r b e cause it cannot change and b e c o m e s i m m o b i l i z e d or b e c a u s e i t develops i n a u n i l a t e r a l d i r e c t i o n . . . . T h i s m a y b e a reason t o refo r m it b u t n o t to declare i t p e r m a n e n tl y useless a n d d e s t r o y i t . . . . If fro m the o r i g i n o f the c i t y u n t i l t h e z e n i t h o f t h e E m p i r e , from t h e d a w n o f C h r i s t i a n i t y u n t i l m o d ern t i m e s , t h e y h a v e b e e n necessary, i t is b e c a u s e t h e y answer p e r m a n e n t a n d p ro­ fo u n d n e e d s . The fact that after having d i s a p p e a r e d the fi rs t t i m e , they were r e c o n s t i t u t e d b y t h e m s e lves a n d i n a n e w fo r m r e b u t s a n y a r g u m e n t t h a t t h e i r v i o l e n t d i s a p p e a r a n c e a t the e n d o f t h e l a s t c e n t u r y i s a p r o o f t h a t t h e y a r e no longer i n h a r m o n y w i t h t h e new c o n d i t i o n s o f c o l l e ctive e x i s t e n c e . 6 1 O n e p r o b l e m t h e c o r p o rative g r o u p failed to m e e t I n early m o d e r n t i m e s was t h a t t h e c o m m u n e proved to b e t o o restricted a fra m e w o r k fo r the regul a t i o n o f commerce, w h i c h was becoming n a t i o n a l a n d i n ­ t e r n a t i o n a l . ( T h e c o n t e m p o r a r y t r a n s n a t i o n a l c o r p o r a t i o n would p o s e even more severe diffi c u l t i e s fo r t h e v i a b l e organization of c o r p o rative gro u p s . ) A second p r o b l e m h a d t o d o with the s t r u c t ur e of a u t h o r i t y i n t h e c o r p o rative group i t s e l f - a p r o b l e m t h a t s u b s e q u e n t h i s t o r y has e x a c e r b a t e d , a l o n g with t h e q u e s t i o n o f relations b e tw e e n the corpo­ rative group a n d t h e state. Altho ugh D u rkheim was not as clear o r as c o m p rehensive as he might have been, h i s c o n c e p t i o n o f t h e s t r u c t u r e o f authority in corporative groups w a s essentially democratic, and i t included i n d u strial d e m o cr a cy. S p e c i a l i z e d r e g u l a t i o n s can b e m a d e o n l y b y elected a s s e m b l i e s charged w i t h representing t h e c o r p o r a t i o n . I n the p r e s e n t s t a t e o f i n d ustry, these a s s e m b l i e s , a s well as t h e t r i b u n a l s w h i c h a p p l y

Chapter

5

Theory and Practice

207

profess i o n a l regulations, obviously ought to i n c l u d e representatives o f employers and e m p loyees . . . in p r o p o r t i o n s corresp o n d i n g to the respective i m p o r tance a t t ri b u t e d by o p i n i o n to these two factors i n p r o d u c t i o n . B u t i f i t is necessary t h a t b o t h be p r e s e n t i n t h e d i recting c o u n cils o f t h e corporation, i t is n o less indispensable t h a t t h e y fo rm a t t h e b a s e o f t h e c o r p o r a t i o n d i s t i n c t a n d i n d e p e n d e n t gro u p s , for t h e i r interests a r e t o o often rival and antagonistic. F o r t h e m to b e a b l e to t a k e p os i t i o n s fre ely, t h e y m u s t take p o s i t i o n s separately. T h e t w o g r o u p s t h u s c o n s t i t u t e d c o u l d s u b s e q u e n tly d e s i g n a t e t h e i r represen tatives to t h e co m m o n a s s e m b l i e s . 62 Durkheim argued that "the already so powerful and so clumsy hands of the state" were incompetent and dangerou s instruments for the provision of social welfare and the detailed regulation o f the econo my. Thus, h e con­ cluded that the problem of the anomie and egoism fo stered by the antip athy between centralized b ureaucratic rigidity and atomized individualism could be resolved only b y fo rming, "outside the state, but subject t o its action, a duster of collective forces whose regulative influence can be exercised with more variety. "63 But h e readily acknowledged the tendency o f secondary o r intermediary groups t o develop i n the direction of closed societies charac­ terized b y "the despotism of routine and professional ego i s m . " 64 To check this tendency and to protect the rights of the individual, the democratic state was to retain limited but crucial functions. "Only the state can oppose to the particularism of each corporation a consciousness of general utility and the necessities of organic equilibrium."65 A defining feature of the democratic state, fo r Durkheim, was its achieve­ ment of conscious awareness of the needs of all social groups through the open communication assured by representative institutions.66 H i s conception of the democratic state in the normal society was both legislative and moral. Using his peculiar p h i l osophical vocab u l ary, he designated the state as the representative ( b u t not the incarnation) of the

conscience collective. Its specific

function was to elaborate "collective representations" i n the form of laws valid for society as a whole. A s t r i k i n g d e fe c t of D u rkheim's p o l i t i cal s o c i o l o g y i n s u c h works as

Professional Ethics and Civic Morals was the neglect of executive leadership a n d p o l i t i cal p a r t i e s . H i s neglect of executive leadership m i gh t be seen as a r e fl e c t i o n of the d o - n o t h i n g n a t u r e o f the state i n his own Third Re-

208

J:rnile Durkheirn: Sociologist and Philosopher

p u b l i c . B u t h e was n o t , i n fact, advocating the r e d u c t i o n o f gove r n m e n t t o t h e status o f a d e b a t i n g s o c i e t y i n a c o n t e x t m a r k e d b y severe s o c i a l p r o b l e m s . N o r w a s h i s neglect o f p o l i t i cal p a r t i e s related t o a n a t t e m p t t o d i s c r e d i t p a r l i a m e n t a r i s m i n t h e m a n n e r o f fi gures o n b o th t h e far left (for e x a m p l e , t h e early Walter B e n j a m i n a n d t h e e q u i v o c a l G e orges S o r e l ) and the fa r right (for e x a m p l e , C h a r l e s M a u rr a s , P i e r r e D ri e u La R o c h e l l e , and Carl S ch m i t t ) , i n cl u d i n g m o r e r e a c t i o n a r y advocates of c o r p o r a t i s m . D u r k h e i m was a fi rm s u p p o r t e r of p a r l i a m e n t a r y govern­ m e n t and did n o t advocate a "one p a r ty" s t a t e . B u t a t t i m e s he did s e e m c l o s e t o an i d e a o f a " n o p arty" s t a t e , o r a t l e a s t t o a vision i n w h i c h p ar­ t i e s , like i n t e r e s t gro u p s , w o u l d play a very s u b o r d i n a t e r o l e . B a s i cally, D u rk h e i m was p r e s e n t i n g a no rmative c o n ce p t i o n of t h e r o l e o f t h e state i n the "normal" s o c i ety. Here all particular i n t e r e s t s and agencies w o u l d b e r e g u l a t e d b y l i m i t i n g n o r m s . And t h e s t a t e w o u l d b e a legal e n t i t y w h o s e l a w s a p p l i e d the n o r m s and v a l u e s o f t h e

conscience co llective. Early

i n h i s l i f e , D ur k h e i m criticized M o n tesqu i e u for t h e o r e t i c a l l y s e p a r a t i n g law a n d e t h i c s Y In D u r k h e i m's "normal" s o c i e ty, b o th law and e t h i c s w o u l d fi n d t h e i r u n i ta r y s o u r ce i n n o r m a t i v e p r i n c i ples e m b o d i e d i n t h e c o n s c i e n c e collective. Indeed, a c c o r d i n g t o D u r k h e i m , s e l f-gov e r n m e n t w o u l d m o s t ade­ quately fi ll s o c i a l needs a n d t h e general conditions of normative pluralism be b e s t realized i f c o r p o rative g r o u p s themselves b ec a m e the b as i c u n i ts of p o l i t i c a l representation. T h i s i d e a was in k e e p i n g w i t h his general view t h a t in m o d e r n s o c i e t y t e r r i t o r i a l u n i t s lacked b o th c u l t u r a l i d e n t i t y and t h e m e a n s t o c o p e w i t h p r o b l e m s s t e m m i n g fr om advanced t e c h n o logy and i n d u s t r i a l i s m . " T h e o n l y d e ce n t r a l i z a t i o n w h i c h , w i t h o u t b r e a k i n g up n a t i o n a l u n i ty, p er m i t s t h e m u l t i p l i c a t i o n o f c e n t e r s o f c o m m o n l i fe is w h a t m i g h t b e c a l l e d

professional decentralizatio n . "68 R e g i o n a l and

local g r o u p i ngs c o r r e s p o n d i n g to p r o b l e m s which c o u l d be handled a t t h e s e levels w o u l d c o n t i n u e t o e x i s t , b ut t h e b r u n t o f activity w i t h i n a s t r u c t u r a l l y transfo r m e d s o c i e t y w o u l d fa ll u p o n p ro fess i o n al or c o r p o ­ rative g r o u p s . T h u s c o r p o rative g r o u p s , i n t ernally characterized b y a d e m o c r a t i c s t r u c t u r e o f a u t h o r i t y a n d r e l a t e d t o o n e a n o t h e r b y n o rmatively c o n ­ t r o l l e d , a m i a b l e rivalry u n d e r the general a u s p i c e s of t h e d e m o c r a t i c s t a t e , w e r e fo r D u rk h e i m the sole means of overcoming a n o m i e a n d a s s u r i n g

Chapter

5

Theory and Practice

209

s o l i d a r i t y i n m o d e r n s o c i e ty. In e s s e n c e , t h e goal D u r k h e i m i n d i c a t e d i n h i s i d e a o f t h e c o r p o r ative g r o u p w a s t h a t o f r a i s i n g s o c i e t y above t h e m u n d a n e level o f t h e m e r e l y e c o n o m i c . I f w e j u dge t h e m [ i . e . , c o r p o r ative g r o u p s ] t o b e i n d i s p e n s a b l e , i t i s n o t b e c a u s e of t h e e co n om i c services t h e y c o u l d r e n d e r b u t b e cause o f the moral infl uence they might have. What we s e e ab ove all i n the professional group i s a moral power able to restrain i n d i v i d u a l ego­ ism, m a i n t a i n i n t h e hearts o f workers a livelier s e n t i m e n t o f t h e i r comm o n s o l i d a r i ty, a n d prevent t h e law o f t h e strongest fro m b e i n g a p p l i e d so b r u t al l y in i n d ustrial a n d c o m m e r c i a l relations.69 D u r k h e i m a d m i t t e d t h a t i t was d i ffi c u l t t o see how o cc u p a t i o n s " c o u l d ever b e elevated to t h e dignity of m o r a l p o w e r s . I n d e e d , t h e y are fo r m e d of i n d i v i d u a l s which n o t h i n g attaches to one a n o t h e r , who are even d i s p o s e d t o treat one a n o t h e r like rivals and e n e m i e s rather t h a n l i k e c o o p e ra t o r s . " 7 0 B u t h e nonetheless r e m a i n e d o p t i m i s t i c . I n h i s m i n d t h e p r o fessional group represented t h e "fu n c t i o n a l e q u ivalent" through whi ch there could be instituted what h e saw as t h e essence o f s o c i a l i s m . C o r p o r a t i s m w o u l d make s o c i a l i s m m o r e t h a n a b r e a d - a n d - b u t t e r i s s u e . It w o u l d r e s p o n d t o t h e s o c i a l i s t " a s p i r a t i o n for a rearrangem e n t o f the social structure, b y relocating the i n d ustrial set-up i n the totality of the social organism, d rawing it out o f the s h a d o w where it was fu n c t i o n ­ i n g a u t o m atically, s u m m o n i n g i t i n t o t h e l i g h t and t h e control o f t h e conscience [ o r c o n s c i o u s n e s s :

la comcience] . " T h r o u gh c o r p o r a t i s m t h e

s o c i a l q u e s t i o n w o u l d b e co m e , " n o t a q u e s t i o n o f m o n e y o r fo r ce , " b u t "a q u e s t i o n o f m o r a l agen ts . " 7 1 T h e conception o f D urkheim a s a m i l i t a n t n a t i o n a l i s t a n d " fi ery j i ngo" c a m e fro m his w a r t i m e p a m p h l e ts a n d a m i s c o n c e p t i o n of the n a t u r e o f his m o r e s e r i o u s t h o u g h t . 7 2 Whether o r not h i s p r o p a ga n d i s t i c p a m p h lets actually j u s ti fi ed these characterizations is d e b a t a b l e . In his c o n c e p t i o n of t h e s t a t e and the n a t i o n i n h i s m o r e s e r i o u s w o r k s , D u r k h e i m showed himself to be a l i b e r a l p a t r i o t who a p p l i e d t o t h e relations among states t h e same principles o f social solidarity th a t h e a p p l i e d to group relations i n t h e "normal" d o m e s t i c context. H e w a s attracted t o the ideal o f world gover n m e n t . But he fo und it so far d i s t a n t from t h e realm of fe a s i b i l i t y t h a t h e p r o p o s e d i n s t e a d a slightly l e s s u to p i a n g o a l of r e c o n c i l i n g h u -

210

J:rnile Durkheirn: Sociologist and Philosopher

mane values and n o r m a tive l i m i t s t o collective a s s e r t i o n w i t h t h e state s yste m . H i s i d e a l i s t i c expression of p a t r i o t i s m was close to the ideas of a Mazzini. I f e a c h s t a t e a d o p t e d as i t s e s s e n t i a l t a s k n o t t o grow or t o extend i t s fro n tiers but to deal with i ts own autonomy as best it c o u l d , t o c a l l to an ever greater m o ral l i fe t h e vast rn a j o r i t y o f i t s own m e m b e rs , then all c o n t r a d i c t i o n s b e tween n a t i o n a l and h u m a n m o r a l i t y w o u l d d i s a p p e ar. I f the state h a d n o fu r t h e r goal than t o make its citizens men i n t h e fu l l s e n s e o f the word, t h e n civic duties would be only a parti cular fo r m o f the general d u t i e s of h u m a n i t y . . . . This patriotism does not exclude all national p r i d e . Collective p e rsonalities, like individual personalities, c a n n o t exist w i t h o u t having a certain sentiment a b o u t themselves and what they are. And this s e n t i m e n t always has s o m e t h i n g p ersonal a b o u t i t . As long as states exist, there w i l l b e s o c i a l s e l f-esteem, and n o t h i n g i s m o r e legitimate. B u t societies c a n s e e t h e i r self-esteem, n o t i n b e i n g greater o r wealthier, b u t i n b e i n g m o r e j us t , b e t t e r organized, and in h a v i n g a b e t t e r m o ral c o n s t i t ut i o n . Needl ess to say, w e h ave not yet reached the time when this p a t r i o t i s m reigns s u p r e m e , if ever such a time can comeJ3 T h e s e elevated sentiments d i d not confr o n t problems r e l a t e d t o the vast disparities in power and wealth among existing states, and they fai led t o en­ gage colonial and imperialistic realities often encrypted i n idealistic rhetoric. And Durkheim d i d not live to s e e h i s ideals tested b y the harsh realities of Wo rld War I. Such considerations render even more diffi c u l t o f attainment the type of generous, humane patriotism Durkheim envisaged. What may one c o n c l u d e a b o u t D u rkhei m's p r o p o s e d refo r m s ? In one s e n s e , his c o r p o r a t i s t p r o p o sals required b a s i c , s t r u c t u r a l refo r m . T h e y e n j o i n e d social c o n t r o l of the e c o n o m y related, h owever vaguely, to dem­ o c r a t i c v a l u e s . In a d d i t i o n , t h e y i m p l i e d a qualitatively diffe r e n t form o f relationship a m o n g p e o p l e in modern society. B u t Durkheim's formulations remained entirely t h e o r e t i c a l . They were indeed vague and, fo r this very reason, o p e n to c o n fl i c t i n g i n terpretations and divergent a p p r o p r i a t i o n s . His c o n c e p t i o n o f p o l i ti c s w a s oft e n excessively h i g h - m i n d e d a n d i m p rac­ tical. His hatred o f the " p o l i t i cal kitchen" i n h i b i t e d a full understanding of p o l i t i c a l interests and an a t t e m p t to relate them cogently t o his own i d e a s .

Chapter

5

Theory and Practice

211

N o r c a n h i s reforms b e j u dged a d e q u a t e to the severe p r o b l e m s that h e a t l e a s t partially perceived. Moreover, D u rkheim o ffered no i n s i g h t i n t o t h e q u e s t i o n of m e a n s of realizing his p r o p o s e d refo r m s . T h i s w a s an especially disabling o mi s s i o n in a case where the means e m p l oyed w o u l d help to shape the envisaged end. D urk heim's a t t e m p t to relate theory and practice broke down a t the m o s t vital p o i n t . Although one m a y certainly d o u b t whether a n y intellectual or commentator arrived a t a b e t t e r articulation o f t h e s e diffi c ult i f no t intractable i s s u e s , one m a y n o n e theless q u e s t i o n t h e fas h i o n i n w h i c h D u rkheim's v i s i o n t e n d e d to s h a d e off i n t o a p i o u s h o p e a b o u t a n indeterminate fut u r e t h a t b o re little r e l a t i o n t o social realities o r their apparent deve l o p m e n t a l tendencies. At a crucial j u ncture of the argum e n t , o p t i m i s m took t h e place o f hard t h i n k i n g . Nor did Durkh e i m i n later life return t o the issues raised b y his reform proposals. Rather, h e i n creasingly devoted h i m s elf t o t h e investigation o f religion and t o the development of his own highly idealistic s o c i a l p h i l o s o phy.

The Individual and Society W h a t was D u rkheim's c o n c e p t i o n of the role of the i n d i v i d u a l in s o ­ c i e t y ? W h i c h type o f i n d i v i d u a l i s m d i d h e a t t a c k and which t y p e d i d h e defend? A n d h o w w e r e t h e s e q u e s t i o ns related to Durkhei m's k e y distinc­ t i o n b e tween social normality and pathology? The specific type o f individualism that Durkheim attacked w a s excessive individuation, or a t o m i s t i c , possessive individualism. p a t hogenic effects o f

Suicide analyzed t h e

de focto a n d i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d e g o i s m a n d t r a c e d i t s

r e l a t i o n t o anomie. D u rkheim s a w u t i l i tarianism as t h e i d e ological legiti­ ma tion o f extreme i n d i v i d u a l i s m . One function o f c o m p arative s t u d i e s and " c r u c i a l experi m e n t s , " h e thought, w a s t o p r o v i d e the p e r s p ective that permitted h i m to argue t h a t utilitarianism (and other variants of atomistic i n d i v i d u a l i s m ) a t t e m p t e d to transfo r m a transitional aberration i n t o a universal moral and c u l t u r a l t r u t h . F o r D u r k h e i m , u t i l i tarianism was "contradicted by everything which h i s t o r y and c o mparative ethnography teach us a b o u t the moral l i fe of h u m anity."7 4 Essential to D u rkheim's own p o s i t i o n was a basic model of the h u m a n b e i n g . As noted earli er, at times t h i s m o d e l was d u b i o usly gendered, w i t h

212

J:rnile Durkheirn: Sociologist and Philosopher

m e n more creatures of limitless desire and women, less involved in deregu­ lated areas o f social activity and closer to a p utative organic e q u i l i b r i u m of need and desire. Moreover, there was a sense i n which, for Durkheim and others at the time, gender and sexuality were so closely m a p p e d onto, o r even identified with, one another t h a t homosexuality could not arise as an explicit q u e s t i o n . Indeed t h e interest in general models o f the human being or the sometimes obsessive concern with the abstract problem of the individual a n d society readily diverted attention fro m more concrete, confl ictual, and ethicopoliti cally fraught issues i n society and culture. Still, the merit of Durkhei m's views was t o i n d i cate that a critique of normalization (or the conflation of the normative with t h e statistically average o r dominant) did not e l i m i n a t e b u t rather called for an attempt to work out an alternative normativity, at times including normativities with which Durkheim might not agree (for example, one that did not exclude o r render abject b u t , on the contrary, legitimated non-heterosexual practices). Durkheim con ceived of the h u m an being in the "state of nature" as an isolated individual outside all society. This conception reduced the individual t o his or her organic a n d psychophysical givens. The psychological capacity of the individual in the "state o f nature" was limited to sensation. B u t needs were limited as well by organic functioning and instinct. T h e role of society and symbolism i n h u m a n life depended, i n the most general sense, o n whether social structure assumed normal o r pathological fo rm. At this p o i n t , D urkheim's sociology and his value theory were u n i t e d . Central t o b o t h was t h e instit utionalized norm o r value enshrined in t h e

conscience collecti ve. The conscience collective b e c a m e D u rkhei m's analogue fo r Kant's practical reason and Rousseau's volonte genera/e. Social structure and conscience collective were aspects o f the s a m e reali ty. In the "normal" state of society, institu tionalized norms and values would b e b o th obj ectively structured (like "things") and subj ectively internalized. In their objective aspect, institutions were characterized by exteriority and constraint. In the "normal" state of society, however, constraint was i d e n t i cal with obligation, duty, and a sense of responsibility. It was related to the sense of legitimate l i m i ts and

mesure, which fo r Durkheim was essential fo r all

morality and solidarity in society. This role of institut ional norms was well expressed in a statement Durkheim quoted from Roussea u's

Emile: "If the

laws of societies, like those of nature, b e came so inflexible that no h u m a n

Chapter

5

Theory and Practice

2 13

force could ever b e n d them, dependence u p o n men would b e c o m e depen­ dence upon things l " 7 5 In his

Moral Educatio n, Durkheim expressed i n his

own way the meaning o f the "thinglike" quality of i n h i b i ti o n s imposed b y institutions a n d internalized n o r m s i n t h e "normal" state o f society: "When a man with a healthy moral constitution tries to c o m m i t an act which mo­ rality blames, h e feels something which stops him just as if he tried t o p i c k u p a r o c k w h i c h i s too heavy for h i m . " 7 6 Thus, i n t h i s naturalizing analogy, t h e moral i n h i b i t i o n s created b y institutional norms would b e

as

weighty

as rocks i n the personality. E x t e r i o r i t y a n d c o n s t r a i n t as c r i t e r i a o f i n s t i t u t i o n a l n o r m s were stressed b y Durkheim i n his early thought. H e c a m e t o see in t i m e that in the "normal" o r n o rmatively legitimated state of s o c i e t y t h ese aspects of i n s t i t u t i o n s would be combined with their d e s i r a b i l i ty. I n t h e p reface to the s e c o n d e d i t i o n o f

The Rules of Sociological Method, h e o b s erved:

" I n s t i t u t i o n s may i m p o s e themselves u p o n us, b u t we are attached to them; they put us under obligations, and w e love them; they constrain us, and we fi n d our welfare i n their func t i o n i n g and their very constraint. Moralists have often p o i nted out t h i s a n t i t h e s i s between t h e t w o concepts of 'the g o o d ' and 'duty' which p resent t h e two d i ffe r e n t and equally real aspects of moral life. "77 T h e desirability o f i n s t i t u t i o n s w a s dependent o n their provision of viable ways a n d means of realizing values. Ideals fo rmed the soul o f legiti­ mate i n s t i t u t i o n s . And such works as

Moral Education made explicit the

relationship between the desirability of i n s t i t u t i o n s and the existence of c o m m u n a l groups. T h r o u g h c o m m u n a l life, i n s t i t u t i o n alized activity ap­ proached the i d e a l and t o o k on overtones of s p o n t a n e i t y and charismatic elan. I n a sense, the d e s i r a b i l i ty o f i n s t i t u t i o n s w a s t o c o m m u n i t y as oblig­ atory constraint was to differentiation and a sense o f legitimate l i m i t s . In the "normal" s t a t e of society, there was no fatal antagonism, although there might well be possibly creative tension, b e tween society and the in­ d i v i d u a l . W i th reference to the relation between i n s t i t u t i onal n o r m a n d organic n e e d , Durkheim argued t h a t discipline w a s " t h e means b y which nature normally realizes itself and not the means o f reducing or destroy­ ing i t . "78This non-ascetic i d e a m i tigated the antipathy b e tween mind and body

(homo duplex). More generally, Durkheim argued that there was no

"total antagonism which m a k e s t o t a l o r p a r t i a l abdication of his own nature

214

Emile Durkheirn: Sociologist and Philosopher

the price o f an individual's attachment to society. " On t h e contrary, "the individual i s truly himself and able t o realize his own nature only i f h e at­ taches himself to society." The individual's need for normative limits and communal attachments was shown in D u rkheim's study o f suicide. Man was more prone to kill himself when he was "detached from all collectivities" and lived "more like an ego i s t . " 7 9 The nature of institutions in the normal state o f society was to com­ bine a constraining sense of n o r mative limits with an i n t ernalized sense of commitment. Their function was t o create m o r a l solidarity, which w a s , for Durkheim, as vital to the life of the individual as i t was to the ordering o f society. This notion of institutions in t h e normal state of society was implicit tn Durkhei m's assertion, which has often been quoted out o f c o n t e x t : Never has t h e qualification o f moral been a p p l i e d t o a n act which has fo r its o b j e c t only the interest of t h e individual or t h e p e r fec­ tion o f t h e individual u n d e rstood i n a p u rely egoistic m a n n e r. If t h e individual who I a m d o e s n o t constitute a n end which h a s i n itself a moral character, this is necessarily true also of individuals who are my equals and who d i ffer fro m me only in degree. From this o n e m a y conclude that, if there is a morality, i t can have as its o b j e ctive only th e group fo r m e d by a plurality of individuals, i . e . , society, under the condition t h a t society may b e considered as a p e rsonality qualitatively distinct from the individuals who compose i t . � 0 D u rkheim's m o d e o f expression was n o t devoid of ambiguity, a n d the ambiguity was related to social metaphysic. But the relation of this argument t o his theory of value can be clearly form ulated: Self-seeking, egoistic self­ perfection (including the pleasures of the s e l f ) , or slavish subservience to the particularistic interest o f another indivi dual, constituted aspects of social pathology. For Durkheim, legitimate moral regulati o n depended upon the existence of a

conscience collective that was logically distinct fro m a sum

of atomistic individuals in that it was formed b y a desirable structure of institutional norms and values. In the "pathological" state of s o c i e ty, t h e nature and fu nction of insti­ tutions changed, for they might be part o f t h e problem instead o f part of the s o l u t i o n . In the pathological state, the social status quo distorted the instinctual balance o f the "state of nature" and added newer dislocations of

Chapter

5

Theory and Practice

2 I5

its own. Anomie, especially in certain extremely deregulated areas of society (such as modern economic life or international relations), converted culture i n t o a lever for an infinite well of organic or more sublimated responses that knew no limits. Man was prey to unlimited desire or t o the hunger fo r power over others. Will, the spiritualized passion, was like desire in that i t became unhinged when it was detached from rational commitment to limiting norms. The concept of anomie confined to a specific sociologi­ cal context the "state of nature" in H o b b es's sense: man was a wolf to his neighbor because of the distrust and dislocation engendered by the absence of substantively limiting norms. Anomie also revealed the way in which the Freudian i d (as Freud realized) was not a purely organic fo rce but instead a l i m i n a l , hybridized l o c u s of drives i m p e l l i n g an o rganism d i s o riented by a certain state of s o c i e t y and culture. One prominent aspect o f social p athology was (to use the well-known phrase ofT. S. Eliot) a "dissociation of sensibility" - a dissociation which Durkheim's own narrowly analytic tendencies a t times replicated. The cru­ cial case of dissociation, which Durkheim transcended in his conception of social n o r m a l i ty, was that between constra i n t and w h a t was desirable in social life and in the personali ty. This dissociation might, fo r example, b e seen i n the anomie contradiction b e tween institutions and the cultural values or ideals which institutions were s u p p o s e d to e m b o dy. To the extent that institutions were h o uses o f constraint alone, they were alienating and o p p ressive. At most, they were obj ects o f ambivalent i n ternalization that led to compulsive performance by "hollow men" internally divided against themselves. Institutions that constrained w i t h o u t eliciting genuine c o m m i t­ ment were soulless; they helped to instigate anomie i d e a l i s m , neoromantic excess, and often misguided, even violent and putatively regenerative quests for

communitas in alienated segments o f society. The contrast b e tween constraint and desirability was i n certain ways

similar to Weber's o p p o s i t i o n between bureaucratization and charisma. Extreme b u reaucracy was a social form based upon constrai n i n g structu res dissociated from

communitas. And the maximization of structure typically fostered movements that tried to maximize communitas. Charismatic b reak­ through involved n o t only the heroic virtuosity of the individual leader - a trait which Web e r tended to overemphasize - b u t also the charismatic

communitas o f followers. Indeed, there was often a puzzling relationship

216

J:rnile Durkheirn: Sociologist and Philosopher

between anomie,

communitas, and individualism i n radical movements.

And the maximization o f communitas typically gave way, in history, to the "Thermidorian reaction" o f a maximization o f structure and constraint. As we have already n o t e d , the successful revol u tion - o r t h e s u ccessful social movement in general - according to Durkheim, was one that broke this tragic cycle b y integrating constraining structure and "desirable" communitas

in the same ongoing social system. Attempting to specifY his own vision of the i n t i m a t e bond between constraint a n d desirability in the normal state of s o c i e ty, Durkheim h i m ­ self referred to H o b b e s and Sp encer. H o b b e s , recognizing the a n o m i e and destructive nature o f dissociated spontanei ty, had b e c o m e the theorist of i m p erative order and pure constraint. Rej e c t i n g a d e s p otic order based on constraint alone, the u t i l i t arians and classical economists had come fo rth as the theorists o f spontanei ty, often presenting "all collective discipline as a s o r t of more or less tyrannical m i l i t a r i s m . " They fai l e d to s e e that "in reali ty, when discipline is normal, when i t is everything it ought to be, i t is entirely different. I t is b o th the s u m m i n g u p and t h e c o n d i t i o n o f all c o m m o n l i fe , w h i c h m e a n s as m u c h in t h e hearts o f in dividuals as t h e i r own lives . " 8 1 Theorists l i k e H o b b e s a n d Spencer o p t e d for o n e horn o f a dilemma. B u t the p r o b l e m of legitimate social order could b e resolved only b y eliminating the dilemma itself. These words "constraint" and " s p o n t a n e i ty" do not have in o u r terminology t h e meaning w h i c h Hobbes gives t o the fo rmer and Spencer to the latter . . . . The principle we expound would create a sociology which sees in the spirit of discipline the essential condition of all common life, w h i l e a t the same t i m e founding i t o n reason and o n truth.R2 Durkhei m's mature thought itself provided the t h e o retical tools to situate and transcend the controversy t h a t earlier had divided Gabriel Tarde and himself. Earli er, Durkheim seemed t o champion p u r e constraint and formal obligation. Wo rking within the same over-all frame of reference, Tarde i n equally one-sided fash i o n espoused t h e cause o f inner s p o n taneity a n d the exceptional individual. Durkheim seemed to be the official advocate o f the fo rmal, p u b l i c , external, "false" self, a n d Tarde the devil's advocate of the nonconformist, private, inner, daring s e l f, which in modern French cultural

Chapter

5

Theory and Practice

2 17

history h a d usually b e e n taken as the "real" self and the untouchable core of the personality. Both, i n effect, had seized upon one dissociated element of society and t h e personality in one type of social pathology. This context did seem t o posit a total antipathy between society and t h e individual in the fo rm of an o p p o s i t i o n between mass conformity a n d i n d i v i d u a l affir­ mation i f not transgress i o n . But, in Durkheim's later conception o f social normality, this d i c h o t o m y would be e l i m i n a t e d . G e n u i n e c o m m i t m e n t would replace m a s s conformi ty. And, except i n the case of certain truly exceptional individuals, t h e antagonism between self and society would b e reduced t o marginal p r o p o rtions and perhaps assume more creative mean­ ing for all concerned. I t has already been observed that D u rkheim's concepts of social normality and pathology did not go far beyond the p o i n t of tentative formulation. H i s notion of social p athology especially suffered from inadequate theoretical elaboration. A closer examination of Marx's thought - and o f Marx's own use of Saint-Simon - would have been most informative. For example, some distinction between pre-revolution ary, revolutionaty, and post-revolutionary periods seemed necessaty. Durk heim himself seemed to believe t h a t revo­ l u t i o n might b e inevitable when society found itself in a certain sort o f structural b i n d . Revolution itself, he thought, was effective in i t s elimination of certain vestiges of an old order, valuable i n the genesis of social ideals, and generally unsuccessful i n the realization of i d e als in a new institutional order. Revo lution appeared to b e on the b o rderline b etween social patho logy and normali ty. Modern society - and especially his own France - seemed for Durkheim to represent a post-revolutionary context that suffe red from an afterbirth of disorientation and runaway change. Its pathology was in some ways post-revolutionary. And this seemed to imply that i n modern society violence would generally be self-defeating and that a different type o f social action was mandatory. But precisely how these i d eas related to his conception of normality and pathology and to other aspects of modern society - e.g., i ndustrialization - remained u n clear. Let us return to Durkhei m's i d e a of the r e l a t i o n of t h e individual to socie ty. At times D u rkheim was led b y b o th mechanistic dualism and an emergent s o c i a l mystique to present a dissociated n o t i o n of the "whole man" as a mere c o m p o s i t e of the organic and the social self. This tendency was apparent in such i m p o r t a n t articles a s "Representations individu elles

218

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

et representations collectives" ("Individual Representations and Collec­ tive Representatio n s , " 1 8 9 8 ) and " L e Dualisme de la nature humaine et ses conditions sociales" ("The D u a l i s m of Human Nature and Its Social Conditions," 1 9 1 4) . At other times, the m o r e dialectical o r relational aspect o f his thought - while maintaining a primary e m p hasis u p o n collective norms and shared symbols - led to a more complex conception o f the individual t h a t resisted reducing h i m o r h e r to a mechanical c o m b i n a t i o n o f a b o d i l y organism and a s o c i a l self. T h i s allowed D u r k h e i m t o provi d e fur t h e r insight i n t o t h e q u e s t i o n o f t h e individual i n various types and states of s o c i e ty. At all t i m e s , t h e individual had a

de facto cultural status that derived

u l t i m a tely fro m o n tological and epistemological s o u rces. " F rom the t i m e there is consciousness, there i s a s u b j e c t w h o con ceives himself a s d i s t i n c t fro m a l l that i s n o t himself - a s u b j e c t who says ' 1 . "' 8 3 T h e pathological state of society carried t h e inevitable degree of existential tension between the individual and society to unnecessary historical proportions. I n contrast, the normal state of society maintained the degree of existential tension that corresponded to the margin of anomie indeterminacy in the social s t r u c t u r e . But i t c o m p l e m e n t e d a n d s u p p l e m ented this w i t h fo unding social structures on consent. As early as

Th e Division ofLabor, Our kheim

h a d asserted that "social life is spontaneous wh erever i t is normal, and i f i t i s a b n o r m a l i t c a n n o t last."8 4 Consent, h o wever, was not i d e n tical w i t h a s u m of ad hoc a c t s of i n d i v i d u a l w i l l . I t s p r i m a r y o b j e c t was a

conscience

collective combining l i m i t i n g norms and c o m m u n a l values essential fo r moral solidarity in s o ci ety. A s p e c i fi c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of m o d er n s o c i e t y was t h a t t h e

conscz ence

collective itself in certain ways institut ionalized individualism as well as a n o m i e . This b e c a m e pathogenic w h e n it reached the extreme of a t o m i s t i c individualism and r u n away, unchecked excess. B u t there was a v a l i d c o r e in modern l i b e r a l i s m . It was embodied in t h e i d e a of personal dignity a n d individual r i g h t s . " H u m a n p e r s onality is a sacred t h i n g ; w e do not dare violate it and hold o u rselves at a distance fro m the sanctuary of the person; at the same time, the good par excellence is communion with another."85 The basic goal o f Durkheim's corporatism was t o establish a n o r m ative triangle of c o m m u n i ty, individual rights, and state regulation under the general guidance of universal, h u m a n e values.

Chapter

5

Theory and Practice

2 19

Durkheim even furnished a rudimentary theory of the genesis of various types of relationship between the individual and s o c i e ty. I n The

Division

ofLabor, h e made reference to the "indetermination o f the conscience col­ lective" i n m o d e r n soci ety. I n "primitive" societies, norms often had a ritual articulation that directly structured concrete events. Durkheim's conception of "primitive simplici ty," however, was itself s o m e w h a t s i m p l i s t i c : "The very s i m p l i c i t y of moral practices makes them take the h a b i t u a l form of automatism and, in these circumstances, automatism s u ffi ces. Since social life is always the s a m e and differs little over space and t i m e , unselfcon­ scious habit and tradition cover almost everything." Tradition m i g h t h ave a prestige and a u t h o r i t y t h a t left little r o o m fo r reasoning and i n q u i ry. As s o c i e t i e s b e c a m e m o re c o m p l e x , i t was "more diffi c u l t for m o ra l i t y to fu n c­ t i o n through a purely automatic m e c h a n i s m . " In highly complex modern societies, circumstances w e r e never identical, and norms had a conceptual s t r u c t u r e t h a t required the exercise o f j u dgment i n their application t o c o n c r e t e cases and events. Mo reover, s o c i e t y was i n " p e r p e t u a l evo l u t i o n . " T h i s i m p l i e d t h a t m o r a l i ty h a d to b e "supple enough to b e transformed when i t b e c a m e n e c essary. " T h e distance between c o n ceptual norm a n d concrete event created a n i n terval o f indeterminacy i n moral life which necessitated refl ection, personal r e s p o n s i b i l i ty, i n i ti a t i v e , a n d choice in individuals. When anomie i n d e t e r m inacy was extreme, t h e "desire to get ahead" might expose the individual t o "exci t a t i o n beyond all measure until h e knows practically n o l i m i t s . " 86 When Durkheim spoke of the need fo r t h e "ritual attitude" of sacred respect in modern society, he seemed to believe that the object o f this attitude would b e norms and values autonomously accepted as legitimate. D u rkheim did not envision a concrete ritualization o f modern life, except, perhaps, i n periodic ritual contexts (whose nature h e d i d n o t really spe cify) . Moreover, he argued that criticism w o u l d b e b o t h necessary a n d functional in a highly complex social order. "The sacred character of morality ought n o t protect it from criticism as it d i d i n t h e case o f r e l i gi o n . " 8 7 C o n s t ructive criticism would no t impair basic commitments insofa r as they were rationally j u stifi­ able. Indeed, it might serve as a "feed-b ack" mechanis m i n the application of norms to concrete cases. With reference to one of Saint-Simon's disciples, Durkheim observed: "What escaped Bazard i s that the further one advances i n history, the more one sees the traits of the critical period prolonged i n t o

220

J:rnile Durkheirn: Sociologist and Philosopher

the organic p e r i o d . In fact, the m o r e cultivated a p e o p l e , the less does the dogma that unifi es it b a r free examinati o n . Reflection, criticism exist next t o faith, pierce that very faith without destroying it, and occupy an always larger place in i t . " 8 8 The individual rights defended b y Durkheim included private property as a material basis o f moral autonomy. This individual liberty which is so dear to us s u p poses n o t only the faculty to go about as we please; it implies the existence of a circle of thi ngs which we may dispose o f as we will. Individualism would only be a word if w e d i d not have a material sphere o f action in which we exercise a sort o f soverei gnty. When one says that individual property i s a sacred thing, one only states in symbolic fo rm an i n d u b i table moral axiom; for individual p r o p erty is the material condition of the cult of the individual.89 Durkheim related these ideas t o t h e notion that legitimate property in modern society was i n c reasingly the property acquired b y t h e individual through h i s own effo r t rather than through inheritance. He did not draw the seemingly obvious i n ference that a certain m i n i m u m o f property was necessary fo r all individuals i n a society based upon individual l i b e r t y and increasing equality of o p p o r t u n i ty. He d i d have a conception of a ceiling on p r o p e rty, but i t was quite moralistic. He interpreted t h e labor theory of value as a concept of d istribu tive justice that required that individuals be rec­ ompensed according to their social contributions. In this sense, distributive j ustice might require stratification because o f the value system i n terms of which functions and contributions were appraised. B u t counterbalancing this idea was that of the norm of c o m m u n i ty, which required a certain equalization of rewards. The concepts of distributive j ustice relative to d i f­ fe rentiated fu nctions and of equality b ased on co m m unal values were a m o n g t h e bases fo r D urkhei m's distinction between socialism and communism i n

Socialism. T h e i d e a t h a t Durkheim leaned m o r e toward communism than toward socialism (which h e did not define in egalitarian terms) is in part j ustified by his apparent conception of community as a higher principle that b o t h mitigated the "ha rshness" of distribu tive j ustice a n d represented its l i m i t i n g ideal in a "healthy" s o c i e ty. In a s t a te m e n t which was entirely in keeping with his growing emp hasis on the i m p ortance of community in

Chapter

5

Theory and Practice

22 1

all "normal" societies, he observed: "Charity [in the b i b l i c a l sense] is the feeling of h u m a n sympathy freeing i tself fro m the l a s t inegalitarian con­ siderations and effacing o r denying t h e particular merit of this final form of heredity transmission - the transmission of mental cap aci ty. It is thus only the apogee of j u s t i c e . " 9 0 Durkheim's n o t i o n o f t h e role of the individual i n society also recognized aesthetic considerations. The response of the individual to shared norms and values might involve imaginative creativity and uncommon sensitivity ab ove and beyond the call of d u ty. Indeed, i n a of t h e French

mot i n the epigrammatic tradition

moralistes, Durkheim asserted: "There are virtues which are

acts of madness, and i t is their madness which constitutes t h e i r gran deur."9 1 His central p o i n t here as elsewhere, h owever, was t h a t t h e d a i l y bread of moral life was to be found in social practices and institutional norms in the broadest sense. These deserved first-order attention before a discussion of s u b j ective variations made sense. In a word, we do not s u p p o r t the exclusive thesis t h a t moral life has no individual aspect b u t that the social aspect is the principal part and that one m u s t fi r s t investigate i t if one wishes to know what the individual aspect consists of. I t is n o t a q u e s t i o n of denying one of the two points o f view fo r the b e n e fi t o f the other, b u t of reversing the order of p r i o r i ty ordinarily recognized b e tween them.92 T h u s , from Durkheim's perspective, the essential rationale fo r i n dividual resistance t o social pressure was n o t individual opinion or self -assertion. It was inf armed j u dgment that contrasted the existing state of society to the way society ought to be. The very principle of rebellion i s the same a s t h e principle o f con­ fo rmism. An individual conforms to the true nature of society when h e obeys traditional morality. And he conforms to the true nature of society when he rebels against this morality . . . . In the moral realm as i n all other realms of nature, the reason o f the individual is n o t privileged b e cause i t i s t h e reason o f t h e individual. T h e only reason fo r which one may legitimately, here as elsewhere, claim the right to intervene and to elevate oneself above historical moral reality in order to reform i t is not m y reason or y o u r s ; it is impersonal, human reason, which i s truly realized only i n science . . . . What I oppose to

J:rnile Durkheirn: Sociologist and Philosopher

222

the collectivity is t h e collectivity itself; b u t more and better conscious of i tselL 93 In the context of Durkh eim's concepts of normality and pathology, the idea expressed somewhat a m b i g u o usly in t h e quoted passage can be more clearly formulated: The individual had the right and duty to oppose a patho­ logical state of s o c i e ty. But h e or she d i d this, n o t in his o r her own interest, but i n the interest o f furthering the emergence of a normal or desirable state of socie ty. D urkheim's extreme mode of affirmation at times seemed to deny that there was any s u bjectivity or even individual agency i n this action, even in t h e making of a committed decisi o n . B u t his essential purpose was to deny t h a t there was a purely "perspectiva l , " decisionist, or subjectivist position in m o r a l i ty. Instead, he affirmed m o rality t o b e scientific, i n t h e sense that i t involved rational argument about obj e c tive considerations. Nowhere else did Durkheim come closer to a sociological reformulation of the i d e a of natural law. He contended that, at the very least, one could reason a b o u t value j udgments and t h a t a sociol ogical conception o f the p r o b l e m gave content to t h e reaso n i n g process. Essential to morality was t h e c o n s e nsually accepted norm and value that created solidarity in society. One's awareness of the validity o f the "normal" state endowed moral action with an overriding goal - the creation or maintenance o f social "normali ty. " One dimension o f D urkheim's conception of the relation b e tween society and the i n dividual deserves special mention. In time, Durkheim provided so m e i n s ight i n t o the problem of psych o p a t h o l ogy. I n h is early t h o u g h t , h i s desire t o establish a methodo logically autonomous fo u n d a t i o n fo r sociology led him to emphasize the distinctions between sociology and psycholo gy. Later, h e broached the problem of social psychology. H e also touched at least peripherally o n the problem of the relation between normality and p a t h ology in society and the personali ty. In

The Rules and elsewhere, Durkheim observed t h a t social no rmality

and psychological n o r m ality were not identical concepts.94 Social normal­ i t y and pathology were related to t h e nature and fu nctioning of social structures. Psychological normality was a type o f social conformi ty, and psychopathology amounted to a type o f social deviance. The normal society would contain a marginal number of psych o p a thological individuals, j ust as i t would contain a marginal number of other types o f "deviants" (includ-

Chapter

ing idealists and creative exceptions as well

5 as

Theory and Practice

223

criminals). 11 a pathological

state of society, the extreme structural faults in t h e organization o f social life would give rise to a distorted rate o f psychopathology. il Vol ume I V of the An nee sociologique, Durkheim u s e d the title "Mad­

ness as a Social Fact." In a book review, he argued t h a t "social states are reflected in mental alienation" and o b served that rates o f psychopathology varied with social context.95 As might b e expected, Durkheim was more suggestive on the level o f s tructural causation t h a n h e w a s on that o f psy­ chological descrip t i o n or analysis. Nor did he investigate the shifts i n the very meaning of psychopathological phenomena w i t h changing sociocultural states and contexts in the richly suggestive manner of Michel Foucault.96 B u t h e d i d see t h e p o s s i b i l ity of a study which would t r e a t madness in t h e same manner i n which h e h a d treated suicide. I n

Suicide i tself, Durkheim

discussed the psychological manifestations o f anomie anxiety and egoistic withdrawal. In examining the psychology of egoism, h e underscored the possibility o f a schizoid split between inner and outer reali ty. I n turning away from t h e external world, consciousness folds i n u p o n itself, takes i t s e l f a s i t s own u n i q u e o b j e c t , a n d u n dertakes a s i t s p r i n c i p a l t a s k self- o b servation and self-analysis. B u t b y t h i s extreme concentration it merely deepens the chasm dividing it from the rest o f the u n i verse . . . . If it i n d i vidualizes i tself beyond a certain p o i n t , if i t separates itself t o o radi cally fro m other b eings, men o r things, i t fi nds itself u n a b l e t o communicate w i t h t h e very source o f its normal nourishment and n o longer has anything to which i t can apply itself. I t creates nothi ngness within b y creating i t w i t h o u t , and has n o t h i n g left to refl ect b ut its own misery. I t s only remaining o b j e c t of thought is i ts i n n e r n o t h i n gness and t h e r e s u l t i n g melanch oly.97 Hence a certain type o f narcissism eventuated in melancholic isolation or, at the limit, nihilism. O n e conclusion that Durkheim himself did not draw was that the concept of psych o p a thol ogy w a s methodologically easier to apply b u t p h i l o s o p h i cally more d u b i o u s t h a n h i s own c o n c e p t o f s o c i a l pathology. 98 As a form of social deviance, psycho pathology often s e e m e d to b e readily d e t e c t a b l e . B u t i t s relation to other i s s u e s , such as c r i m i n a l responsibility, m i g h t b e p r o b l e m a t i c , a n d i t s very availability made tempting an identification of all unusual phenomena as psychologically aberrant. The

224

Emile Durkheirn: Sociologist and Philosopher

notion of social pathology was more d i fli cult to define. This difficulty, as well as i d e ological reasons, m a y explain the ill r e p u t e o f the concept among social scientists in contrast with the b e t t e r fo rtune of psychopathology. Ye t from a philosophical viewpoint, Durkheim's concept of social pathology had a stronger critical basis and was, in a sense, logically prior. From Durkheim's perspective, it w o u l d seem that the normal person would have to b e con­ ceived normatively with reference to the normal society. He or she would b e the person who lived i n accordance with m e a n i ngfu l, legitimate norms, applying them with the requisite flexibility and harboring w i t h i n him- or herself a marginal leaven of anomie. He or she would b e a "conformist" in a very special sense of the term. And even in the normal state o f society, t h e ideo logical "deviant" would n o t b e unequivocally in the wrong. I n fact, Durkheim seemed to attribute a greater causal importance to the exceptional individual in the normal state of soci ety, fo r in this context individual hybris w o u l d correspond to the element of possibly creative a n o m i e i n experience. And it would bear a more positive relation to society as a whole: it would evoke a shared sense of the possible or, conceivably, t h e tragic which ritual a n d other symbolic fo rms would simultaneously heighten and m i tigate. T h e right kind o f social integration would itself help save the creative exception from extreme psychopathology. In the pathological state o f soci ety, the unquestioning conformist might retain some semblance o f mental balance at the price of f urthering disin­ tegrating fo rces i n society a t large. The person w i t h a psychopathological adaptation might be more o r less off course than the conforming sociopath: h e o r she might experience i n exaggerated fo rm the causes of anxiety in society or reveal i n o b l i q u e and distorted fashion the symbolic bases o f social normality missing i n t h e status q u o . (Thus o n e might suggest that the schizophrenic lived in limiting fo rm the dualism b etween inner self a n d outer reality; the comp ulsive neurotic performed rituals which had lost their way.) Durkheim never gave t o his own conception o f social psychol­ ogy and its relation t o the individual a truly c o n v i n c i n g fo rm u l a t i o n , a n d I have extended h i s thought i n a certain direction. Despite t h e dangers o f over-interpretation, i t m i g h t n o t b e stretching h i s thought t o o far t o see i t a s tending toward a cultural conception o f psychopathology t h a t provided the basis fo r a critique of the very concept of "mental illness." For within the framework o f h i s thought, the very category o f mental illness might well

Chapter

5

Theory and Practice

225

appear as a defensive response t o disconcerting and dangerous phenomena i n a formally rational, bureaucratized society which had good institutional reasons to fear fo r i t s own social sani ty. In this sense, a different apprecia­ tion of certain phenomena would itself require their limited status and their insertion i n t o a significantly d i fferent sociocultural context.99 The central point is t h a t D u r kheim's idea o f the relation of sociology to moral philosophy was based upon the coordinate axes o f his thought: the tree of social life and the concepts of normality and pathology. The distin ctive task of the c o m p arative m e t h o d was to arrive at types that did n o t go to m u t ually reinfarcing extremes: the nominalism of traditional historiography and the extreme realism and q u e s t for universals of traditional philosophy. Toward t h e e n d o f h is life, h owever, Durkheim t u r n e d t o t h e concern w i t h h u m a n nature t h a t characterized traditional philosophy. T h i s concern was central to his

Elementary Forms. From D urkhei m 's sociological and cultural

perspective, the concept of human nature could be reformulated: " h u m a n nature" referred t o t h e possibilities o f symb o l i c experience corresp onding to the trunk o f the tree o f social lif e. These possibilities could take normal o r pathol ogical fo r m . I n t h e m o s t general terms, what characterized t h e normal society? First and forem o s t , i t was based upon a

conscience collective that embodied a

tense balance of i n s t i t u t i onal norms and cultural symbols. The core of the

conscience collectivewas a variant of practi cal reason which D urkheim termed !a morale, or t h e collective type. In their application t o concrete events by average individuals, the norms and values o f the conscience collective suffered a "falling off" fro m ideal p e rfe c t i o n . To ask more of ordinary social life would be to fall prey to anomie i d e alism, fanatically d emanding p erfection from all people at all times. But to revitalize social life and t o remind members of society i n a dramatically forceful way of their obligation to show sacred respect fo r shared values, special "ritual" activities were n e cessary. In ritual, the

conscience collective was perform atively expressed and regenerated in

i n t e n se a n d purified fo rms t h a t transcended t h e i n evitable compromi ses of everyday life. And through ritual,

communitas w o u l d be instituti onally

realized and controlled. The normal society would also contain a dynamic leaven of a n o m i e - including more anomie displays o f communitas. B u t anomie would b e limited t o a marginal aspect o f t h e average personality and to marginal or liminal groups in society. Either extreme o f the bell-shaped

226

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

curve of moral practice w o u l d reveal marginal categories of culture-bearing idealists (or perfecti o n i s t deviants) at one end and of criminal deviants at the o ther. I n the n o r m a l society, deviants presenting ideological challenges to the existing order m i g h t attain ritual status and, invested with ambivalent sacred values, become the objects o f dangerous fascination. The fu nction of the

conscience collective in t h e normal state o f society was t o s t r i k e a viable b alance between structure and communitas the -

dual b ases o f solidarity in s o c iety. Objective and internalized at the same t i m e , the

conscience collective w o u l d create a meani ngful sense of legitimate

l i m i t s . "All l i fe . . . i s a complex e q u i l i b r i u m whose diverse elements l i m i t one ano ther, and t h i s e q u i l i b r i u m c a n n o t b e broken w ithout suffering and sickness." 10° C o m m o n to the b i o l ogical organism and society was a structure whose normal fu nctioning depended on a dynamic e q u i l i b r i u m o f m u t u ­ ally limiting parts. T h e elementary postulate of Durkheim's p h i l o s o p h y was the finite nature of all lif e. Indeed, one interesting aspect of his naturalistic metaphors represen ting his understanding o f society w a s the mediation of the dualism between nature and society, matter and mind, which another t e n dency o f his thought affi r m e d in extreme fo r m . One may detect here a cosmological undercurrent that was m o r e expansive than his social meta­ physic. M oreover, D u rkheim in time became sensitive to the dangers of excessive formal rationality and constraint as principles of social l i fe; t h i s sensitivity c o i n c i d e d w i t h h i s growing awareness of the n e e d for significant c o m m u n i t y in all society and h i s sense of t h e i m p o rtance of the content of norms and values. One of h i s criticisms of Kant was of his predecesso r's fai lure to recognize that all human nature required l i m i tation, " o u r rational nature as well as our passionate nature." " O u r reason i s not a transcendental faculty. It is part of the world and, consequently, i t must follow the law of the world. The universe i s l i m i t e d , and all limitation presupposes forces which l i m i t . " 1 0 1 Hence D u rkheim socialized a finite conception of reason and brought it into sustained contact with social problems. In his early thought, D u rkheim saw little future fo r religion i n modern soci ety. With the expansion of his concept of reason, his view of the future of religion changed. H e came t o argue that a ritual attitude of sacred respect was at the r o o t of all commitments and that periodic, fe stive r i t u a l observances would b e necessary to revive and reinvigorate these commi tments. Hence the modern scientific and critical conscio usness seemed to require a newer defini-

Chapter

5

Theory and Practice

227

tion of the relationship b e tween faith and reason. For Durkheim, moreover, the basic nexus existed, not b e tween religion, the radically transcendent, and the categorical imperative, b u t b e tween religion, i deal yet this-worldly practices (including ritual), and communal spon taneity. The sacred did n o t serve primarily t o enforce t h e strictness o f obligations; i t seemed t o enable one to overcome a sense of compulsion by making social norms desirable and even giving people a feeling of being at home in t h e world. " I t is far fro m t r u e t h a t t h e notion of t h e imp erative i s t h e t r u e characteristic of t h e religious side of morality. O n the con trary, one could show that the more a morality i s essentially religious, the more the idea o f obligation i s effaced . " 1 02 Here Durkheim did relate religion to the overcomi ng, o r a t least the mitigation, of tragic antipathies in human existence. With the idea o f t h e potential of community and the sacred in modern socie ty, D u rkheim at least partially re-evaluated the nature o f myth and its relation to reas on. H e seemed to imply that, insofar as myth d i d not c o n ­ t r a d i c t t h e substantive r a t i o n a l i t y o f the

conscience collective, i t m i g h t well

serve to convey fo rms of understanding which complemented or s u p p l e ­ mented literal truth. There i s and there w i l l always b e a p l a c e i n s o c i a l l i fe for a form of t r u t h w h i c h w i l l perhaps express itself in secular fo r m b u t which will, despite everything, have a mythological and religious fo undation. For a long t i m e t o c o m e , t h e r e w i l l b e t w o tendencies i n every society: a tendency toward objective a n d s c i e n t i fi c truth a n d a t e n d e n cy toward truth seen fro m the inside, or my thological t ru t h . 1 0 ·1 A problem with mythologies i n a state of social pathology was t h a t they often i n tensified unn ecessary contradictions and destructive forces that outraged reason instead o f compensating for its necessary defects. Liberated from rational con trol, myth and ritual gravitated toward irrationality and maniacal agitation, which might include a quest for regeneration through quasi-sacrifi cial violence. The basic goal of D u rkheim's thought was to retain rationality and the modern critical consciousness while opening society to repressed or avoided forms of h uman experience. The attempt to reconsider the sacred and assess its possible role in a revitalized modern society was one of the basic m o tivations of D u rkheim's masterpiece,

of the Religious Life.

The Elementmy Forms

228

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

Notes 1. 2.

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 1 0. 11. 1 2. 1 3. 1 4. 1 5. 1 6. 17. 18. 1 9. 20. 21. 22.

23.

Review of Gaston Richard, Le Socialisme et Ia science sociale, Revue phi­ losophique IV ( 1 8 9 7 ) , 20 1 . First given as a lecture course i n 1 8 9 5 - 1 8 9 6 , this study was published posthumously i n 1 92 8 as Le Socialisme (Paris: Alcan ) . An English trans­ lation by Charlotte Sattler has been published with an introduction by Alvin Gouldner: Socialism (New Yo rk: Collier Books, 1 96 2 ) . The first translation was under the title Socialism and Saint-Simon (Yellow Springs, Ohio: Antioch Press, 1 9 5 8 ) . References througho ut are to the Collier Books edition. Socialism, p. 4 0 . Ibid. , p . 4 1 . Ibid. , p. 1 4 2 . Ibid. , p . 1 44 . Ibid. , p. 1 24. " L a Sociologie en France au X!Xe siecle," Revue bleue, 4th series, X I I I ( 1 9 0 0 ) , 6 1 1 -6 1 2 . Ibid. , p. 6 1 2 . Socialism, p. 2 3 3 . Ibid. , p. 2 3 8 . !bid. , p . 2 4 5 . !bid. , p . 5 4 . !bid. , p p . 47-48. !bid. , p . 4 8 . Ibid. , p . 4 9 . Ibid. , p . 5 8 . Ibid. , p p . 5 9 - 6 0 . Ibid. , p . 5 8 . "Cours d e science sociale: Le�on d'ouverture , " Revue internationale de l'enseignement, XV ( 1 8 8 8 ) , 3 3 . Les Regles de Ia methode sociologique ( 1 5 t h e d . ; Paris: Presses U niversitaires de France, 1 96 3 ) , p. 1 3 2 . Les Formes elbnentaires de Ia vie religieuse (4th ed . ; Paris: Presses U niver­ sitaires de France, 1 96 0 ) , p. 5 . F o r an acco u n t o f t h i s discussion, s e e H . Stuart Hughes, The Obstructed Path (New Yo rk: Harper & Row, 1 96 8 ) , chap. i i . For the attitude of a contemporary historian, see Lucien Febvre, Combats pour l'h istoire (Par i s : C o l i n , 1 9 5 3 ) , pp. 422-423. S e e also Laurent Mucciolli, La Decouverte du

Chapter 5

Theory and Practice

229

social: naissance de Ia sociologie en Fr a nce (1 870- 1914) (Paris: Editions de Ia Decouverte, 1998).

24. 25.

"La Sociologie en France au XIXe siecle," p. 648. "La Science positive d e I a morale e n Allemagne ," Revue philosophique,

XXIV (1887), 282.

26.

"Introduction a I a sociologie de I a famille," Ann ales d e Ia Faculte de Lettres

27.

Regles de Ia methode sociologique, p. 110.

de Bordeaux, 1888, p. 262.

28.

La Sociologie e t son domaine scientifique" (first pub. 1900); in Armand Cuvillier, Oit v a Ia sociologiefranfaise? (Paris: Librairie Marcel Riviere, 1953 ), pp. 181-182. See also Emile Durkheim and P. Fauconnet, "Sociologie et sciences sociales," Revue philosophique, LV {1903), 481.

29.

"Sociologie et sciences sociales," p p. 486-487.

30.

1896-1897; in Kurt Wolff, ed., Essays onSociologyand Philosophy(firstpub. 1960; New York: Harper & Row, 1964), pp. 342-343.

31.

"Sociologie e t sciences sociales" (not the same article

as

the one written

with P. Fauconnet), in De Ia methode dans les s cience s (Paris: Alcan, 1909), pp. 281-282.

32. 33.

ibid., p. 280. Annie sociologique, I V {18991900), 124-125. For an excellent analysis of Durkheim's conception of the relation of history and sociology, see Rob­ ert N. Bellah, "Durkheim and History," in Robert A. Nisbet, ed., Emile

Durkheim (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1965), pp. 153-176.

3 4.

L'Evolution pedagogique en France, In trod b y Maurice Halbwachs (2 voIs.; Paris: Alcan, 1938).

35.

See Emile Our kheim, Sociologie et philosophie (Paris: Presses U niversitaires

36.

Bulletin de Ia Societe Franfaise de Philosophie, session of May 28, 1908

de France, 1963), pp. 42-43. (Paris: Colin, 1908), p. 230.

37.

Socialism, pp. 158-160.

38. 39.

"Introduction a Ia morale," Revue philosophique, LXXX IX (1920), 89.

40.

/_'Evolution pedagogique en France, l I, 199.

41. 42.

Ibid., pp. 95,124, 158-159. "La Sociologie et son domaine scientifique," pp. 189-190.

43.

L'Education morale (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1963 ) , p. 41.

44.

"Jugements de valeur et jugements de realite," in Sociologie et philosophie,

ibid.

p. 133. The essay was first given orally before the I n ternational Congress of Philosophy at Bologna and published in 1911 in the Revue de metaphysique

et de morale.

230 45. 46. 47.

48. 49. 50. 51.

52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. GO.

GI. 62. 63. 64. 65. GG. 67.

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist a12d Philosopher Sociologie etphilosophie, p p . 1 3 3 - 1 3 4 . Le�ons de sociologie (Paris: Presses Universitaires d e France, 1 9 50) , p. 78 (trans. under the tide Professional Ethics and Civic Morals) . Le Suicide (Paris: Presses U niversitaires de France, 1 96 0 ) , p. 447. One may note the similarity ofDurkheim's ideas to those ofTocgueville in his A12cie12 regime. Le Suicide, p . 437. Socialt"sm, p. 437. L e Suicide, p . 4 3 6 . Le�o12s de sociologie, pp. 2 5 0 - 2 5 1 . Durkheim saw i n inheritance a general characteristic that could be used for the objective classification of types of kinship. " I f one tries to distinguish and classifY different types of the family according to the literary descriptions of travelers and, at times, historians, one is in danger of confounding the most different types. I f, o n the con­ trary, one takes as the basis of classification the j uridical constitution of the family and especially the right of inheritance, one has an obj ective criterion which, without being infallible, nonetheless obviates many errors" (Regles de la methode sociologique, p . 4 5 ) . Educatio12 et sociologie (Paris: Alcan, 1 92 2 ) , p . 5 1 . "La Famille conjugale," Revue philosophique, XCI ( 1 9 2 1 ) , 1 0 . Le Suicide, p p . 427-42 8 . Preface to 2d ed., De L a Divisio12 du travail social (7th e d . ; Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1 96 0 ) , pp. ii-iii. Ibid. , p p . vii-viii. Ibid. , P · X. Ibid. Ibid. , p . xvi. " 1 t i s far fro m a fact that the corporation had retained i n the eighteenth century the beneficial effects it had in the Middle Ages. The line of demar­ cation between masters and workers was sharp . . . . Just as the bo urgeo is scorned the artisan, the latter scorned the worker who had no apprentice" (Socialr'sm, p. 1 03 ) . Divisio12 du travail social, pp. xvi, xi. Ibid. , p . xxix n . re Suicide, p . 437. !bid. , p . 439. Ibid. , p . 442. Le�ons de sociologie, p p . 1 08 ff. Mmztesquieu a 12 d Rousseau: Foreru1212ers ofSociology, trans. Ralph Manheim, Foreword by Henri Peyre (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1 96 0 ),

Chapter 5

68. 69. 70. 71. 72.

73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85.

Theory and Practice

23 I

pp. 22-23. Durkheim traced one line of French social thought leading fro m Montesquieu and Ro usseau through Saint-Simon and Comte to himself and his school. It is interesting to contrast this tradition with the less optimistic strand leading fro m Montesquieu through To cqueville and Comte to thinkers like Raymond Aro n . On To cqueville see my History and Reading: Tocquevifle, Foucault, French Studies (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2000), chap. 2 . Le Suicide, p . 449. Division du travail social, pp. xi-xii. Le Suicide, p . 43 8 . Socialism, p p . 6 1 , 6 2 , 247. George Simpson, lntrod. to Emile Durkheim, The Division of Labor in Society, trans. George Simpson (New Yo rk: Macmillan, 1 93 3 ) , p . xxvi i. See also the interpretation of George Catlin, In trod. to Emile Durkheim, The Rules of Sociological Method, trans. Sarah A . Solovay and John H . Mueller (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1 9 3 8 ) . Lerons de sociofogie, pp. 90-9 1 . An nie sociofogique, X ( 1 90 5 - 1 906) , 3 5 4 . Quoted i n Montesquieu and Rousseau, p . 8 8 . Education morale, p . 3 6 . Regfes de fa methode sociofogique, pp. xx-xx i, n . 2. Education morale, p . 4 4 . Ibid. , p . 5 8 . Sociologie et phifosophie, p. 5 2 . Lerons de sociologie, p . 3 6 . Regfes de fa methode sociofogique, p . 1 2 3 . Education morale, p . 8 3 . Division du travail social, p . 1 8 0 . Sociologie etphilosophie, p . 5 1 . Durkheim did not see how dignity was a goal of social action that could neither be simply assumed as a given nor postu­ lated in an unqualified manner. Events such as the First Wo rld War, not to mention later events such as the Holocaust, as well as "everyday" occurrences in the treatment of others, like child abuse and wife battering, make the simple assumption of dignity open to question. And the exclusionary use of dignity with respect to women and people of color, along with its role in denigrating nonhuman animals, render suspect any unqualified or abso­ lute affirmation of dignity. Moreover, one would have to inquire critically into the idealist functions of dignity to construe as inferior or even abject certain activities (such as sex) or parts of the body (what Mikhail Bakhtin referred to as "the lower body stratum") . And dignity would legitimately

232

86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92.

93. 94. 95. 96.

97. 98.

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher be contested as a value by t h e grotesque, t h e carnivalesque, and even t h e vulgar. Is there, fo r example, a genuinely fu nny joke that is dignifi ed? Education morale, p p . 4 5 , 1 2 9 , 42-43. Sociologie etphilosophie, p. 69. Socialism, p. 2 5 8 . Lefons de sociologie, p . 2 0 2 . Ibid. , p . 2 5 8 . Sociologie et philosophie, p. 1 2 5 . Review of Alfred Fouillee's Les Elbnents sociologiques de Ia morale, Gustave Belot's En quete d'une morale positive, and Adolphe Landry's Principes de morale rationnelle, i n An nee sociologique, X ( 1 90 5 - 1 906), 3 6 1 . Sociologie etphilosophie, pp. 9 5 - 9 6 . Regles de Ia methode sociologique, p . 6 6 . See also "Crime et sante sociale," Revue philosophique, XXX ( 1 8 9 5 ) , 5 2 3 . Review ofG . A . Duprat's Les Causes sociales de Ia folie, inAnnee sociologique, IV ( 1 899- 1 900), 475-476. See M i chel Foucault, L'Histoire de Ia folie a l'!ige classique (Paris: Pion, 1 9 6 1 ) and R. D. Laing, The Divided Self ( first pub. 1 9 60; Baltimore: Pengui n Books, 1 96 5 ) . Laing provides a sensitive phenomenological de­ scription of schizoid and schizophrenic dissociation of the personality i n response t o double b inds and a state o f " o n tological" insecuri ty. The most obvious deficiency i n Laing's thought is the absence of an adequate soci­ ological dimension both in explaining the genesis of psychopathological p henomena and in proposing reforms. Except for his investigation of the "schizophrenogenic" family, his conception of society is disappointingly vague. On the level of reform, Laing came to advocate what might be called a mind-blasting technique. He looked to the psycho pathological experience itself under controlled conditions as a deviant fo rce that can shake people loose from mad conformity in a pathological society. As a social solution, the dubiousness of this proposal is evident. In addition, the basically private or, at most, small-scale communal approach of Laing did not address itself to the problem of large-scale social transformation affecting major institutions. In o n e dimension of his complex account, Foucault was more relevant fo r a sociological and hi storical understanding of madness. On Foucault's h i story of madness, see my History and Reading: Tocqueville, Foucault, French Studies, chap. 3 . Le Suicide, pp. 3 1 4 -3 1 5 . Freud made a similar point. See h i s Civilization and Its Discontents, trans, J. Riviere (London: Hogarth Press , 1 9 5 3 ), pp. 1 4 1 - 1 42 : "If the evolution of civilization has such a far-reaching similarity with t h e develo pment of an

Chapter 5

Them·_y and Practice

233

individual, and if t h e same methods are emp loyed in both, would not the diagnosis be justified that many systems of civil i zation - o r epochs of i t - possibly even the whole o f humanity have become 'neurotic' under the pressure of the civilizing trends? To analytic dissection of these neuroses, therapeutic recommendations might fo llow which would claim a great practical i n terest . . . . The diagnosis of collective neurosis, moreover, will be confronted by a special difficulty. In the neurosis of an individual we can use as a starting point the contrast presented to us between the patient and his environment which we assume to be 'normal. ' No such backgro und as this would b e available for any society similarly affected; i t would have to be supplied in some other way. And with regard to any therapeutic application of our knowledge, what would b e the use of the most acute analysis of social neuroses, since no one possesses the power to compel t h e community to adopt the therapy? In spite of all these difficulties, we may expect that one day someone will venture upon this research into the pathology of civilized communities." The " b ackgro und" fo r the analysis of social pathology was, according to Durkheim, to be fo und in comparative studies and the inves­ tigation of the relation of conditions, institutional structures, and cultural values. One of the "uses" of this type of d i agnosis would be in furthering legitimate critique and practice, including the critical understanding of "mental illness" and of the role of those who do have the power or influence to enforce conformity in a significantly patho logical sociocul tural context. On the "therapeutic" level of social reform, Durkheim was less adequate and only intimated the potential and dangers of various forms of political action. For a sometimes simplistic development in a direction comparable to that of Durkheim but within the Freudian tradition, see the works of Erich Fromm, especially The Sane Society. 99. A similar in terpretation is applied to the tho ught o f Marcel Mauss by Claude Levi-Strauss in his very im portant i n troduction to Mauss's Sociologie et anthropologie (first pub. 1 9 5 0 ; Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1 9 6 8 ) , pp. xviii-xxii. Even Michel Foucault, in his early, excellent Maladie mentale et psychologie (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1 9 5 4 ) , com­ mits the error of identifying Durkhei m's concept of social pathology with psych opathology and mental i l lness ( p . 7 5 ) . Within the Amzee school, the problem of the relationship between social patho logy and psychopathology was explored by Maurice Halbwachs in les causes du suicide (Paris: Alcan, 1 9 3 0 ) . And the problem was a central concern in the work of Charles Blonde!. 1 00 . Education morale, p . 3 4 . 1 0 1 . Ibid. , p p . 9 5 - 9 6 .

234

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

1 02.

Sociologie et philosophie, p . 1 02. I 03 . Pragmatisme et sociologie, e d . and I n tro d . b y Armand Cuvillier (Paris: Li­ brairie P h i losophique J . Vri n , 1 9 5 5 ) , p. 1 84; reconstructed from students' notes fo r a course given in 1 9 1 3- 1 9 1 4.

6 The Sacred and Society

A seeking, a searching. To seek w h i t h e r ? To s e a r c h t h e l a n d , t o s e e k t h e origin, To seek out t h e base, to s e a r c h out t h e unknown, To s e e k out t h e atua [spiri t ] . May i t b e effe c t u a l . - A M a o r i diviner's s p e l l

By c o m m o n a c c o r d ,

The Elementa ry Forms of the Religious Lift i s

D u r kheim 's m o s t a m b i t i o u s w o r k . But c o n s e n s u s d i s i n tegrates i n t h e eval­ uation o f D urkheim's achievement. M o s t scholarly o p i n i o n falls s o m ewhere b e tween the two extremes represented b y the reactions of Robert Lowie and Tal c o t t Parsons. Lowie condemned D u rk h e i m with fain t praise: " W h i l e by no means i n clined to j o i n in the paeans of praise that have been intoned i n D u rkheim's hon or, I repeat t h a t h i s essay i s a n o t e w orthy m e n t a l exercise and would rank as a landmark if dialectic ingenuity s u ffi c e d t o achieve greatness in the e m p i r i c a l sciences." 1 Parsons, on the o t h e r hand, praised D u rk h e i m with b u t fai n t reserva t i o n : W h i l e o s t e n s i b l y s t u d y i n g o n l y a narrowly t e c h n i c a l e m p irical material which might be t h o u g h t t o b e of l i t t l e general i n terest, he manages to make it the vehicle fo r u n u s u ally far-reaching theoretical reasoning. S o , while Les formes elr!mentaires de la vie religieuse is i n o n e aspect a technical monograph o n Aust ralian t o t e m i s m , i t i s at the same time o n e of the few m o s t i m p o rtant works on sociological t h e ory . . . . In fac t only w h e n a monograph i s a t t h e same t i m e an es­ say in theory can it be the highest type of e m p i r i cal s t u dy. D u r k h e i m had the faculty of c o m b i n i n g the t w o aspects in a way that provided

236

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

m o d els for future s o ciologists. Unfo r t u n a tely, i t is u n likely t h a t m any w i l l a t t a i n this preeminence in the c o m b i n a t i o n . 2 T h e r e i s more t o t h i s diffe rence of views t h a n t h e standard o p p o s i t i o n between t h e e m p i r i c a l fi eldworker a n d t h e theoretical c o n c e p t b ui l d er. B o th b e c a u s e i t carried p r o m i n e n t tendencies o f D ur k h e i m i a n s o c i o l ogy to their extreme logical conclusion and b e c a u s e i t exacerb ated the per­ manent a m b i g u i t i e s of D urkheim's thought,

The Elementary Fo rms has

lent itself, not only t o contradictory eval u a t i o n s , b u t also t o divergent i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s . Its argu m e n t m e rged various c u r r e n t s o f thought i n t o an en com passing, o c e a n i c fo rm of discourse that at times seemed to subvert d i fferen ces among scient i fi c theory, mythol ogy, a n d p h i l o s o phy. Thus the i n i t i a l problem is how to come t o terms w i t h this singular work - this almost sacred text - wh i c h has h a d the power to allure and repel at the s a m e time. Instead of tracing Durkhe i m's p o i n t s in the exact order i n w h i c h h e m a d e t h e m , I b e l i eve i t i s a n a l y t i c a l l y useful t o approach

The Elementary Forms under three overlapping b u t distinct headings: the theory o f religion, s o c i o logical e p i s t e m o l ogy, a n d s o c i a l m e t ap hysic. I n this way, o n e m a y a t t e m p t to grasp the n a t u r e of the argument as a whole, i t s p l a ce i n D u r kheim's t h o u g h t , and i t s relation to the s h a p e of m o d e r n c u l t u r e a n d D u r k h e im's refo r m i s t h o p e s .

The Theory ofReligion By the t i m e he wrote

The Elementary Fo rms, Durkheim was convinced

that religion was the matrix of civilization and the pre-eminent form of social life. In a preface t o the Annie sociologique, he explained why socio logy shou ld accord p riority t o religion in its i nvestigation o f culture and society: Religion contains in itself fro m the very beginning, even i f i n an indistinct state, all the elements which, i n dissociating themselves from it, articulating themselves, a n d c o m b i n i n g with one another in a thousand ways, have given r i s e to the various manifestations of collective life . From myths and legends have issued fo rth science and poetry; from religious ornamentations and cult ceremonials have come the plastic arts; from ritual practice were born law and morals. O n e

Chapter 6

The Sacred and Society

237

cannot understand our perception of the world, our philosophical conceptions of the soul, o f i mmortality, of life, if one does n o t know the religious beliefs that are their primordial forms. Kinship started o u t a s an esse nt ially religious t i e ; p u n i s h m e n t , c o n tract, gift, and ho mage are transformations of expiatory, contractual, communal, honorary sacrifices, and so on . . . . A great n u m ber of problems change their aspects completely as soon as their connections with the sociology of religion are recognized. O u r efforts must therefore b e aimed at tracing those connections.3 In

The Elementary Forms, Durkheim's object was to trace the connections

be tween religion and society o n the highest level of generality b y seeking t h e essential constituents o f religion that represented a permanent aspect of human nature in s o c i e ty. "What we want is to find a means to discern the ever present causes o n w h i ch depend the m o s t esse n t i a l fo rms o f religious thought and practi c e . " 4 I n other words, Durkheim was working at the m o s t basic level o f t h e t r e e of s o c i o - cultural life . He sought t h e c o m m o n trunk of specifi cally human experience, which would be differentiated according to varying conditions i n different types of society. M o reover, i t was con textually clear that he was primarily concerned with the nature and role of religion i n t h e " n o r m a l" fo rm of social l i fe . T h u s h i s last major work, like the stud­ ies which preceded it, was a t least i m p l icitly conceived with reference to the two coordinate bases o f Durkheim's thought: the paradigm o r m o d e l of the tree of s o c i a l l i fe and the r o o t distinction between the normal a n d t h e pathological. The method Durkheim employed was that o f the "crucial experimen t . " T h rough concen trated analysis of a l i m ited range of related facts, he at­ tempted t o arrive u l t i mately a t the fo rmulation of general laws. Durkheim's "crucial experiment" focused on " p r i m i tive" societies a n d , m o re specifically, on Australian societies and used the American Indians as a sort of control group. The principal analytic reason fo r this choice was methodo logical. The relative simplicity o f "primitive" societies made them the most plausible objects of study in the attempt to define the essence of religion and the p e r m a n e n t i n h u m a n nature. It may be observed, m o reover, that the general methodological viewpoint was analytically independent of the specific theory of totemism, the evolutionary tendencies, and the social m e t aphysic with which i t became associated in the course of Durkheim's argument.

J:rnile Durkheirn: Sociologist and Philosopher

238

T h e p r o b le m o f i n i t i a l defi n i t i o n , w h i c h w a s always signi fi cant i n D u r k h eim's w o r k , a s s u m e d p a r a m o u n t i m p or t a n c e i n

Th e Elementary

Forms. The d e fi n i t i o n of t h e religious p h e n o m e n o n was m uch m o r e t h a n a p r e l i m i n a r y step i n t h e o r i e n t a t i o n o f r e s e a r c h . I t e m b o d i e d a s u m m a r y o f w h a t w a s essential i n r e l i g i o n a n d p e r m a n e n t i n h u m a n n a t u r e . D e fi ­ nition was thus related to subsequent argument in accordance with the C a r t e s i a n d i c t u m t h a t a c h a i n i s a s s t r o n g as i t s fi rst l i n k . D u r k h e i m b egan by r e j e c t i n g general defi nitions of r e l i g i o n i n terms o f a personal divinity o r r a d i c a l l y transcendental mysteries. As he h a d p u t i t i n a n earlier a r t i c l e , t h e n o t i o n o f divinity was o n l y a "secondary e p i s o d e " i n t h e history of religi o n s . 5 B u d dhism offered a p r o m i n e n t ex­ a m p l e o f a m aj o r religious system w i t h o u t d i v i n i t i e s . I n a d d i t i o n , m a n y religions provided cases o f r i t u a l s w i t h o u t gods o r , i n d e e d , o f gods w h o were c o n ceived a s t h e products o f r i t u a l a c t i o n . From these considerations Durkheim derived t h e general p r i n c i p l e that t h e m e a n i n g , effi c acy, and s o c i a l fun c t i o n o f cult were i n d e p e n d e n t o f t h e i d e a o f d i v i n e interven­ tion. D u r k h ei m's d i s c u s s i o n o f t r a n s c e n d e n t a l m y s t e r i e s was m o re t h e o ­ reti cally e l a b o r a t e t h a n h i s c o m m e n t s on t h e n o t i o n of d i v i n i ty. The n o ­ t i o n of t h e i n e x p l i c a b l y m y s t e r i o u s ( o r t h e t o t a l l y o t h e r ) was r e c i p r o c a l l y related t o t h e n o t i o n of a n a u t on o m o us r e a l m o f n a t u r e . B o t h n o t i o n s w e r e a l i e n t o "p r i m i tive" m an . I n s t e a d , h e h a d a n experience of

le mer­

veilleux - t h e w o n dr o u s - which c o m p r e h e n d e d b o th t h e p r o cesses of n a t u r e and t h e d o i n gs o f h u m an s . F o r h i m there i s n o t h i n g strange i n t h e p o w e r o f v o i c e o r gesture t o com m an d the elemen t s , t o s t o p o r hasten t h e m o t i o n o f the stars, to b r i n g rain or cause i t t o cease, etc. The rites w h i c h he e m p loys to assure the fer t i l i t y o f the s o i l or the fec u n d i t y o f a n i m a l s p e c i e s o n w h i c h h e i s n o u r i s h e d d o n o t a p p e a r m o re i r r a t i o n a l i n h i s eyes than the technical p r o cesses o f which our agriculturalists make use, fo r the same p u r p o s e , d o t o o u r s . The powers which he puts i n t o p l a y b y these diverse m e a n s d o n o t s e e m t o h i m t o h a v e anything especially mysterious a b o u t them . . . . T h a t is w h y t h e m i r a c u l o u s i n t e r v e n t i o n s w h i c h t h e a n c i e n t s a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e i r g o d s were n o t to t h e i r eyes m i r a c l e s in the m o de r n s e n s e of t h e word. F o r t h e m , they w e r e b e a utiful, r a r e , o r t e r r i b l e spectacles, o r causes

Chapter 6

o f surprise a n d w o n d e r

The Sacred and Society

239

(thaumata, mirabifia, miracufa ) ; b u t they

never saw them as glimpses i n t o a mysterious world which reason cannot p e n e t r a t e . 6 D u rk h e i m c o n c e d e d t h a t t h e fee l i n g of s u p e r n atural m y s t e r y h a d c o n s iderable i m p o rtance i n certain religi o n s , n o t a b l y C h ri s t i a n i ty. B u t i t c o u l d n o t b e conceived a s a b as i c element o f Christianity i t s e l f since i t was s u b j e c t to significant variations and even total eclipse in Western h i s t o ry. A fo r t i o r i , i t c o u l d n o t b e seen as the essence of all religion. This c o n c e p t i o n o f the s u pernatural and transcendental mystery was highly significant. Durkhei m's thought was a fo rerunner o f m o dern "death of G o d " t h eo l o gi e s , i n s o fa r as t h ey use " G o d " to refer to t h e r a d i c a l l y transcendental o r t o tally o t h e r divinity o f Christianity who m a y e v e n be recognized as a b s e n t . I n a d d i t i o n , he seemed to i n d i c a t e t h e p o s s i b i l i ty of overcoming p o s i ti v i s t i c conceptions of science t h r o u g h a p h i l o s o p h y that integrated m o d e r n rationalism i n t o a more c o m p rehensive v i s i o n of valid experience. And he shifted the center o f gravity i n religious i n terpretation from the s u p e r n a t u r a l t o a noti o n o f Le

mervei/Leux intimately b o u nd u p

w i t h the sacred a n d co m m u n ity. Durkheim deflned r e l i g i o n thus: A reli gi o n is an i n regrated system o f b e l i efs and p ractices relating to sacred things, that is to say, things s e t apart and forbidden - beliefs a n d practices w h i c h unite into one a n d t h e s a m e moral co m m u nity called a chu rch all those who adhere to them. The second element which thus fi nds a place in our definition i s n o less essential than the fi r s t ; fo r b y showing that the i d e a o f religion i s inseparable fro m t h a t o f a c h u r c h , i t shows that religion m u s t be an eminently col­ lective thing.7 The d e fi n i t i o n c o m p r i s e d two related elements, one substantive, t h e other fun c t i onal. T h e s u b s tantive element asserted t h a t religion involved a p e r c e p t i o n o f the world in terms of the d i s t i n c ti o n between the sacred and the p r o fa n e . T h e second element asserted that religion fu nctioned to create moral c o m m u n i ty in society. T h e second e l e m e n t o f D u r k h e i m's d e fi n i t i o n is more controversial than the first. In one s e n s e , Durkhei m's c o n c e p t i o n had a critical edge

24 0

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

t h a t was related to h i s i d e a of s o c i a l normality. It was also related to h i s s o c i o l o g i c a l a t t e m p t t o provide m o d e r n s o c i e ty, a n d s p e cifi cally h i s own Third R e p u b l i c , w i t h a secular morality t h a t allowed fo r a reconceived relation t o the sacred. I m p l i c i tly, it seemed to deny religious legitimacy to churches based on extreme b u reau cratization. �1ore explici tly, it impugned the validity o f religious systems t h a t fun c t i o n e d t o atomize individuals in s o c i e ty. M o re o ver, it did not consider the context i n which religion or q u a s i-religi o u s i d eologies might integrate a group internally b u t i n tensify confl ict in the broader s o c i e ty. Obvio usly, D urkheim's defi nition a p p l i e d only t o the function o f religion i n the n o r m a l s t a t e o f s o c i e t y ; i t a p p l i e d t o pathological s t a t es only a s an expression of evo l u t i o n ary o p t i m i s m o r an ind i ca t i o n o f projected goals. I t might be observed, however, that a more "value-neutral" and predi ctive line of argument was open which Durkheim did not take. He might have argued that religion in a context of extreme b u reaucratization or atomistic individualism served the interest of relatively small and privileged elites b u t that a m o r e communal experience of t h e sacred h a d greater mass appeal. This approach would h ave led to the problem of the relati o n s h i p between certain conceptions of the sacred and certain social fu nctions. The case of Protes­ tantism was significant in this respect. Sectarian Protestantism, which arose in part as a reaction against bureaucratic corruption (e.g., the commercialization of i n dulgences), conceived the sacred in radically transcendental and super­ natural terms that fu nctioned to create an unmediated, if inscrutable, link between a hidden divinity and atomized ind ividuals. As Weber observed, this attitude was maintained only among a select elite, while the larger population, especially i n rural areas, fell back upon more cosmic and communal forms of religious experience that included elements of magic. Thus D u rkheim's no­ tion of the relationship b e tween the sacred and community might have been associated w i t h popular or mass religion and perhaps with developmental possibilities in modern secular societies, including his hopes for Third Re­ p u b l i c France. I n t h i s sense, h e might have s u pplemented Weber's idea of t h e " b u reaucratization o f charisma" with a countervailing i d e a of t h e tendency o f popular movements to react against routinization and atomization i n a shared charismatic quest for a more communal experience of the sacred. To the extent that the correlation held b e tween a communal conception of the sacred and popular devotion - or b e tween its absence and mass unrest - plausibility

Chapter 6

The Sacred and Society

241

would b e lent to the claim that Durkheim had at least discovered a permanent o r transhistorical aspect of human nature in society. In one fo rm o r another, the b o n d between the sacred and community would m ake its relevance fel t i n a l l social contexts. Like his definition of religion, Durkhei m's attempt to distinguish religion from magic had both substantive and functional comp onents. And it too seemed most problematic o n the sociofunctional level which received the bulk o f his attention. Substantively, Durkheim held that both religion and magic depended upon the distinction b e tween the sacred and the profane. They differed, however, in their orientations to the sacred. Religion presented a "ritual at­ titude" toward t h e sacred experienced in purely sy m b o l i c terms. If religion involved an experience of the sacred as, so to speak, an end i n itself, magic took the sacred as a means. It placed "sacred fo rces" in a causal circuit geared to the achievement of practical, utilitarian effects. In extreme forms, this manipulation of the sacred b r o ught a b o u t its profanation. I t may be paren­ thetically noted that this p o i n t o f view was applied b y H u b ert and Mauss, i n their ''Theorie generale de I a magie," to the relatio n s h i p between m agic and technology. 8 From this point of view, technology secularized magic as a means of controlling seemi ngly desacralized or disenchanated objects i n the world. D urkheim's distinction b e tween religion and magic paralleled the o p p o ­ s i t i o n , i n his m o r a l p h i l o s o p hy, b etween the normative and the u t i l i t arian. Magic, fo r him, almost seemed t o imply a misappropriation of the p u b l i c fu nd of sacred values for private and particularistic interests. T h i s aspect of his argu m e n t was especially pronounced i n the more sociofu n c t i o n a l e l e m e n t o f h i s d i s t i n c t i o n . H e r e , however, he p r o p osed d i fferential charac­ teristics that were not universal in incidence and which, fu rth ermore, har­ bored internal contradictions in their application to d i fferentiated types. In considering social functions, Durkheim argued that religion was incon­ ceiva b l e w i t h o u t a church but t h a t "there was n o c h u rch of magic." Between the magician and the individuals who consult him, as between these individuals themselves, there are no lasting bonds which make them m e m bers of t h e same m o ral c o m m u n i ty, comparable to t h a t fo rmed b y b elievers i n the s a m e god or t h e observers o f t h e s a m e cult.

242

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

The magician has a clientele and not a church, and it is very possible that his clients have n o relations with one another, even to the point of not knowing one another; even the relations which they have with him are generally accidental and transient; they are like those of a sick man with his d o ctor.9 Thus the magician might provide services for individuals whose per­ sonal problems were n o t adequ ately resolved in the dominant system. Yet Durkheim's argument harbored a number of difficulties. These related both to the natur e of symbolic systems and to their social fu nctions in a "church" of beli evers. In the context of

The Elementary Forms as a whole, a church

obviously meant a solidaristic corporative group that especially emphasized the existence o f moral community among its members. But Durkheim did not attempt to relate this notion t o the problem of highly bu reaucratized churches or h i ghly i n dividualistic sects. In order to appreciate Durkheim's conception of religion and i t s relation to magic, it is useful to distinguish b etween ( 1 ) sym b o l i c systems that integrate religion and magic as elements of a more inclusive paradigm, (2) symbolic systems that dissociate religion from some forms of magic, a n d (3) sym b o l i c systems t h a t dissociate religion from

all fo rms o f magic. T h e s e three types

of symbolic systems may then be related to the existence and strength of a church, in the limited sense of a solidaristic corporative group. I n "primitive" societies, magic and religion were, typically, integrated elements of the same over-all p aradigm. Durkheim a t times seemed to rec­ ognize this. But h e did not see the ways in which b o t h religion and magic served to integrate the same corporate group (or "church" ) . A rain ritual which insured a good crop fo r the group as a whole did not work invidiously for the beneflt of special or private interests. And i t was in "primi tive" soci­ eties, where the integration of the meaningful content and social function of religion and magic was strongest, that the element of moral community was most marked . T h e history of Christianity in the West, which was often Durkheim's implicit frame of reference, revealed different developments. As i t became increasingly b u reaucratized and less communal, Catholicism did dissoci­ ate religion and certain forms of magic. "White" o r beneficent magic was assimilated into the dominant symbolic system as miracle. " B l ack" o r ma-

Chapter 6

The Sacred and Society

243

leficent magic was relegated t o the sphere of diabolical forces. In missionary territories, elements of other symbolic systems that could not be integrated into the established p aradigms were frequently dismissed as "black" magic. And charismatic deviants, who upset the bureaucratic administration o f sa­ cred values and might be most feared when they developed fo llowi ngs, were of ten condemned as witches or sorcerers. The strongest communal bonds i n such a context might well b e generated between selfl ess disciples and the charismatic "deviant" who used m agical prowess as an instrumen tal support for a revo lutionary prophetic message. Within the dominant organization, community was s ubordinated t o the i m p eratives of a bureaucratic, hierar­ chical structure. I n sectarian Protesta n t i s m , th e t e n d e n cy was to pu rge all magic fro m reli­ gion and to brand all m agical elements as signs of witchcraft. The denigration of visible symbolism and its efficacy was attendant u p o n the establishment of an unmediated nexus b etween the "inner" self o f the individual and a transcendental, hidden divinity who was totally other. The degree of commu­ nity derived fr om religion was decreased to a minimum. The religious gro u p was a s e c t in w h i c h m e m b e rs h i p was vo l u n tary o n the p a r t o f t h e indi vidual and s u b j e ct to quasi-contractual approval o f one's personal qualifications by members of the sect. Magic was entirely a matter o f extra-religious and irreligious private consultation; it was highly suspect i n the light of transcen­ dentally oriented religious belief, the radical secularization of "this-worldly" experience, and the i d e a that worldly success was related to religious election only as an external index. But tension was created b etween an extremely transcendental theology, which could be used as a basis of existence only by an elite, and the tendency of the common "man" (and the common in all "men") to fall back u p o n paradigms that allowed an ambivalent fascination with the symbolism o f magic and sorcery. Even private consultations with a magician might give rise to feelings of dependency that contrasted sharply with the individualistic nature o f the established religious system. Indeed a magician might develop affective b o n d s w i t h those he or s h e assisted - b o n d s theorized i n psychoanalysis i n terms o f transference. In b r i ef, it would seem that when the c o n d i t i o n s o f D u rkheim's defi­ n i t i o n o f religion applied, the c o n d i t i o n s of religio n's distinction fro m magic d i d n o t , and vice versa. It was i n systems w i t h a high degree o f in­ tegration b e tween the m e a ningful content and social fun c t i o n s of religion

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

244

a n d m a g i c t h a t m o r a l c o m m u n i t y was m o s t marked. O n e b a s i c diffi culty in his a t t e m p t t o distinguish sharply between religion and magic in t h e "

primi tive c o n t e x t w a s his failure to see t h a t g e n u i n e b e l i e f i n a symbolism "

might well involve a belief i n the causal efficacy o f t h a t sy m b o l i s m . The d i fference b e tween the merely symbolic and t h e symbolic as an object o f "

"

genuine b e l i e f w a s set fo rth by Durkheim h i m s e l f i n a n earlier work: Contemporary ideas make us i nclined to see mere symbols or modes o f allegorical figuration. But it is a general rule t h a t practices d o not take on at first merely symbolic characteristics. This type of symbolism is a form o f decadence and i t comes only when their primi tive sense is lost. Symbols b egin not as external signs b u t as efficacious causes of social relations. 10 T h e problem, o f c o u r s e , was that fro m a critical s t a n d p o i n t Durkheim recognized the illusory aspects o f magic. If h e was t o save religion and make it c o m p a t i b l e w i t h r a t i o n a l i s m , he seemed o b l i g e d to dissociate it fro m magic a n d its discredited false h o o d s . The antipathy between t h e c o l l e ctively n o rmative a n d t h e p a r t i cularistically u t i l i t a r i a n , w h i c h was essential t o h i s own m o ral p h i l o s o p h y, served t h i s need. As we shall s e e , however, the issue left o p e n b y h i s s o c i a l m e taphysic w a s w h e t h e r h i s sal­ vaging o p e r a t i o n was untenably r e d u c t i o n i s t i c and whether it a d e q u a tely a c c o u n t e d fo r the d i m e n s i o n of causal efficacy i n sacred s y m b o l i s m . At t h i s p o i n t o n e migh t h ave e x p e ct e d D u r k h e i m t o t u r n directly t o a s t u d y o f t h e sacred a n d t h e p rofane i n b el i e f and r i t u a l p r a c t i c e , u s i n g a n i n d e p t h analysis o f a s m a l l s e t o f "primi tive" s o c i e t i e s as a b a s i s o f -

generalizati o n . O n e m i g h t a l s o have expected h i m t o provide a d e t a i l e d , c r i t i c a l , c o m p arat ive s t u d y o f s a c r i fi c e , i t s role i n s o c i e t y (at t i m e s i n secularized fo r m ) , and its r e l a t i o n t o b o th v i c t i m i z a t i o n a n d gift-givi n g i n b u i l d i n g c o m m u n a l s o l i d a r i ty. A h i g h l y s i g n i fi cant e x p loratory study i n t h i s d i r e c t i o n h a d already b e e n c o m p l e t e d b y H u b er t a n d M a u s s i n t h e i r "Essai sur I a nature et l a fo n c t i o n d u s a crifi ce" ( " S acrifi ce: Its N a t u r e and F u n c t i o n" ) . 1 1 I n line w i t h the earlier w o r k o f D urkheim a n d h i s school, the p r i m ar y problem w o u l d h ave b een t h e relationship a n d ramifi cations o f two sets of correlated o p p o s i t i o n s : sacred-p rofa n e and c o m m u n itas - d i f­ fer e n t i a t e d structure. T h i s focus w o u l d have provided insight i n t o t h e key q u e s t i o n of how religious b e l i e fs and p r a c t i c e s c o n s t i t u t e d the u l t i m a t e

Chapter 6

The Sacred and Society

245

s o u rce o f l e g i t i m a t i o n i n s o c i e t y a n d h o w they fun c t i o n e d i n r e l a t i o n t o s o l i d arity. Instead, Durkheim at this p o i n t turned to the evolutionary problem of t h e earliest known fo rm of religi o n . This preoccupation was one basis fo r t h e exaggerated importance h e attributed to totemism in the history of re­ ligions. I n d e e d , it inhibited him fro m analyzing o b j ectively b o t h the extent to which totemism d i d o r did not have religious aspects and the problem of other facets of religion in the societies h e investigated. But the concentration upon totemism had another b asis in Durkheim's thought. In the course of his argument, the term "origin" t o o k on three senses: the evolutionary sense o f a historical starting point; the analytic sense o f a permanently ap­ p l i c a b l e paradigm o r a model of "ever present causes"; and t h e sense o f a legitimating mythical source or fons

et origo . The evolutionary signifi cation

was i n fact the least important, since Durkheim himself was very cautious concerning i t s pertinence. On the other h a n d , the analytic and mythical meanings seemed to merge i n his mind and to b ecome the primary basis fo r his interest in origins. Insofar as i t was not simply an adj unct of the contemp orary anthropological quest to fi n d the "secret o f the totem" (in the phrase o f Andrew Lang) , totemism was i m p o r tant i n

The Elementary Forms

largely because it proved convenient fo r Durkheimian social metaphysic and for the myth of origins which helped to legitimate it and, with it, sociology itself i n D urkheim's e n c o m p assing, indeed grandiose, conception of it. By seemingly providing the genealogical origin o f religion and society, soci­ ol ogy performatively furnished its own fo unding myth and underwrote its transformative mission i n modern soci ety. D u r k h e i m prefaced his a c c o u n t of t o t e m i c b e l i e f and r i t u a l w i t h a refutation of competing theories of the original form of religion. Natur­ ism derived religion fro m the primitive personalization of awesome fo rces of nature. In the linguistically oriented formulation o f Max M Li ller, this conception of natural processes was attributed to the metaphoric power of language. In t h i s s e n s e , according to D u r k h e i m , religion was "an i m ­ mense m e t a p h o r w i t h o u t o b j e ctive value . " 12 A n i m i s m , which received i t s m o s t inHuential fo rmulation i n the works of E . B. Tyl or, maintained that the m i n i m a l definition of religion rested on a belief i n spirits or souls. The origin of this b e l i e f was the reliance of the "primitive" mind on the idea of spirits in order to interpret dreams. The reasons fo r D u rkheim's rejection of

246

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

b o t h naturism and animism were identical: these theories either ignored the sacred or reduced i t to a groundless i l l u s i o n . " N o t only would the s ym b o l s through w h i c h religious powers a r e conceived m a s k i n p a r t t h e i r t r u e nature, b u t , furthermore, b e h i n d these i mages and figures there would be only the nightmares of uncultivated minds. Religion would in the last analysis b e only a systematized a n d lived dream w i t h o u t any fou ndation in reality. " 1 3 Despite i t s partial validi ty, D urkheim's elaborate and somewhat tedious critique of naturism and animism had all the qualities of a refutation o f heresies. H e d i d n o t a s k w h a t the r o l e o f the relationship between humans and nature might be in religious systems o r w h a t part metaphor (which is n o t always "mere" m e t a p h o r ) might have in articulating this relationship. And, although the Australians referred to the mythical past as "dream time," he did not i n q u i r e into the p l a c e of the "night s i d e " of life in religious experience. I n fact, h e seemed to conceive dreams in a n arrowly Cartesian manner that denied them all cognitive value. Nor did h e rej ect reductionism as a m o d e of interpretation. Prefacing h i s own reductionistic interpretation of totem­ ism, h e simply denied the validity o f competing forms o f reductionism in naturism and a n i m i s m . The refutation of h e resies i n s h o r t was a prerequisite of apologetics. T h e style o f argument became i n c reasingly theological. Certain aspects o f D u rkheim's treatment o f totemism were analytically independent of his social metaphysic. B u t the growing i n terpenetration of his theory of totemism and his social m e taphysic certainly contributed to his i m p ermeability to mounting evidence that falsified some o f his elementary assumptions. Durkheim believed that totemism was a global institution that combined kinship and religion. In other words, he assumed that the same gro up (the clan) shared both kinship and religion and that the same object (the totem) was the family name or emblem and the object o f religious sym­ bolism. The primary source for facts on the Australian tribes, which were the presumed object o f Durkheim's crucial experiment, was the exemplary mono­ graph by Sir Baldwin Spencer and Francis James Gillen,

The Native Tribes of

Central Australia. 14 The Arunta ( o r Aranda) tribe received extensive treatment b y Spencer and Gillen and by Durkheim. What were the foits cruciaux? There was no identity among the patrilocal territorial group, the partilineal exogamic gro u p , and the totemic group with a territorial base. Religion was dispersed through various elements of cultural life, including religious confraternities not

Chapter 6

The Sacred and Society

247

identical with the fo rmer groupings. The totemic groups, moreover, were n o t stro ngly constituted as corporate entities. The central r o l e of t h e

intichiuma

ceremony o f the totemic groups, which Durkheim attempted to interpret i n predominantly religious terms a s a "primitive" sacrifice involving oblation and communion, d i d appear to be predominantly magico-economic in nature. To Durkheim's dismay, Sir James Frazer had already made this point. Indeed, Mauss himself had argued i n the

Amzee sociologi q ue that the seeming act of "communion" i n the "totemic sacrifice" was performed b y the totemic group

i n order t o consume the sacred element of the totem and thereby free i t for profane consumption by other groups. 1 5 This consumption created a meta­ phoric link b e tween the

intichiuma ritual and the ordinary economic life of

soci ety. The m a n i fest purpose of th e ritual was to assure the reproduction of the animal species. M oreover, exogamic marriage rules applied to patrilineal moieties (or phratries) and to marriage classes within them determined by generati on. The totemic affiliation, in contrast, did not regulate exogamy and was determined b y the ancestral totemic spirit mythologically associated with the s p o t at which the mother believed herself to have conceived the child. In the face of s i m i lar evidence which c o u l d n o t be i n tegrated into the paradigm o f a global totemic institution, Durkheim resorted to ingenious and factually gratuitous evolutionary arguments. Indeed his general response to hostile evidence for which h e could n o t otherwise account was to argue gratuitously that i t corresponded to a later ( o r earlier) state of society than the one he was addressing. Indeed evolutionary ideas were more important in D urkheim's attempt to relate the "original" totemic institution to known facts about certain societies than in his attempt to relate these to other types of societies. In such

Annee articles as "La Prohibition de l'inceste et ses origi­

nes" ( 1 8 9 6 ) , " S u r le totemisme" ( I 900), and " S u r I' organisation des societes australiennes" ( I 9 0 3 ) , h e had laid the groundwork fo r

The Elementary Fo rms

by attempting to explain away counterevidence by imaginative accounts of the "original" totemic institution and how it had evolved into one known form or another. T h e primary impression left by these efforts is comparable to that left by Ptolemaic astronomy when it was compelled to resort to in­ creasingly intricate epi cycles in order to account in some way fo r i ncreasingly unmanageable evidence. It m i g h t b e maintained that even if one concedes that D urkheim failed to provide a n adequate general theory o f t o t e m i s m , t h i s fai l u r e did not

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

248

invalidate h i s general theory of religion. O b j e c tively, t o t e m 1 s m w o u l d b e relevant to a general theory o f religion o n l y i n s o far as i t p r o v i d e d i n certain cases a n i n s t a n t i a t i o n o f religious s y m b o l i s m . Aft e r a l l , D urkheim himself was primarily interested i n religion and i t s relation to society. And i n

The Elemen tary Forms, h e argued that t h e selection of t h e totem as

a religious sym b o l was at first arbitrary. From a n o b j e c t i v e point of view, this line of argument is convincing, and it even makes one wonder why Durkheim was so insistent a b o u t the i m p ortance of totemism. The reason fo r his interest in totemism becomes less puzzling only in the context of his social metaphysic. Once totemism was i m p l i cated i n his metaphysic of society whose fo unding myth simultaneously legitimated sociology, i t became invested w i t h a l l t h e sym b o l i c values t h a t follow i n t h e train o f a basic commitment. In t h i s sense, Durkheim's steadfastness in the defense of an "original" t o t e m i c institution was m u c h more than a case of senile hardening of the interpretive categories o r psychological involvement i n a p e t theory. It involved an affective and evaluative investment or "cathexis" in the strongest sense of the word. To deve l o p an idea of Durkh eim's t h eory o f religio n , let us try t o dis­ entangle the elements o f Durkheim's discussion that were not altogether subservient to his social metaphysic and his "sociologi s m . " Beliefs and ritu­ als constituted the complementary modes through which people in society related to the sacred. Altho ugh h e recognized the intimate relationship between ritual and myth i n religious cults, Durkheim did n o t b a lance his treatment o f rituals with a theory of myths. H i s analysis of beliefs concen­ trated in rather Platonic fash i o n upon conceptual paradigms o r ideas that were presumed to be basic to religious b eli efs. 1 6 Durkheim divided rituals i n t o t h e following types (which are perhaps more adequately conceived as elements present in varying combinations in specific rituals): the ritual interdict, or tab o o , separating the sacred fro m t h e profane; the sacrifice, comprising the elements o f oblation (offering or gift) and c o m m u n i o n t h rough c o n s u m p t i o n or d i s p o s i t i o n of t h e sacrificial victim (the v i c t i m being the typical offering o r gift); the m i m e t i c ritual, which had special relevance for beliefs a b o u t causation; the representative o r commemo rative r i t u a l ; and the p i acular o r mourning ritual relating to sorrowful events like death. The negative cult involving taboos served generally as a preparation fo r the p o s i tive cult (sacrifi cial, m i m e t i c , com-

Chapter 6

Th e Sctcred and Society

249

memoratlve, a n d piacular rituals) by setting p e o p l e and things o ff fro m t h e p r o fane w o r l d . E i t h e r i n perio dically recurrent fo rm or a s a reaction to p o t e n t i ally unsettling critical events, the role of ritual was to maintain and dramatically re-create the meani ngful symbolic universe that functioned .

.

to In regrate society. Thus, fo r Dur kheim, the center of religion as an o perative o r perfor­ mative fo rce was the cult. And central to the cult was the nexus between symbolic m a n i festation and solidarity, especially in i t s intensely communal forms. People experienced the strongest b o n ds w i t h one another when they demonstrated that they held the same thi ngs sacred. From our p o i n t of view, it is readily seen how the group of regularly repeated acts which fo rm the cult assume once again all their impor­ tance. In fact, whoever has really practiced a religion knows quite well that it i s the cult which gives rise to the impressions of joy, of interior peace, of sereni ty, of enthusiasm which are, for the faithful, like an experimental proof of their bel iefs. The cult is not s i m p l y a system of signs b y which the fa ith is ou twardly translated; i t is a collection of the means by which faith is created and re-created periodically. Whether it consists o f material acts o r mental operations, it is always this which is effi caciou s Y Hence t h e primary imp ortance Durkheim attributed t o t h e alternation between ordinary profane activities and sacred, ritual occasions in the "nor­ mal" rhythm of social life. Indeed, it was only in

The Elementary Forms that

his conception o f the normal society came to full fr uition. In and through fe stive celebration, the symbolic values which guided social life would b e performatively reinvigorated and receive t h e power t o prevent unwanted historical change while regenerating what was of historical and social value. Anomie could be kept within tolerable bounds only if members of society were peri odically reminded i n intense ways of the bases of their common cultural world and their solidarity. Ritual and feast were thus the media of living memory that reproduced bonds and reinforced institutional norms i n a solidaristic society. 1 8

Durkhei m's interpretation of religious beliefs was i n o n e sense i n fl u enced by t h i s concep t i o n of c u l t . H e began with t h e assumption t h a t t h e totem was in fac t a religious symb ol. But his s u b s e q u e n t argument could be ap-

250

I:rnile Durkheirn: Sociologist and Philosopher

p l i e d to any religious sym b o l . For h e went on to affirm that the fi gurative representation of the sacred o b j e c t was m o r e sacred than the object ( e . g . , the p l a n t or animal s p e c i e s ) itself. F r o m t h i s p o i n t on, P l a t o was D u rkheim's

maltre depenser. T h e figurative representation of a sacred object derived its religious quality from a higher source. The totemic emblem received its sacredness thro ugh partaking o f an archetypical totemic principle. O n a still higher level of abstraction, the t o t e m i c principle, in turn, related to the Maori concept o f mana. Especially i n D u rkheim's ultimate and essentially moral conception of it, mana might well be compared t o Plato's concept of the G o o d o r t o the analogous Christian idea of the indwelling o f the Holy S p i r i t i n the hearts of t h e j u s t . T h e m e a n i n g o f t h e c o n c e p t of m a n a and a n a logous c o n c e p ts in a l l cultures r e m a i n s a p o i n t of c o n t e n t i o n a m o n g anthropologists. Robert Henry Codrington, w h o m D urkheim followed i n t h i s r e s p e c t , defi ned "1nana" thus: There is a belief in a force altogether distinct fro m physical power, which acts in all ways for good and evil; and which it is of the greatest advantage to possess or control. This is mana. I think I know what o u r p e o p l e m e a n b y i t . . . . It is a power o r infl uence, not physical and in a way supernatural; but i t shows itself in physical force, or in any kind of power o r excellence which a man possesses. This mana is not fixed in anything . . . . All Melanesian religion consists, in fact, in getting this mana for one's self, o r getting i t used for one's benefit. 1 9 Mana thus corresponded, i n the first instance, t o a n impersonal force immanent i n the world and yet beyond ordinary capacities or processes. It could be related to the notion of cosmic unity and t o the feeling of le merveil­

leux. Manifesting itself in exceptional events and powers, it was nonetheless b e h i n d the order of the universe, which was not extraordinary in its daily manifestations but wondrous i n its totality - and even epiphanous i n its details when they were seen i n a certain light. In brief, mana represented the unitary source of the sacred, the ecumenical core of all religion. In specific events, beliefs, and rituals, mana became differentiated and separated from the profane. And the reality for which mana stood was the primary object of the ritual attitude of sacred respect and the m agical b e l i e f i n symbolic efficacy. As Durkheim observed:

Chapter 6

The Sacred and Society

251

A Dakota Indian . . . expressed this essential consubstantiality of all sa­ cred things in a language full of relief. "Everything which moves stops here or there a t one time o r another. The bird which flies stops at one place to make i t s nest, a t another t o rest fro m i t s fl i ght. The man w h o walks, stops when h e wishes. lt i s the same with the god [/a divinite'J. The sun, so bright and magnificent, is one place where he stopped. The trees, the animals are other places. The Indian thinks o f these places and sends a prayer to them i n order to reach the place where the god has stopped and receive assistance and blessings." In other words, the wakan [a term s i m i l a r in m e a n i n g to " m ana"] (fo r t h i s is w h a t he was talking about) comes and goes through the world, and sacred things are the points upon which it alights.2° Once D urkheim's argument reached this p o i n t , however, i t did not follow the lead of the Dakota Indian in intimating that the root of"primitive" religion and the essence of all religion was an intuition of the solidarizing force binding all existence - including the compassionate or empathic bonding of humans with all "others" i n the cosmos. Rather, it rewrote the cosmic allegory i n a sui

generis social direction and turned to the question of the origin of mana (and analogous concepts like wakan) in a fashion that led to the development of a social metaphysic.

Sociology and Epistemology For the most part, D u rkheim's socio logical epi stemo logy was a corollary of his social metaphysic. But, as in the case of h i s theory of religi o n , one may attempt to extricate other elements of the argument and situate them in the context of his thought as a whole. The sociology of religion had, in Durkheim's mind, an i n tegral relation to epistemo logical problems, since h e believed that the first "collective repre­ sentations" were religious in nature. I f philosophy and t h e sciences were born of religion, it is because religion itself began by taking the place o f t h e sciences and p h i ­ losophy. Bu t i t has been less frequently noticed that religion d i d n o t confine itself to e n r i c h i n g the human m i n d , fo rmed beforehand, with a certain number of ideas; it contributed t o forming the mind

252

J:rnile Durkheirn: Sociologist and Philosopher

itself. Men owe to religion n o t only a notable p a r t of the content of their knowledge b u t also the fo rm i n which this knowledge has been elaborated. 2 1

In all societies, m oreover, the collective representations that fo rmulated elementary types o f legitimation had a t least a quasi-religious character. I n d e e d " c o l l e c ti v e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , " in D u rkhei m's usage o f the t e r m , seemed t o cover t h e gamut from shared verbal behavior based on deeply rooted b e l i efs, through elaborate "ideologies," t o more or less sophisticated theoretical reflections. I t primarily referred, however, to the shared model or paradigm that fu nctioned as a mode o f explanation and j u s t i fi c a t i o n i n society, especially a s t h e core of t h e h i s moral philosophy as

conscience collective that he treated i n

Ia mo rale. I t comprised b o t h cognitive and norma­

tive elements. With the development of theoretical refl ection, and notably with the emergence of sociology, cognitive and normative elements became increasingly differentiated. But they were never entirely disjoined. In his own sociology, fo r example, the higher-order paradigms of normal and pathological processes embodied h i s idea o f the intimate relation of the cognitive and the normative. D u rkheim did n o t explici tly raise the problem o f the relation b etween epistemology and the sociology of knowledge, and the two of ten s e e m e d v e r y close i n h i s t h o u g h t Y H e w a s avowedly p r e o c c u p i e d w i t h a v e r y ele­ mentary kind of analysis, and h e was even more p a l p a b l y concerned with the problem o f validity. Indeed, perhaps the central i s s u e treated in a c o u rse h e gave aft e r the p u b l i c a t i o n of

The Elementary Fo rms (and subsequ ently reconstructed in the b o o k Pragmatisme et sociologie) was epistemological. H e r e h e o p p os e d a classically "hard" conception of truth to the "logical utilitarianism" o f pragmatists who equated truth w i t h practical success o r t h e satisfying i l l u s i o n . And h e did no t s i m p l y e q u a t e t r u t h o r validity w i t h social consensus. Rather h e asserted t h e i m personal a n d compelling nature o f t r u t h , w h i c h imposed itself w i t h rational conviction. "Truth is a n o r m fo r t h o u g h t , j us t as the m o r a l i d e a l is a n o r m for c o n d u c t . " 2 3 M oreover, h e fl atly rejected an invariant correlation o f t r u t h w i t h h a p p i ness. Truth is often p a i n fu l . It may d i s o rganize thought and t r o u b l e the serenity o f the s p i r i t . When a m a n recognizes i t , he i s a t times obliged to transform his entire mental organi z a t i o n : this provokes a

Chapter 6

The Sacred and Society

253

crisis which leaves h i m disconcerted and dis abled. If, for example, i n a d u l t h o o d h e suddenly realizes t h a t his religious beliefs l a c k s o l i d i ty, he may collapse m o rally. His intellectual and emotional life is par­ alyzed . . . . Thus it is far from the case that truth i s a l ways attractive and s e d u ctive. Quite of ten, i t resists u s , o p p oses o u r d esires, and has a hard quality about i t . 2 4 I t is significant t h a t , i n his discussion of truth, D u r k h e i m p o i n t e d to t h e role of what might be termed the deconversion experience and the way t h e loss or deligitimation of religion might b e traumatic and disorienting. The "truth" o f s o ciology itself involved working through this trauma and simultaneously working o u t a new, critically "rational" basis fo r belief and practice that would non etheless function as a secularized dis placement of religion. M oreover, in D urkheimian sociology, the basic distinction b etween normality and pathology provided a critical apparatus that involved the problem of validi ty. In Marxian terms, o n e might say that a pathological state was an alienated e m p irical reality t h a t gave rise t o i d e o l ogy as a fo rm of false consciousness. In

The Rules, Durkheim fo rmulated the conception of false conscio usness in terms o f Descar tes's n o t i o n of p raenotiones and Bacon's idea of idola. "As p r o d u c ts of ordinary experience, their o b j e c t is to place our actions in harmony with the environing world. They are formed by practice and fo r i t . Now a representation can play this role usefully while being theoretically false . " 2 5 Unlike Marx, however, Durkheim d i d n o t relate id eology a s a fo rm o f false consciousness t o class d o m i nation a n d exploitation. T h u s , h e d i d n o t discuss t h e continuity between n o r mative legitimation a n d cognition i n the distorted for m o f collective misrepresentations that attempted to present a pathological state as if it was normal, e.g., by construing the i n terest of one group as the good o f society as a whole. As a consequence, h e fai led to treat the function o f i d e o logy in the stabilization o f a p a t h o l o gical social order. This failure was especially significant i n view o f Marx's conception of religion as a prominent fo rm o f ideological distortion and mystifi cation i n an exploi tative society. Certain things, however, seemed clear i n the development of Durkheim's thought as a w h o l e . The truth w o u l d b e unsettling and subversive i n a "pathological" situation that had been ideologically accepted as legitimate.

254

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

B u t it would be essential to an obj ective analysis of that situation and to the reconstruction of society on a "normal" (or desirable) basis. Rational means to effec t a passage from pathology to normality varied with historical conditions. Durkheim fo und modern society t o be significantly p athological, but he did not b e lieve violent revolution t o b e necessary or desirable for the achievement of structural change. In a state of normality, m oreover, the knowledge of the truth would offer the most authentic basis fo r legitimation o f the existing order and the means to confi ne anomie to a marginal status. For i n the normal state, the normative and cognitive paradigms which constituted a coherent worldview and i ntegrated society as a whole could be j ustly conceived as an applied function of the truth. In all societies, this state would involve an o p ­ t i m a l c o m b i n a t i o n o f community a n d reciprocity, a n d a relationship between values accepted as sacred and average p erformance in daily living that did not pass b eyond t h e limits of "standard devi ation." Durkheim's epistemological assumptions revealed the m o s t profound sense i n which he was a philosophical conservative. In his mind, there ex­ isted a comprehensive correspondence b etween the foundations of truth and knowledge in general and th e prevalence of order a n d s o l i d a r i ty in s o ciety. Essential to human existence was the institution of normative and interpretive paradigms that made sense of shared experience and simultaneo usly provided the background against which to evaluate change. These considerations make p o ss i b l e an estimation of D urkhe im's re­ lation to Bergson and the pragm a t i s t s . Early in his life, Durkheim was cast in the role of the archenemy not only of Tarde b u t also of Bergson. His insistence on fo rmal structures o f obligation and, more b r o a dly, his Cartesianized, neo-Kantian brand of rationalism were often d eveloped with implicit reference t o B e rgson as the modern exemplar o f mysticism and antirational i n t u i t i o n i s m . I n his later thought, h owever, Durkheim was partially infl uenced by Bergson in two restricted but i m p o r t a n t ways. First, Durkheim recognized the role o f "collective effe rvescence" as an ambivalent

elan vital t h a t was necessary i n t h e passage from path o logy t o n o r m ali ty. Second, he saw that in t h e normal s t a t e itself, communal s p o n t a n e i t y was t o be reconciled with d u ty, j ust as "collective effervescence" retained its relevance as a spiritual milieu fo r a generous and expansive rationalism. But Durkheim always rej ected the i d e o logical glorification o f change, m o b i l ­ ity, e m p i r i c a l fl uidi ty, individual transcendence, existential t u r m o i l , a n d

Chapter

6

The Sacred and Society

255

" b uzzing confusion" - i n brief, the symptoms o f anomie - as mystical ends i n themselves. I n a pathological state of s o c i ety, a p r i m a r y func t i o n of r a t i o n a l change w a s to p u t a s t o p to uncontrolled, r a m p a n t , runaway change. In a normal state, the value o f change was related dialecti cally to the predominance of order, and it had value not for its own sake b u t o n l y insofar a s i t contributed t o a better social o r d e r which, i n m o d e r n i ty, required spaces for criticism and contestat i o n . In

The Elementary Forms of the Religious L�fe, D u rkheim's manifest goal

was to define the elements of truth in religion. I n fact, it is an essential postulate o f s o c i o logy t h a t a h u m a n i n ­ stitution cannot rest u p o n error a n d l i e s . O therwise i t c o u l d n o t l a s t . I f i t w e r e n o t fo unded on t h e nature o f things, i t would have encountered in things a resistance over which it could n o t have tri­ u m p h e d . So when we commence the study of primitive religions, i t i s with the conviction that they h o l d t o reality a n d express i t . This principle will be seen t o recur time and again i n the c o u rs e o f the analyses and discussions which fo llow, and the reproach which we m ake against the schools fro m which we have separated o u rselves is that they have ignored i t . N o d o u b t , when only the letter of the formulae is considered, these religious beliefs and practices seem disconcerting, and one i s tempted to attribute them to some sort of deep-rooted aberration. But one must know how to go underneath the symbol to the reality which it represents and which gives it its true meaning.26 Within h i s own frame of reference, this conception of religion meant that Durkheim w a s defining religion and its role i n terms of the normal state of society. At times, however, h e seemed to generalize his viewpoint so that it applied to all states of s o c i e ty. A t the very least, h e placed h i s conception of the truth of r e l i g i o n wi t h i n the context o f h i s o p t i m i s t i c belief in an emergent evolutionary straining toward normality in all society. Thus

The

Elementary Forms, taken as an isolated work, might be interpreted to have either orthodox conservative or liberal i m p l i cations, although its conclusion made it obvious that Durkheim conceived normality i n m o dern society as a goal of action. One basic reason for the i m p recision of

The Elementary

Fo rms in its treatment of concrete problems was the increasing i m p o rtance of abstract social metaphysic in D u rkheim' s thought. I n the context of his

256

I:rnile Durkheirn: Sociologist and Philosopher

thought as a whole and i t s application to modern soci ety, however, h e may b e seen as employing h i s study of "primitive" religions to complete his idea of the normal state and t o derive a general conception of ends i n basic structural change. The most significant and influential general fe ature of D u rkhei m's ap­ proach was his interpretation o f epistemology as the analysis, on the m o s t fundamental level, o f t h e structural articulations of cultural experience ( a n d t h e i r relation t o anomie). The o b j e c t o f epistemological analysis i n t h i s sense w a s to u n e a r t h the m o r e o r l e s s related set o f paradigms or categories which, i n varying combinations, informed symbolic experience expressed in word and action. The intimate link between an epistemologically ori­ ented s o c i o l o gy and p h i l os o p h y was m a n ifest. S o c i o l ogy w o u l d culminate in what might b e termed ( i n the expression of Ernst Cassirer) a p h i l o s o p h y of s y m b o l i c fo rms. The promise i n this conception o f e p i s t emology as the archaeology of cultural experience was fo rmulated by Marcel Mauss: "We must first of all draw u p as complete as possible a catalogue o f categories, beginning with those which m a n k i n d is known t o have employed. I t will then be seen t h a t there have b e e n , and that there still are, many dead moons, and others pale or obscure, in the firmament o f reason . " 2 7 This perspective en joined a correlation of epistem ology w i t h society and culture. The attempt to l i m i t epistemological i n q u i r y to an investigation o f t h e m i n d o f t h e isolated individual was a symptom o f ideological distortion. From Durkhe im's point o f view, solipsism and the p r o b l e m o f other minds might b e seen, not as components o f an epistemological theory, but as problems fo r epistemological investigation and p hilosophical criticism. They were symptomatic elements of the same pathological context of atomistic individualism that included utili tarian ethics, economic self-interest, and narrowly empiricist methodo logy. Isolation was the limiting case of the com­ mon medium of all symbolic systems: interaction involving communication. Only sensation was c o n fi n e d t o the individual o rga n i s m ; but sym b o l i s m , and especially t h e concept, was an o b j e c t o f communication. A c o n c e p t is not my concept. It i s c o m m o n to m e and other men or, i n any case, i t can b e c o m m unicated to t h e m . But I cannot make a sensation pass from my consciousness into the consciousness o f

Chapter

6

The Sacred and Society

257

another; i t i s narrowly b o u n d u p w i t h m y organism and my per­ sonali ty, and it c a n n o t be detached fro m them . . . . B y themselves individual consciousnesses are c l o s e d to one another. T h e y can c o m m u n i cate only b y means of signs w h i ch translate t h e i r i n t ernal s t a t e s . F o r t h e commerce w h i c h is established among them to b e able t o c u l m i n a t e i n c o m m u n i o n , i . e . , i n a fu s i o n o f all particular sentiments i n a common sentiment, there must b e signs expressing these sentiments which themselves are fused in a sole a n d u n i q u e resultant. I t i s t h e appearance of t h i s resultant w h i c h e n a b l e s i n ­ d i v i d u a l s to k n o w t h a t t h e y a r e u n i t e d and w h i c h m a k e s t h e m conscious o f their m o r a l u n i ty.28 This viewpoint gave special i m p ortance to the socialization p r o cess i n e p i s t e m o logical investiga t i o n s . For, i n t h e fl ow o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n that made t h e individual a m e m b e r of soci ety, there w o u l d be transmitted i n o p e rative fo r m t h e b asic categories o f experience and t h e anomie i n c o n ­ sistencies which typified social life. T h i s d i d n o t necessarily imply that t h e individual was merely a p assive receptacle of traditional paradigms and creative interaction. But it did mean that he or she c o u l d fo rm h i s o r her o w n i d e a s o n l y against the b ackgro u n d o f c o m m o n experience o r c o m m o n disorientation. And those ideas w o u l d have t o b e addressed to c o m m o n p r o b l e m s and ass u m e accessible fo rm if t h e y were to have o t h e r t h a n i d i osyncratic o r psy chopathological meaning. Crucial for D u rkheim was the basis in society o f all major symb o l i c systems a n d m o d e s o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n . T h i s i d e a , w h i c h raised p r o b l e m s a t t h e intersection o f epistemo logy a n d social psychology, w h i c h Durkheim d i d not treat, applied t o the natural sciences as well as to religion o r mo­ rali ty. In reality, science is s o m e t h i n g pre-eminently social, however great the role of individuals may be i n it. I t is social b e cause i t s m e t h o d s a n d t e c h n i q u e s are the work of t r a d i t i o n , a n d t h e y constrain t h e person with an authority comparable to that o f rules of law o r morals. T h e y are t r u l y i n s t i t u t i o n s which a p p l y t o t h o ug h t , j us t as j u ridical and p o l i t i c a l i n s t i t u t i o n s are obligatory m e t h o d s o f ac­ t i o n . In a d d i t i o n , s c i e n ce is social b e cause it u t i l i z e s n o t i o n s which dominate all thought and i n which all of civilization is condensed: the categories.2 9

258

I:rnile Durkheirn: Sociologist and Philosopher

The role o f neo-Kantianism i n Durkheim's thought was revealed in the significance h e attributed to the categories. "If the mind is a synthetic ex­ pression of the world, the system of categories is a synthetic expression of the human m i n d . " 3 0 T h e categories, for D u rkheim, were the fundamental logical institutions of the human mind conceived as a sociocultural reality with an organic base. By identifYing the category with his own notion of the collec­ tive representation, he simultaneously grounded it i n culture and society and expanded its range of application to encompass all forms of symbolic experi­ ence. "De quelques formes primitives de classification"

(Primitive Class�fication,

1 90 1 ) , written by Durkheim in collaboration with Mauss, had the virtue of demonstrating, with some oversimplification, the systematic and meaningful character of classifi catory systems in "primi tive" societies. Despite the ten­ dentiousness o f his own u l t i m ate scheme of interpretation, the fun damental step Durkheim took was t o open up to epistemological reflection the entire gamut of human cultures and symbo lically informed systems, including social structure and religion. Although the postulates of his own social metaphysic j eopardized his effort, Durkheim further intended his conception of epistemo logy t o serve as a way of overcoming the antinomy between, or at least of providing a compromise fo rmation linking, empiricism and apriorism. The rationalism which is immanent in a sociological theory o f knowl­ edge is an intermediary b etween empiricism and classical apriorism. For the first, the categories are p urely artificial constructions; fo r the second, they are, o n the contrary, natural givens. For us, they are in a sense works of art, b u t of an art which imi rates nature with a perfection susceptible of growing without limit.J l The catego ry, in other words, was neither a p u rely nominalistic l a b e l nor the natural scaffolding o f the m i n d . I t was s i m ultaneously a sociocultural given and the product of human activi t y - an historical monument b ui l t t o withstand t h e erosive pressure of a n o m i e . On t h e whole, however, D urkheim remained closer t o the apriorist side o f the classical antagonism, and h i s social metaphysic revealed the extent to which h e was unable t o transcend dualism through a more dialectical or dialogic m o de o f t h o u g h t . H e was possessed o f an inordinate sense o f the conceptual presence o f categories.

Chapter

6

The Sacred and Society

259

This was i n d i cated i n his specific interpretation of structural analysis and the i m p o rtance o f the concept. 'To conceive a thing is simultaneously to grasp more adequately its essential elements and to situate it within a whole; for each civilization has i t s organized system of concepts which characterize i t . Before this system o f notions, the individual m i n d is i n t h e s a m e situation as t h e N o u s of Plato before the world of ldeas."32 In

The Elementary Forms, the problem of determining the essential con­

stituents o f religion joined that o f comparing science to symbolic systems prevalent i n "primi tive" societies. Ye t in this respect Durkheim's argument was almost entirely s u b o rdinated to his social metaphysic. As a preface to t h e discussion of the m e taphysical chapter of Durkheimism, it is interest­ ing t o c o m p are t h e a t t e m p t o f Claude Levi-Strauss to address h i mself to problems similar to those of Durkheim. Although Levi-Strauss refuses to admit a philosophical intention, his book

La Pensee sau vage ( Th e Savage Mind) might well b e taken as a study

i n epistemology. In this work, Levi-Strauss sought out a structure of the mind that was pre-eminently characteristic of certain societies b ut which represented a p e r m a n e n t given, o r at least an ever-present possibi l i ty, i n human experience. T h u s t h e object o f i n vestigation was n o t t h e thought of the savages but savage thought as a symbolic form o r archetypical m o d e of articulating experience. T h e English t e r m "savage thought" ( a n d even more so, "the savage m i n d , " with its resurrection of Lucien Levy-Bruhl and his penchant fo r unbridgeable antipathies b e tween the primitive and the modern) obviously fails t o capture the relevance and symbolic weight of the French express i o n .

La pensee sauvage refers ambiguously to culture (a

structure of the human mind) and to nature (to a species of fl ower, the wild pansy). Thus it not only l i terally denotes, but metaphori cally expresses, the t y p e of comprehensive paradigm that correlates culture and nature. Within

Ia pensee sau vage, one may distinguish two dialectically related levels, or (in the Hegelian sense) "moments." La pensee sauvage constitutes une theorie du sensible o r a structure of percep t i o n , b u t it o p e rates s i m u l ta­ neously on two levels: the literal and t h e metaphoric. Often its meticulous classifl.cations of natural phenomena can b e correlated w i t h those o f positive sciences like b o tany, which approach reality o n the same strategic level of perception. In all cases, it manifests a close and sustained attention to natural phenomena and processes that are o p e n to sensory perception. Moreover,

260

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

Its technology, e . g . , in metal-working, reveals the product, not of chance discovery, b ut o f experimentation. In t h i s sense, the "Neolithic revol u t i o n , " bringing t h e a r t s o f civilization like agriculture, p o t t ery, and weaving, which still remain as a fou n d a t i o n of modern culture, was an achievement o f

Ia

pensee sauvage. B u t observation, within the context of Ia penst!e sauvage, i s not separated fro m o t h e r levels o f experience to result in a p o s i ti v i s t i c n o ti o n o f n a t u r e . N o r i s t e c h n o l ogy s e e n as an e x p r e s s i o n o f u n i l a t e r a l d o m i n at i o n over nature by h u m a n s ; it is r a t h e r a m e d i a t o r b e t w e e n culture and n a t u r e . In other words, b o th o b s e r v a t i o n a n d applied knowledge are i m p l i c a t e d i n m o r e e n c o m p a s s i n g structures w h i c h p l a c e t h e m w i t h i n a b r o a d e r s c o p e o f n o r m a tive regu l a ti o n , i m ag i n a t i v e m u t u a l i ty, a n d e m o t i o n a l response. "Enveloping t e r m s , which c o n fo u n d e d i n a s o r t of s u r r e a l i ty the o b j e cts o f p e r c e p t i o n a n d the e m o t i o n s they a r o u s e d , p r e c eded analytic r e d u c­ t i o n in t h e s t r i c t s e n s e . " 3 3 N o t i o n s are "ensnared" in i m ages like b i r d s i n qui cklime, and t h e y i m p l y an i n tr i c a t e n e t w o r k o f c o r r e l a t i o n s and correspondences a m o n g various levels of e x p e r i e n c e . T h e u l t i m a t e logi­ cal i n t e n t i o n o f t h i s m o d e of t h o u g h t is cosm i c . A n d prom i n e n t i n t h e a t t e m p t t o classify t h e elements o f t h e known universe i n a m e a n i ngfu l manner are correlations b etween social a n d n a t u r a l p h e n o m e n a . " T h e mythical system o f r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s serves t o e s t a b l i s h r e l a t i o n s o f h o m o l ­ o g y b e tw e e n natural c o n d i t i o n s a n d s o c i a l c o n d i t i o n s . O r m o r e exactly, i t d e fi n e s a law o f e q u i valence a m o n g m e a n i ngful contrasts which are s i t u ­ ated on several levels: geographical, m e t e o r o l o g i c a l , z o o l o g i c a l , b o t anical, t e c h n i c a l , e c o n o m i c , social, r i t u a l , religious, p h i l o s o p h i c a l . " 34 From t h i s p o i n t of v i e w, t h e i n t i m a t e r e l a t i o n s between religion and m a g i c w i t h i n the c o n t e x t o f

Ia p enst!e sauvage b e co m e m a n i fe s t . They

represent c o m p l e m e n tary directions taken b y t h e imaginative m u t u a l i ty of h u m ans a n d n a t u r e . If i t can i n a sense b e s a i d t h a t r e l i g i o n c o n s i s t s o f a h u m a n i z a t i o n of n a t u r a l laws and m a g i c o f a n a t u r a l i z a t i o n o f h u m a n a c t i o n s - t h e t r e a t m e n t o f c e r t a i n h u m a n a c t i o n s as if t h e y w e r e a n i n ­ tegral p a r t of physical d e t e r m i n i s m - t h i s is n o t t o s a y t h a t these are alternatives o r stages i n an e v o l u ti o n . T h e a n t h r o p o m o r p h i s m o f n a t u r e (of w h i c h religion consists) an d t h e p h ys i o m o r p h i s m

Chapter

6

The Sacred and Society

261

of m a n ( b y w h i c h we have d e fi n e d magic) c o n s t i t u t e two com­ p o n e n t s w h i c h are always given, a n d vary only i n p r o p o r t i o n . . . . Each i m p l i e s t h e o t h e r. There is no religion w i t h o u t magic, any m o r e than there is magic without a t least a trace o f religion. The notion o f a supernature exists only fo r a h u manity which a t t r i b u t e s s u p e r n a t u r a l powers t o i t s e l f and i n return ascri b e s t h e p o w e r s o f its s u p e r h u m a n i t y t o n a t u r e . 3 5 We have already ob served t h a t for Levi-Strauss totemism i s n o t the global institution invariably combining kinship and religion that i t was for Durkheim. It is an instance of the general logical principle of differentiation and inte­ grati o n . With i n t h e context of !a penseesau vage, totemism posits a metaphoric h o m ology between a binary opposition of natural species (the totems) and a binary opposition of human groups. This ordering principle is avai lable for a complex variety of uses in society. B u t its usage as a principle of kinship may not coincide with religious belief, and vice versa. From Levi-Strauss's viewpoint, the attempt to explain away facts by unfounded evolutionary hypotheses has no relation to scientific theory. The theoretical problem, at a higher level of u n derstanding, is to discover the higher-order paradigms that account for the actual correlations among aspects of cultural life or represent possible variations of them. For Levi-Strauss, all thought employs the same formal logical principles, such as opposition and correlation. In this sense, no thought is "prelogical." But significant differences do exist both between symb olic forms and b e tween t h e i r actual p revalence i n different societies. I n t h e principal fields of modern life characterized b y technology and b u reaucracy, Ia pensie sau vage is rather wilted; it flourishes largely in marginal areas, such as certain fo rms of art. The level of concrete perception has diminished importance, and it is difficult to conceive o f truly credible paradigms that i ntegrate or at least relate the literal and the metaphoric in shared experience. Positive science appears as a "do­ mesticated" fo rm of t h o u g h t t h a t approaches reality on a m o re s o p h isticated strategic level - that of conceptual formulation and mathematical notation - and it results i n a more operational knowledge o f nature. But the price i t often pays i s fragmentation and the alienation ofh umans fro m more inclusive structures of experience. Symbolism, in general, tends to become formally rationalized and emotionally neu tralized.

262

J:rnile Durkheirn: Sociologist and Philosopher

This b r i e f discussion o f Levi-Strauss's thought i s i n t e n d e d merely to i n d i cate the areas of vital i n terest touched u p o n in D u r k h e i m's i d e a of a sociological epistemology. The problems that I have s u p erfi cially treated did receive some attention from D u r k h e i m , b u t his ideas remained disparate a n d were given a semblance of coherence only through the medium o f his social m e t a physic.36 Yet what seem like gains in comparison with D u rk h e i m may also in­ volve p o s s i b l e losses. In a thinker like Levi-Strauss, one at t i m e s senses an unresolved tension between h u m a n warmth and fo rmalism, clarity and o b scurantist preciosity, a feeling for the i nterplay between the literal and the metaphoric, and a somewhat technocratic fascination fo r the manipulation o f a n alytically reduced "logical operators."37 Durkhei m's social m et a physic was h i s surrogate fo r religious belief and his inspiration fo r social action. Unfo r t u n a tely, in confi ding in s o m e t h i n g as palpably i n e ffective as social m e t a p h y s i c , D u rk h e i m dissipated b o t h h i s m assive intelligence and h i s g e n u i n e s p i r i t u a l i n t e nsity. F r o m him o n e m i g h t have e x p e c t e d a m o r e convincing a t t e m p t t o fo rge a synthesis b e t w e e n u n co o rdinated elements o f m o de r n e x p e r ience and the h e r i tage o f devaluated s y m b olic fo r m s .

Social Afetaphysic Like o t h e r c o m p a r a b l e systems of the t i m e - e . g . , t h o s e of Marx o r Freud - Durkheim's social m e taphysic ulti mately conceived of in­ terpretation i n the fo r m of reductionism. lt presented a truncated and i m p overished n o t i o n of reality that i d entifi ed adequate analysis with t h e sacrifi ce of t h e c o m p l e x i t y and diversity o f h u m a n e x p e r i e n c e o n t h e altar of a unilateral fi x a t i o n . To a l l p r o b l e m s i n h i s t o r y a n d p h i l o s o p hy, D u rkheim fe lt j ustifi ed i n offering what came i n t i m e to b e a p refab­ ricated and mechani cal "s ociological" s o l u t i o n whose very predictability and fac i l e app l i cab i l i ty were i n d i ca t i o n s of s u p e r fi c i a l i t y and c i r c u l a r i ty. The operational u p s h o t of D u rkheimian social m e t a p hys i c was a sociolo­ gistic m e t h o d o logy which recently has taken the fo rm of radical social constructivi s m . This i n t e r p retive schema accounted fo r all symbolically informed p h e n o m e n a in terms o f the contrast b e tween social reality ( o r anti-essentialist social c o n s t r u c t i o n ) a n d cultural "dress . " In o t h e r words,

Chapter

6

The Sacred and Society

26.3

h u m a n experience was i n t erpreted as i f s o c i e t y ( o ften a vague c o n c e p t i n itself) o r s o m e s p e cifi ed s o c i a l d i m e n s i o n (gender, sexuali ty, race, class) was the b a s i c c o n s t i t utive reality and all other aspects of culture were derivative o r secondary m a n i festations. A sociologistic m e t h o dology was t o be fo u n d even i n theorists w h o rejected o t h e r e l e m e n ts o f Durkheim's heritage, e . g . , t h e relative de-emphasis o f s o c i a l c o n fl i ct a n d i t s fu n c t i o n s . F o r example, Edmund Leach fel t j ustifi ed in p refacing h i s i m p o r t a n t work,

The Political

Systems of Highland Burma, w i t h the declaration: M y view h e r e is t h a t r i t u al a c t i o n a n d belief are alike to be u n d e r­ s t o o d as fo rms of sym b o l i c s t a t e m e n t a b o u t t h e s o c i a l o r d e r . . . . C u l t u r e provides t h e fo r m , t h e "dress" o f the s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n . As far as I a m c o n c e r n e d , the cultural s i t u a t i o n is a given factor, i t is a p r o d u c t a n d an accident o f h i s t o ry. I do n o t know w h y Kachin w o m e n go hatless with b o b b e d hair b efo re t h e y a r e married, b u t assume a t u r b a n a fterwards, any m o r e than I know why English w o m e n p u t a ring on a p a r t i c u l a r finger to d e n o t e the same change in s o c i a l s t a t u s ; a l l I am i n terested in is that in this Kachin context t h e assumption of a turban b y a w o m a n does h ave this s y m b o l i c signifi cance. I t is a s t a t e m e n t a b o u t the s t a t u s o f the w o m a n . 3 8 T h e l a s t i n g a c h i e v e m e n t o f L e v i - S t r a u s s i n a n t h r o p o l ogy w a s t h e awareness t h a t s y m b o l i c systems, e s p e c i a l l y i n certain s o c i e t i e s , engaged p r o b l e m s o f m e a n i n g and coherence; t h a t t h e i r r e d u c t i o n to social factors (or u t i l i t a r i a n n e e d s , economics, b i o l o gy, and so fo r t h ) might i t s e l f be a reB ection of m o d e r n e t h n o c e n t r i s m ; a n d t h a t t h e p r o b l e m was, rather, the r e l a t i o n s h i p s among vari o u s levels o f experience and signifying p ractices. But sociologism, social fu nctionalism, and radical social constructivism are t h e o p e ra t i o n a l " r a t i o n a l ization" ( i n t h e Web e r i a n sense) of D u r k h e i m's thought, w h i c h at times c o n s c i o u s ly e m p loy t h e language o f p e r s pectives, interests, and arbitrary i n i t i a l definitions. D u rkheim's sociologism was p a r t a n d p a r c e l o f a genuinely m e t aphysical v i e w. D u r k h e i m n o t o n l y r e t a i n e d t h e classical c o m m i t m e n t to truth a n d realistic defi n i t i o n , b u t h i s search fo r the reality o f things was c o nveyed in a n i n creasingly mystiq u e - l a d e n fo rm o f d i s c o u rs e w h i c h h e used to reco u n t a n e l a b o r a t e myth of origins and an i d eology o f modern so ciety which had a d i s t i n ctive r o l e i n his own Third R e p u b l i c .

Emile Du rkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

26 4 In

The Elementary Forms ofthe Religious Life, the argument that religion

was the origin o f culture culminated i n the idea that society was the origin a n d essence of religion. Since the fi rst ideas of humans were representations of religious reali ty, soci ety was consequently also the origin of the catego­ ries. In

The Elementary Forms, the piece of argument directly addressed to the identity o f G o d and society was little more than a fo rm of pars pro toto legerdemain fo llowed by a string of rhetorical questions: [The totem] is the outward and visible fo rm of what we have called the totemic principle or god. But it is also the symbol o f the deter­ minate society called the clan. It is its flag; it is the sign by which each clan distinguishes itself from the others, the visible mark o f its personali ty, a mark borne b y everything which is a part of the clan under any title whatsoever, men, beasts, or things. So if it is at once t h e symb o l of the god and o f t h e society, is that not because t h e god and the society are only one? How could the emblem of the group have been able to b ecome the figure of this quasi divinity if the group and the divinity were two distinct entities? The god o f the clan, the totemic principle, can therefore be nothing else than the clan itself, personified and represented to the imagination under the visible form of the animal o r vegetable which serves as totem.39 Thus Durkheim felt entitled to conclude, n o t only that religi o u s belief a n d ritual had social functions, or even social aspects, b u t that they were specifically, o r

sui generis, social in essential reality and origin. Of ritual,

h e wrote: Everything leads u s back to the same idea: i t is that rituals are above all else the means by which the social group reaffi rms itself peri­ odi cally. F r o m t h i s , we m a y perhaps arrive a t a hypothetical recon­ struction of the manner in which the totemic cult must primi tively have been born. Men who feel themselves united in part through bonds o f b l o o d b ut still more through a community o f interests and traditions assemble and b e c o m e conscious o f their moral unity . . . . T h e moral effi cacy o f ritual, which is real, led men to believe i n i t s physical effi cacy, which is i m aginary . . . . T h e truly useful effects which ceremonies produce are like the experimental j ustification of the elementary practices of which they are c o m posed.40

Chapter

6

The Sacred and Society

T h e full sweep and nature of the argu m e n t in

265

The Elementary Fo rms are

better understood if one sees it i n the light o f D urkhei m's preparatory articles o n related p r o b l e m s , especially his study of the i n c e s t t a b o o .4 1 Durkheim began with the root assumption that social solidarity and social structure were u l t i m a t e realities and explanatory p r i n c i p l e s . Continuity with his earlier thought was embodied in the belief that community was prior to the structural differentiations which stemmed fro m it. Beginning with the idea of a group o f people who had some sense of their m o r a l and social c o m m u n i ty, Durkheim introduced the idea o f "collective effervescence" as a transitional force that led to the genesis of religious cults. Collective ef­ fervescence was in this sense a sacralizing, mana-like elan, which intensified the sense o f c o m m u n i ty until i t attained religious proportions and p r o p e l l e d humans from the s t a t e of n a t u r e i n t o t h a t of c u l t u r e and soci ety. I n h i s article on the incest t a b o o , Dur kheim was even m o r e specifi c in his elaboration o f a sociologistic myth of origins. Seized by a n inten­ sifi ed sense of their own solidarity, the group selected a totem to serve as its e m b l e m . Its unity was s o l i d i fi e d b y the myth o f a common t o t e m i c an cestor w h o s e blood w a s im agined to Row i n t h e v e i n s o f t h e c l a n . T h e asso c i a t i o n b etween t h e imaginary m ythical b l o o d o f t h e c o m m u n a l clan and the very real menstrual b l o o d of its fem ale members presumably p r o ­ v o k e d horror at t h e idea o f c l a n endogamy. T h u s , although totemism was i n fact a restricted p h e n o m e n o n and the p r o h i b i t i o n of i n c e s t a universal p h e n o m e n o n , the myth of origins, which led fro m s o c i a l solidarity to t o t e m i s m , caused Durkheim to b e lieve that incest derived fro m a s p e c i fi c totemic taboo. Evolutionary i d e a s , i n t h i s way, t o o k on a fully mythical cast. I n d e e d D u r k h e i m's d i fficulty with p r o b l e m s of gender and sexuality was here m a n i fest in a particu larly bewildering, question-b egging form . H e relied on a logic ( o r non-logic) of association t o l i n k the m e t a p h o r i c blood mythically s h a r e d by the c l a n and the r e a l menstrual blood o f i t s women m e m b e r s i n o r d e r to provide a p s e udo-explanation fo r t h e p r o ­ h i b i t i o n of incest. W o m e n , w h o m D u r kheim d e s c r i b e d a s "a t h e a t e r o f bloody manifes t a t i o n s , " were singled o u t , even scapegoated, as a point o f spreading contagion that provoked ritual anxiety o r p h o b i a in the m e n o f t h e clan - a sacred horror w h i c h somehow p r o d u c e d t h e incest t a b o o . T h e profound i l l o g i c o f t h i s seeming l o g i c o f association n o t only derived the universal (the incest taboo) fro m the particular or at best the typical

266

J:rnile Durkheirn: Sociologist and Philosopher

(totemism ) ; i t fu rther p articularized or localized the "origin" of the universal i n the gendered, sexed "nature" or state of w o m e n . Durkheim confro nted the obvious p r o b l e m of why, on his view, there was not a spread of ritual horror, via menstruation, to all women, eventuating in a taboo, or at least a sense of ritual danger and disgust, not only with respect to incest b u t t o all (hetero )sexual relations. Appealing, in circular fashion, t o evolutionary or developmental assumptions, h e "explained" that this broader contagion did indeed occur b u t only at a later stage, that is, after the decline of totemic institu tions and in weakened or diluted form. Given the almost transparent logical difficulties i n his account, one is tempted to conclude that Du rkheim manhandled his insights concerning sexuali ty, t h e sacred, and taboo by i m p licitly begi n n i n g w i t h a prejudicial p o s t u l a t i o n or experience of ritual horror at contamination through the menstrual blood of women that he projectively employed to elaborate an implausible "theory" of the origin of the incest taboo - a "theory" which was little more than a specious secondary revision. Still, his views had significant symptomatic value insofar as they were not idiosyncratic to him b u t ind icative of more preva l e n t a n x i eties and q u asi-ritual fears of c o n t a m i n a t i o n that ch aracterized men at the t i m e o r even in some more general b u t indeterminate manner - anxieties and fears that might, in the context of the ambivalence of the sacred, b e combined with a sense o f mystery and attracti on/repulsion sur­ rounding sexuality. T h e y also had the m e r i t of m a k i n g explicit and o p ening t o critical scrutiny at least one variant o f "irrational" response to sexuality that could not b e reduced to matters of hygiene, medicalized precaution, or indeed any fo rm of instrumental ratio nali ty. Durkheim sensed the ways in which sex could n o t be m a d e entirely "safe" in that it was i m p l icated i n t h e dialectic o f p u ri t y a n d danger w i t h t i e s t o the sacred, t h e ritualistic, and the strangely disconcerting. Whatever o n e may think of his s p e c i fi c way of theorizing this complex o f problems, h e p u t it o n the agenda of social and cultural thought in a manner that later thinkers, such as G e orges Bataille, Rene G i rard, Michel Foucault, and J u l i a Kristeva, would take up i n t h e i r own m o r e o r less problematic ways. Apparent in Durkheim's social metaphysic of religion was the extent to which his argument depended on modern presuppositions which in fact were typical o f one i m p ortant dimension o f his thought as a whole. From the very outset, Durkheim analytically dissociated intelligible reality i n t o

Chapter

6

The Sacred and Society

267

a realm of material nature and an autonomous realm of social facts. H e conceived this realm o f social facts i n "hyperspiritu al" terms and i dentifi ed it increasingly with the ob j e e r of idealistic philosophy. In the extremely dualistic, Cartesianized neo-Kantian tendency of D u rkheim's thought, the human being was

homo dup lex - a composite of a b o d y and an ideal o r

s p i r i t u al social self. D u rk h e i m d i d n o t d e v o t e s u ffi c i e n t a t t e n t i O n to the i n t e r a c t i o n s b e t w e e n b o d y a n d m i n d , e v e n w h e n t h e y c o u l d b e form ulated literally, e . g . , genetically o r psychosomati cally. Possible m e t a p h o r i c relations often seemed to be completely beyond h i s ken. Indeed h i s tendency to p r o m o t e a t e n s e , at t i m e s ambivalent d u a l i t y b e t w e e n interacting fo rces into a b i ­ n a r i s t i c m i n d- b o d y ( o r society-individual) d u a l i s m i n h i b i t e d h i s a b i l ity to elaborate a n o t i o n of the socio-symbolic dimensions of the b o d y i tself. And h i s analysis of t h e symbolic effi cacy of ritual neglected t o consider the very real effe cts o f religion and magic on the organic and psychological processes of the b e l i ever. Epistemologi cally, D u rkhei m's d u a l i s t i c c o n c e p t i o n of human nature led h i m to restrict his atte n t i o n to s e n s a t i o n , which h e correlated with the "individual" b o dy, and the concept, which he correlated with the spe­ cifica lly, hyper-spiri tualistically social. This frame o f reference was fully developed i n h i s 1 8 98 article, " I n d i v i d u a l Representations and Collective Representati o n s . " T h e " i ndividual representation" was the sensation. The "collective representation" was the concept. Durkheim devoted n o attention in his understanding of e p i s te m o l ogy to p e r c e p t i o n , imagination, e m o t i o n , personal uniqueness, a n d the r e l a t i o n o f t h o u g h t t o action. T h i s o m i s s i o n created a logical gap between his epistemological p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s and such of h i s methodological notions as "social morphology" ( w h i c h i n general was comparable to the anthropological n o t i o n of "material culture"), sentiment, anomie, the role of the i n d i v id ual in culture, and the relation o f theory and practice in the passage fro m p a t h o l ogy to n o r m a l i ty. I t also accounted fo r h i s c u r i o u s c o n c e p t i o n o f ec o n o m i cs as the study of t h e i n dividual a n d t h e material - a n o t i o n t h a t d i d little j u s t i c e t o t h e problem o f e c o n o m i c i n s t i t u t i o n s . I n b r i ef, t h e extremely d u a l i s t i c a s s u m p t i o n s o f h i s s o c i a l m e t a p h y s i c and i t s epi stemological corollaries s u b o r d i n a t e d a tensely and o p e n l y dialectical ( o r dialogic) conception o f experience t o a r i g i d idea of disjunctive antinomies o r b i n a r y o p p o s i t i o n s .

268

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher When Durkheim came to devote special a t t e n tion to the sacred, h e

was faced w i t h a p r o b l e m o f classifi cation created b y t h e presuppositions of one element o f his thought. H e solved it by placing the sacred i n the category o f the specifi cally social and interpreting its various manifesta­ tions as "superpositions" of the social and the "hyperspiritual." I n his " L e D u a l i s m e de I a n a t u re h u m a i n e e t s e s c o n d i t i o n s sociales" ( 1 9 1 4) , which h e first presented as a speech to his spiritualistic, neo-Kantian peer group at the Societe Frans:aise d e Philosophie, Durkheim argued that the basic contribution o f

The Elementary Fo rms w a s to show that t h e sociology o f

religion provided confi rmation fo r t h e traditional i d e a of a dualism b etween b o d y and s p i r i t in man. In other words, D urkheim asserted that his inter­ pretation of religion revealed that the m i n d - b o dy dualism was an essential characteristic of human nature - a viewpoint that seems to raise the specific (if not the p athological) t o t h e universal. Thus Durkheim's primary line of development in an increasingly idealistic direction was to be fou nd in h i s growing reliance o n antinomies or b i n a r y oppositions - a reliance which culminated i n the idea of homo

duplex. H e conceived o f the passage from

nature to culture as the spiritual arousal o f the inert or quiescent grou p , like the conglomerate body of s o m e incredible Frankenstein m o nster, through the electric charge o f "collective effervescence" which mysteriously generated t h e " h y p e r s p i r i t u a l " ideals o f c i v i l i z at i o n . B u t b o t h i n h i s emphasis o n sacred community a n d i n h i s s o c i ological (or sociologistic) reformulation of the idea of

homo duplex, D urkheim's

thought represented a reaction agai nst extreme variants of secularization i n modern culture. M e taphors a n d imagination, excluded fro m o t h e r spheres of experience, Hooded Durkheim's idea of the social thro ugh the n arrow channel left o p e n by his conceptualistic and s p i r i t ualistic tendencies. With increasing abandon, Durkheim gave himself, not to devel oping concrete images of social life, b u t to composing allegories in the form of abstract conceptual prose poems a b o u t the true nature of soci ety. The sacred was society expressed metaphorically. Incarnation fo und its reality i n the pro­ cess o f socialization. Roles assumed the quality of sanctified callings. And t h e educator had a truly priest-like fun ct i o n as the i ntermediary between society and its members. T h e b eliever bows down b e fore God b e cause i t is fro m God that h e b elieves h e receives his being, and particularly his mental being,

Chapter

6

The Sacred and Society

269

his s o u l . We have the same reasons to fee l this sentiment for the collectivi tyY What indeed is discipline if not society conceived as what commands us, dictates orders, and gives us laws? And in the second element of morality - the attachment to a group - i t i s again society that we fi nd, b u t conceived this time as a good and desirable thing, an end which attracts us, an ideal to be realized. In the fo rmer sense, i t app ears to us as an authority which contains us, fixes limits which resist o u r infringements, and b efore which w e bow w i t h religious respect; i n the latter sense, i t i s a friendly and protecting power, a nursing mother, from whom we receive the principal part of our intellectual and m oral substance and toward whom our wills are turned in an elan of grati tude and love. In one case, it is like the j ealous and fearful god, the severe legislator, who does n o t permit his orders to be transgressed; in the other, i t is the divinity who cares for us and for whom the believer sacrifices himself with j oy. What constitutes the authority which colors ro readily the word of the priest is the elevated idea h e has of his mission; for he speaks i n the name of a god i n which he be lieves and toward which h e feels closer than the crowd of the profane. The lay teacher can and must have something o f t h i s s e n t i m e n t . He too is the organ of a great moral person which transcends him; this is society. J u s t as t h e priest is the interpreter of his god, so the teacher is the interpreter of the great moral ideas of his time and country.43 In short, society has "all that it takes

[tout

ce

qu'i l fout]" to inspire the

idea of the sacre d , " b ecause i t i s to its members what a god is to b elievers."44 Durkheim perceived social metaphysics as the symbolic groundwork fo r a conception of social ethics that allowed fo r sentiment and emotion. Indeed the much-heralded "death of G od " was b u t a prelude to t h e b i rt h of Society. One will notice the analogy be tween this line of reasoning and that by which Kant demonstrates God. Kant postulates God because, without this hypothesis, m orality is unintelligible. We postulate a society spe­ cifi cally distinct from individuals b ecause otherwise morality i s without an object and duty without an anchor point . . . . Between God and society one must choose . . I may add that, from my point of view, this choice leaves me indifferent, b e cause I see in divinity only society transfi gured and conceived sym b o l i c ally.45 . .

270

J:rnile Durkheirn: Sociologist and Philosopher

So, one must choose, b u t the choice is a non-choice in that G o d is the symbol of Society. (Heads I win; tails you lose.) Still, there is an important sense in which, from beginning to end, morality constituted the center of Durkheim's thought. And he believed that his substantively rational conception of morality was not undermined but fortified and completed by his social philoso phy. Some quasi-religious basis was necessary fo r all morality and social solidarity. But the beliefs that justified religion had increasingly lost credibility in the modern world. For Durkheim, sociology itself had the task of providing a theoretical fo undation for religion - a fo undation that would simultaneously serve as its own ultimate legitimation. Hence Durkheim made the almost Thomis­ tic effo rt to reconcile reason and faith, but in a secularized fashion adapted to the needs of modern society. T h e vision of a society based upon truth and j u st i c e and able to reconcile reason and the ritual attitude o f sacred respect was vital to D u rkheim's i d e a of structural reform i n m o d e r n soci ety. It w a s a l s o i m p o r t a n t for h i s i d e a of t h e s p e c i a l mission o f sociology i n his own France. S o c i al mys t i q u e was intended as a means of strengthening resolve and inspiring action for the achievement and m a i n t e n a n c e of the normal s o c i e ty. In The Elem entary Fo rms, D u rkhei m's concluding call fo r a revival of the s p i r i t and a renewal

of the work of the French Revo lution gave vibrant p r o o f that his last rn a jor work was con ceived against the background of the need for social action to effect a passage fro m pathology to normality in modern society. If we find i t difficult to i m agine what the feasts and ceremonies of the fu ture could consist in, this is because we are going through a stage of transition and m o ral mediocri ty. The great things of the past which filled our fathers with enthusiasm do not excite the same ardor i n us, either because they have passed into common usage to such an extent that we are unconscious of them, or else because they no longer answer our present aspirations . . . . In a word, the old gods are growing old or are already dead, and others are not yet born. This is what made vain the attempt of Comte to organize a religion with old historical memories artificially revived. I t is fro m life itself and not fro m the dead past that a living cult can emerge. But this state of incertitude and confused agitation cannot last fo rever. A day will come when our societies will know again those hours of creative effervescence in which new ideals will surge up and new fo rmulas will crystallize to serve for a while as a

Chapter

6

The Sacred and Society

27 I

guide to humanity. Once these hours have been experienced, men will spontaneously fe d the need to keep their memory alive through feasts which periodically reproduce their creations. We have already seen how the French Revo l u t i o n established a w h o l e cycle of holi days to keep the principles with which it was inspired in a state of perpetual youth. If this institution q u i ckly fell away, i t was because the revolutionary fai t h lasted b u t a moment, and disappointment and discouragement rapidly succeeded the first moments of enthusiasm. Although the work miscarried, i t enables us to imagine what might have happened in other conditions; and everything leads us to believe t h a t it will be taken up again sooner or later.46 Since D urkheim's death, quasi-religious ideologies have indeed often be­ come social and political i n nature. And his social metaphysic (which at least had the virtue of being explicit and manifestly open t o question) has been displaced into perhaps even more deceptive, prevalent, and frequen tly unques­ tioned forms of radical social constru ctivism through which all meaning and value are assumed to be sui generis social in nature and origin. Unfortunately, little i n modern history has realized D urkheim's generous hope for a solidar­ istic society based on reason and j ustice. D urkheim died before his optimism could b e severely tested b y rna jor contemporary events. On a more theoreti­ cal level, however, h e at times seemed to sense the tenuous basis of a social metaphysic which relied on questionable binaries and accepted the breakdown of comprehensive normative and cogni tive paradigms as the ne plus ultra of modern experience. At these times, he offered intimations of an integration of the natural sciences, technology, and social structure into grippi ngly i n clusive structures that extended the gift of solidarity to all of existence. Before his neo-Kantian colleagues at t h e Societe Fran�aise de Philosophie, he observed: "Nothing tells us that nature will not take up in the future, in a new form, the moral quality which it has lost. Perhaps a t i m e will c o m e when we will fi n d it morally blameworthy t o perform any unnecessary destruction."47 The one basic aspect o f symbolic systems i n certain societies that The Elementary Forms p laced i n sharp relief was the i m p ortance of the microcosm­ macrocosm schema in the comprehensive fo rmulation of shared experience. Social metaphysic induced Durkheim to perceive the cosmic archetype as a generalized projection of t h e specifically social institution. But a m i n o r t h e m e of The Elementar_y Forms was the manner i n which t h e social microcosm might,

272

J:rnile Durkheirn: Sociologist and Philosopher

however self-questioningly, b e integrated into cosmic paradigms which allowed fo r an intelligible articulation of other aspects o f b o t h literal and metaphoric perspectives on reality. Whether one reads Th e Elementary Forms as the nar­ row and somewhat mystified basis fo r an ideo logy of the speci fically social and the exclusively moral or as a problematic intimation of some broader vision o f culture in the most comprehensive sense, one may conclude that in it Durkheim became the Plato o f the Australian b lackfellows in order to emerge as the Angelic Doctor of consensual society.

Chapter 6

The Sacred and Society

27.3

Notes

1.

Robert Lowie, Primitive Religion (f rst pub. 1 924; New York: Universal Press, 1 9 5 2 ) , p. 1 57 . Talcott Parsons, The Structure of Social Action (first pub. 1 93 7 ; Glencoe, 2. I l l . : Free Press , 1 94 9 ) , p. 4 1 1 . Later Parsons made a similar evaluation: "An­ thropological research has enormously enriched our knowledge in this field, though Durkheim's codification and analysis of Australian totemism remains perhaps the most eminent single monographic contribution, because it is both a great monograph and much more than that" (In trod. to Max Weber's The Sociology ofReligion [Boston: Beacon Press, 1 96 3 ] , p . xxvii). See also On Durkheim's Elementary Forms of the Religious L{(e, ed. N . J . Allen, W. S. F. Pickering, and W. Watts Miller (London: Routledge, 1 9 9 8 ) . 3 . I I ( 1 897- 1 8 9 8 ) ; i n Kurt Woolf, e d . , Essays o n Sociology and Philosophy (first pub. 1 9 6 0 ; New York: Harper & Row, 1 964), pp. 3 5 0 -3 5 1 . 4 . Les Formes elimentaires de la vie religieuse (4th ed.; Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1 9 6 0), p. 1 1 . 5 . " D e L a Definition d u phenomene religi eux," Annie sociologique, I I ( 1 8971 8 98 ) , 1 3 . G. Formes ilimentaires de la vie religieuse, p p . 3 5 - 3 6 . 7. Ibid. , p . 6 5 . 8 . Henri Hubert and Marcel Mauss, "Esquisse d'une theorie generale d e Ia magi e," Annie sociologique, VII ( 1 9 0 1 - 1 902) ; reprinted in Marcel Mauss, Sociologie et anthropologie (first pub. 1 9 5 0 ; Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1 98 8 ) , pp. 3- 1 4 1 . 9 . Formes ilimentaires de !a vie religieuse, p p . 6 1 - 6 2. 10. Lerons de sociologie (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1 95 0 ) , p . 222. 1 1 . Henri Hubert and Marcel Mauss, "Essai sur I a nature et la fo nction du sac­ rif ce," Annie sociologique, II ( 1 897 - 1 8 9 8 ) ; in Mauss, Oeuvres, I: Les Fonctions sociales du sacri, ed. Victor Karady (Paris: Les Editions du Minuit, 1 96 8 ) , p p . 1 93 - 3 0 1 . S e e also Roger Caillois, L'Homme e t le sacri (Paris: Gallimard, 1 9 5 0 ) , and Mircea Eliade, The Sacred and the Profane (frst pub. 1 9 5 7 ; New York: Harper & Row, 1 9 6 1 ) . Eliade's other works, especially his Cosmos and History (first pub. 1 9 5 4 ; New York: Harper & Row, 1 9 5 9 ) , are important i n this respect. Equally relevant are the works o f Rene Girard, especially Violence and the Sacred, trans. Patrick Gregory (frst pub. 1 97 2 ; Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1 979) and Things Hiddm Since the Foundation of the World, trans. Stephen Bann and Michael Metteer (first pub. 1 97 8 ; Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1 9 89) .

274

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

1 2 . formes elbnmtaires de Ia vie religieuse, p. 1 1 4 . 1 3 . Ibid. , p . 97. 1 4 . London: Macmillan, 1 89 9 . This work was reviewed in detail by Durkheim (in its political and social aspects) and Mauss (in its religious aspects) in An­ nee sociologique, 1 1 1 ( 1 8 9 8 - 1 8 9 9 ) , 330-336, 205-2 1 5 . 1 5 . I l l ( 1 8 9 8 - 1 8 9 9 ) , p. 2 1 5 . 1 6. fu Durkheim put it: "It is not our intention to retrace all the speculations into which religious thought, even of the Australians alone, has entered. What we wish to reach are the elementary notions at the basis of religion; but there is no need to follow them through all the developments, sometimes very intricate, which mythological imagination has given them since primitive times. We shall make use of myths when they enable us to understand these fundamental no­ tions, but we shall not make mythology itself the object of our study. Moreover, insofar as mythology is a work of art, it does not fall within the j urisdiction of the science of religion s alone. Also, the mental processes which underlie it are too complex to be studied indirectly and tangentially. It constitutes a difficult problem which must be treated i n itself, for itself, and with a method peculiar to itself" (Formes elernmtaires de Ia vie religieuse, pp. 1 4 1 - 1 42) . 1 7 . Ibid. , p. 5 9 6 . 1 8 . O n e aspect o f ritual which Durkheim's own devotion t o Ia vie serieuse pre­ vented him from treating adequately was its tolerance of comic relief. He gave little attention to rituals which included buffoonery and even obscene raillery o r which inverted established principles of moral sobriety, dignity, authority, and hierarchy. Yet these aspects of ritual, which provided controlled and limited o utlets for immoral, vulgar, subversive, and at times unconscious desires, might function both to test and to validate the solidity of norms and institutions in the rest o f social life . They also indicated ways i n which religion went beyond moral notions of good and evil. Here the work of Bakhtin may be seen as providing a vital supplement to Durkheim's thought. On Bakhtin, see my Rethinking Intellectual History: Texts, Contexts, Language ( Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1 9 8 3 ) , chap. 9 . 1 9 . Quo ted in Formes elbnentaires de la vie religieuse, pp. 2 7 7 - 2 7 8 . In his i n ­ troduction to Sociologie et anthropologie, by :vlarcel :vlauss ( fi r s t p u b . 1 9 5 0 ; Paris: Presses Universitaires d e France, 1 96 8 ) , Claude Levi-Strauss gave an extremely ope rational and rather demystified interpretation of mana as a concept similar to what linguists term the "point zero" of communicatio n . I n other words, mana would b e a place-holding o r filler concept that indi­ cated a blank space in communication that required further specification fo r meaning to be imparted. In this sense, mana would be similar to the French espece de true ("something o r other"). This interpretation is a good example

Chapter 6

The Sacred and Society

275

of the excessively operational side of Levi-Strauss and of h is tendency to stress similarities among "primitive" and modern societies, of ten at the price of reducing things to their lowest common denominator. In the mystique­ fi lied interpretation ofDurkheim, on the contrary, mana came close to being the "point infinity" of communication. An interpretation by R. Godfrey Lienhardt comes closer toDurkheim's sense of the term: "Vzrtus, prestige, authority, good fortune, influence, sanctity, luck, are all words which, under certain conditions, give something near the meaning .... Mana sometimes means a more than natural virtue or power attaching to some person or thing, different from and independent of the ordinary naturalconditions of either.... I once had a tame pig which, before heavy rain, would always cut extraordinary capers and squeak and run like mad ....All the Maori said that it was a pig possessed o f mana: it had more than natural powers and could foretell rain. The mana of a priest ...is proved by the truth of his pred c­ tions .... Mana in another sense is the accompaniment of power but not the power itself .... This is the chiefs mana .... The warrior's mana is just a little something more than good fortune" ("Religion," in H. Shapiro, ed., Man, Culture, and Society [first pub. 1956; New York: Oxf ord University Press,

1960], p. 316). Weber's notion of charisma was similar to mana insofar as the latter received expression in an exceptional individual. One might also compare mana to Walter Benjamin's notion of aura.

20. Formes elbnentaires de Ia vie religieuse, pp. 284-285. 21. Ibid., p. 1 2 . 22. For an attempt to formulate the relationship between epistemology and the sociology of knowledge, se Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann, The Social Construction ofReality (Garden City, N . Y .:Doubleday, 1966).

23. Pragmatisme et sociologie (Paris; Librairie Ph ilosophique J. Vrin, 1955), p. 197. 24. Ibid., p. 155. While radical social constructivism may be seen in certain ways as

the extreme, operationalized analogue o f Durkheim's soc al metaphys c,

the latter harbored traditional elements, restraints, and ambivalences that might have fruitful dimensions and be open to formulations in other terms. Thus, within the context of his social metaphysic, Durkheim retained an emphasis upon the role of truth in his conception of things. "If society is a specific reality, it is not an empire within an empire. It is a part of nature, and indeed its highest manifestation. Now it is impossible that nature should differ radically from case to case in regard to what is most essential. The fundamental relations that exist among things- those which it is precisely the function of the categories to express- cannot be essentially dissimilar in the dif ferent realms. I f ...they are more clearly disengaged in the social

276

25.

26. 27. 28. 29. 30.

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosoplm·

world, it is nevertheless i m possible that they should not be fo und elsewhere, though in more disguised fo rms" (Formes elbnmtaires de Ia vie religieuse, p p . 2 5 - 2 6 ) . As a defense of the universal applicability a n d truth of categories that were presumed to be specifically social in origin, this piece of argument was unfortunately about as cogent as the idea that a photographer takes good photographs because he is himself photogenic. Within the context of Durkheim's social metaphysic, however, the problem was similar to the theological question about whether something is true because it comes from God or whether God created i t because i t is true. Les Regles de Ia methode sociologique ( 1 5th ed.; Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1 96 3 ) , p. 1 6 . Compare Karl �annheim's conception of ideology as false consciousness: "The concept 'ideology' reflects the one discovery which emerged fro m political conflict, namely, that ruling groups can in their thinking become so intensively interest-bound to a situation that they are simply no longer able to see certain facts which would undermine their sense of domination. There is implicit in the word 'ideology' the insight that i n certain situations the collective unconscious of certain groups obscures the real condition of society both to itself and to others and thereby stabilizes it" (ideology and Utopia [New Yo rk: Harcourt, Brace 1 93 6 ] , p. 4 0 ) . Robert Paul Wolff provides this pertinent gloss: "Ideology is thus self-serving i n two senses. First, and most sim ply, i t is the refusal to recognize unpleasant facts which might require a less flattering evaluation of a policy o r institu­ tion o r which might undermine one's claim to a right of domination. For example, slave owners in the antebellum South refused to acknowledge that the slaves themselves were unhappy. The implication was that i f they were, slavery would be harder to j ustifY. Secondly, ideological thinking is a denial of unsettling or revo lutionary factors in society on the principle of the self­ confirming prophecy that the more stable everyo ne believes the situation to be, the more stable it actually becomes" ( " Beyo nd To lerance," in A Critique ofPure Tolerance [Boston: Beacon Press, 1 96 5 1 , pp. 3 9 - 4 0 ) . See also the more i n tricate, Lacanian notion o f i deology in Slavoj Zizek, The Sublime Object of ideology (London: Verso, 1 989) . formes elirnmtaires de Ia vie religieuse, p. 3 . "Psychologie e t sociologie: Extrait de Ia conclusion d u debar," in Sociologie et anthropologie, p. 3 0 9 . Formes elirnmtaires de Ia vie religieuse, p p . 6 1 9, 3 2 9 . Review o f Wilhelm Jerusalem's "Soziologie des Erkennis," i n Annie soci­ ologique, XI ( 1 906- 1 909) , 44. "Sociologie religieuse et theorie de Ia connaissance," Revue de rnitaphysique et de morale, XVII ( 1 9 0 9 ) , 7 5 7 .

Chapter 6

The Sacred and Society

277

3 1 . formes elbnentaires de fa vie religieuse, p. 2 6 , n. 2 . 3 2 . Ibid. , p . 6 2 2 . 3 3 . Claude Levi-Strauss, L e Tothnisme a ujourd'hui (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1 9 6 2), p. 1 46 . 3 4 . Claude Levi-Strauss, La Pensee sauvage (Paris: Pion, 1 96 2 ) , p . 1 2 3 . I n contrast to Levi-Strauss, Pierre Bourdieu is often closer to Durkheim's sociologism as an ultimate explanatory gesture. As a consequence, he provides only limited insight into the specific work and play of cultural forms, especially works of art and literature. In The Rules ofArt: Genesis and Structure ofthe Literary Field (trans. Susan Emanuel; first pub. 1 992; Stanford, Calif.: Stanford Uni­ versity Press, 1 9 9 5 ) , he even puts forth the sociologistic fantasy o f producing a so ciological account of the insertion o f the artifact in the field that, in its thoroughness, would furnish a generative formula reproducing the artistic object in another (sociological) register, thereby resulting i n a kind of socio­ logical clone that would "explai n , " o r even render redundant, the literary artifact. Still, Bourdieu provides valuable inquiries into the broader field or context o f cultural artifacts, and the relation between field and artifact may be understood differently than Bourdieu allows. 3 5 . Ibid. , pp. 292-293. 36. Durkheim recognized the possibility of a symbolic logic that focused upon the common fo rmal principles of all thought. (See Les Regles de fa methode sociologique, p . xviii.) But, as early as The Division of Labor and The Rules, he asserted the particular importance o f concrete and informed observation in symbolic systems that were prominent in "primitive" societies. (See Les Regles, p. 1 5 , and De La Division du travail social, 7th ed., p. 2 7 5 . ) At times he recognized the existence of correlations between society and nature in the symbolism of these societies. In The Elemmtary Forms itself, he observed that the "confusions" in "primitive" thought did not stem from an animistic, an­ thropomorphic instinct, which immo derately extended features of humanity to all of nature: "Primitive men . . . have not conceived the world in their own image any more than they have conceived themselves in the world's image: they have done both at the same time. Into the idea they have fo rmed of things, they have undoubtedly made human elements enter; but into the idea they have fo rmed of themselves, they have i n t roduced elements com­ ing from things" (/_es formes elbnmtaires de la vie religieuse, p. 33 7 ) . See also De La Division du travail social, p. 273, and Formes elbnentaires, p. 320. Durkheim apparently d i d n o t sense the contradiction between these ideas and his own social metaphysic, which interpreted religious symbols and the categories as derivative projections or "superpositions" of the specifically social. Yet he was always clear about the systematic c.1 uality of thought in

278

Emile Durkheim· Sociologist and Philosopher

"primitive" societies. (See his and Marcel Mauss's Primitive Classification [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963], pp. 77-78, 81, a translation of "De quelques fo rmes primitives de classification," Ann!e sociologique, VI [ 1901-1902].) With some inconsistency in his formulations, Durkheim also saw the integration of cognition, practice, imagination, and emotion in comprehensive forms of symbolism. (See, for example, Pragmatisme et sociologie, p. 161; Primitive Classification, p . 85-86; and De La Division du travail social, p. 69. ) The notion of a comprehensive ordering or codification

of experi ence in certain symbolic systems was an important element of his idea of a "prim itivenebula,"which is treated in another context in Chapter 3, above. Moreover, Durkheim rejected Levy-Bruhl's notion o f the "prelogical" character of primitive thought. For Durkheim, there was no gap between "primitive" and modern thought or between the logic of relig ous thought and that of scientific thought. The contents or terms employed might dif­ fer, but the mental processes were essentially the same. 'The explanations of contemporary science are surer of being more ob jective because they are more methodical and because they rest on more carefully controlled observations, but they do not diffa in nature from those which satisfy primitive thought"

(Formes!lbnentaires, pp. 340-341). Finally, Durkheim conceived the differ­ ence between the experimentalism and theoretical falsifiability of scientific propositions, on the one hand, and the symboli c necessity and "imperme­ ability to experience" (or circularity) of myth and ritual, on the other, not in strictly logical, but in psycholog cal terms. Between the commitment to a ritual and the unwillingness to abandon a well-tested scientific theory in the face of initial counterevidence, there was, for him, only a difference of degree (see Formes !lbnentaires, pp.515-516). 37. Compare the criticism Edmund Leach has made of Levi-Strauss: "He fails to allow for the fuct that, whereas the symbols used by mathematicians are emotionally neutral -ix is not more exciting than x just because i is an imag nary number -the concrete symbols used in primitive thought are heavily loaded with taboo valuations. Consequently psychological factors such as 'evasion' and 'repression' tend to confuse thelogical symmetries" (Nezu .Wrk Review ofBooks, IX [Oct. 12, 1967], 8). Por a discussion of"poststructural"

figures, notably Michd Poucault and Jacques Derrida, s e e my History and Reading: Tocqueville, F'oucault, F'rench Studies (Toronto: University ofToronto

Press, 2 0 0 0). 38. Boston: Beacon Press, 1964 (first pub. 1954), pp. 14, 16. Leach changed his position, largely under the inA uence o f Levi-Strauss. A. R. Radcliffe­ Brown, who is himself largely responsibl e for the influence of Durkheim in Anglo-American social anthropology, nonetheless criticized Durkheim's

Chapter 6

The Sacred and Society

279

theory o f religion in these terms: " I n every human society there inevitably exist two different and in a certain sense conflicting conceptions of nature. One o f them, the naturalistic, is implicit everywhere in technology, and i n o u r twentieth century European culture, with its great development o f con­ trol over natural phenomena, has become explicit and preponderant in o u r thought. T h e other, which might be called the mythological o r spiritualistic co nception, is implicit in myth and in religion, and often becomes explicit in philosophy" (Structure and Function in Primitive Society [London: Cohen & West, I 9 5 2 ] , p. I 30 ) . As indicated earlier, radical social constructivism of various sorts (including discursive constructivism) has recently become important, and its relation to Durkheim's social metaphysic (or sociologism in general) is typically not noticed. One finds it at times i n the influential work of Frank Ankersmit, Judith Butler, Joan Scott, and Hayden White. It has the value o f critically reversing conventional essentialism and bringing to the fo regro und factors (such as performativity or gendered presuppositions) obscured in conservative epistemologies (including Durkheim's) . But to the extent it remains within a framework of reversal, it does not provide the basis for a more thoroughgoing critique and rearticulation of assumptions. O n these issues, see my Writing HistorY> Writing Trauma (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2 00 I ) . 3 9 . Formes elbnentaires de Ia vie religieuse, p . 2 3 6 . 4 0 . Ibid. , p p . 5 5 3 , 5 I 3 . 4 I . "La Prohibition de l'inceste et ses origines," A nnee sociologique, I ( I 896- I 897), I -7 0 ; trans. Edward Sagarin, Incest: The Origins and the Development of the Incest Taboo (New Yo rk: Lyle Stuart, I 96 3 ) . Judith Surkis discusses this article and its implications in her Cornell University dissertation, "Secularization and Sexuality in Third Republic France, " chap. 4. I am indebted to her analysis fo r certain ideas expressed in the next two paragraph s . 4 2 . Sociologie etphilosophie (first p u b . I 924; Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, I 9 63 ) , p. I 08 . 4 3 . !;Education morale (first p u b . 1 934; Pari s : Presses Universitaires de France, I 9 63) , pp. 7 8 , 72-73. 44. Formes elbnentaires de Ia vie religieuse, p . 2 4 5 . 4 5 . Sociologie et philosophie, p p . 74-75. 4 6 . Formes elbnentaires de Ia vie religieuse, p . 6 I I . 47. Bu!leth2 de Ia Societe Fran�'lise de Philosophie, sessions of Feb. I I , March 2 2 , 1 9 06 (Paris: A l can, p . 1 70 ) .

280

J:rnile Durkheirn: Sociologist and Philosopher

Epilogue

This b o o k fo cuses on the workings o f D urkheim's thought. D urkheim's relation to his own historical context is a significant issue which, for m y p u rposes, i s treated largely as a b ackgro u n d factor that helps t o inform an understanding of h i s thought. In one i m portant sense, D u rkhei m's thought was a response to the problems confronting the Third Rep u b l i c i n France. But his ideas were not merely symptomatic of his milieu and are informed by, b u t n o t reducible t o , an understanding of his particular context. In addition, whatever his limitations i n this respect, h e himself was concerned a b o u t t h e nature and workings of m o dern societies in general. And his reaction t o prior thin kers and in tellectual traditions was most often a selective and discriminating response, as it tends t o b e i n all rn a j o r thinkers. In general, I have s u b o rdinated the problem of i n tellectual i nfl uences on Durkheim t o t h a t of the structure and dynamic o f h i s thought. And I h ave tried to analyze and understand that thought through a tense conjunction o f m u t ually informative, interacting approaches: accurate reconstruction and dialogic exchange. Reco nstruction involves t h e attempt to situate and c o m p r e h e n d somet h i n g i n its own time and terms, not by denying on e's implication in i t b u t by coun teracting o n e 's i n evitable proj ective or incor­ p orative tendencies through careful research and close reading. D i alogic exchange b ri n gs a more active i n t e rchange with another's thought that calls for a response on the p a r t of the reader - a response that a t times elicits unrealized possibilities and helps carry that thought into the present and future. Part of t h e success o f such a n exchange, w h ich - far fro m being teleological - explicitly and perform atively looks back i n order t o refl ect critically on the past and ask how it bears on the fu t u r e , i s its ability to induce other readers to engage and argue with its interpretations and i m ­ p l i c a t i o n s . My o w n approach i s dialectical n o t i n seeking a higher synthesis b u t i n being dialogic and i n affi rming that one must continually return to basic problems i n the attempt to work through t h e m . As for D urkheim's infl uence o n others, there are n o t a b l e omissions i n this

b o o k . The thought ofTalcott Parsons does not receive the explicit attention it deserves, because Parsons' ideas have i m p licitly conditioned much o f what

282

J:rnile Durkheirn: Sociologist and Philosopher

I h ave written, oft e n as a critical foil, and because the emphasis of the pres­ ent work is primarily on social thought in France. I refer only scantily to the work o f the A m zee school, although I devote s o m e attention to Marcel Mauss. And I try t o indicate t h e ways i n which Claude Levi-Strauss, t h e "inconstant disciple , " b u i l t , often in highly critical o r p r o b l e m a t i c ways, u p o n the D u rk h e i m i a n heritage. B u t i m p o r t a n t t h i n kers like M a u r i c e H albwachs, M a r c e l G r a n e t , a n d G e orges Davy are shortchanged, because I believe that the work of the An n ee school can be better treated in a broader, more synthetic study o f m o d e r n French social thought. T h i s b o o k , then, concentrates on t h e thought of D u rk h e i m and at­ tempts t o r e c o n s t i t u t e his ideas i n a way that is fai thful to his presentation o f them, i n dicates his c o n c e r n fo r i m p o r t a n t problems i n s o c i a l l i fe , a n d responds t o h i s thinking i n ways that m a y a t t i m e s help t o carry i t fo rward c r i t i cally and c o n s t r u ctively. What may o n e c o n c l u d e a b o u t D ur k h e i m ' s t h o u g h t i tself? On a practical level, Durkheim attempted a reconciliation, o r at least an articulation, of liberal, conservative, and radical traditions. The dominant fo rce in h i s t h o u g h t was w h a t I h ave t e r m e d h is p h i l o s o p h i cal conservatism, a n d this served as the capstone of his critical and constructive attempt at articulation. Above all, D u r k h e i m w a n t e d the emergence o f a s o c i e t y t h a t viably related legitimate order and progress, reason and s e n t i m e n t , structure and creativity. With increasing insistence, h e saw m o dern society as passing through a transitional period that confronted people with the problem of anomie. Anomie was especially pronounced in the economy. And the corpo­ rative gro up was D urkheim's specific means of overcoming social "pathology" a n d instituting "normality" i n m o d ern life . In general, h e tried to w o r k o u t a s e l e ctive a n d discriminating critical p erspective o n m o d e r n s o c i e ty. Given his view o f social n o r m ality, he asked what deserved t o b e preserved and what ought to be changed in modern s o c i a l life. But often Durkheim was not penetrating enough i n his investigation of existing social realities and not t h oroughgoing e n o ugh in his c o n c e p t i o n o f n e e d e d reforms. His t e n de n cy t o avoid the hard problem of s p e c i fi c processes and agents of change was abetted by his inclination to envision ideals abstractly and t o project their approximate realizatio n i n t o an indeterminate fu ture. D u rkhei m's thought vacillated b e tw e e n a n analytic d i s s o c i a t i o n o f reality and a m o r e o r less open dialectical v i s i o n . At times there s u r faced

Fpilogue

283

between these two types o f thought a m o r e tragic sense o f life. B u t the tragic sense was the most m u t e d element o f D u rkhei m's thought. H i s t o ry, for Durkheim, was often the anomically uprooting, tragic p r o cess o f social pathology. B u t his insight i n t o t h e tragic elements of history, as well as the fo rcefulness o f his d i alectical visi on of their overcoming, was i m paired by the nature of his reckoning with Marx. A more direct confrontation w i t h Marx w o u l d a t least h ave s h a r p e n e d Durkheim's ideas. And i t might have provided h i m with a conception of " p r axis" which revealed how people i n concrete s i t u a t i o n s experienced social p a t h o l o gy, w i t h its sometimes t r a u m a t i c e ffects, and h o w they attempted to come t o terms with i t . As i t was, Durkheim remained largely caught u p b e tween a Cartesianized neo­ Kantianism and a Hegelian notion o f dialectics. T h i s bind facilitated his ultimate turn toward social metaphysic as the i n s t r u m e n t o f logical closure for his thought. Society i tself became the surrogate fo r G o d in m o d e r n life and, simultaneo usly, t h e origin that provided ultimate legitimation fo r the new discipline of sociology itself. T h e most thought-provoking aspect of D u r khei m's thought was the more o p e n , self-critical d i alectical (or dialogic) d i m e n s i o n a n d its rela­ t i o n to his p h i l o s o p h i c a l conservatism. Also significant was his insight into secularization as involving neither the seamless continuation nor the decisive termination o f religion b ut i t s complex displacements i n modern life - its repetition o r r e p r o d u c t i o n with m o re o r less signifi cant, a t times disruptive, changes - including its role i n D u r k heimian sociology itself. M o reover, with respect to both Durkheim and Marx, there is a sense i n w h i c h a n a p p r o a c h t h a t is basically social, and h a s a strong normative or practical d i m e n s i o n , m a y recognize b u t n o t affirm tragedy. C onversely, a tragic orientation (such as that of Jacques Lacan) m a y admit a restricted role for ethics and social activity which, when n o t conflated with tragedy, are at best platforms for a presumably higher-order drama - even s u b o rdinate duties if not

divertissements.

In Durkheim the concepts of th e tree of social life and of social normality

and pathology provided a "holistic," analytic and n o r mative perspective that o ffered some link between theory and practice. Durkheim did see history i n dialectical terms as a tense struggle between anomie forces and mean­ i n gfu l order. B u t absent was a c o n crete notion o f the role of people i n this p rocess. Like Hegel, Durkheim often leaves one with a vision of history in

284

Emile Du rkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher

t e r m s o f p r ocesses i n g o o d p a r t abstracted fro m h u m a n agents and at times represented in b l indly gendered terms. Altho ugh Durkheim fai led t o develop a concrete notion of people as agents i n h i s t ory, h e d i d i n t e n d his ideas t o serve as guides to social action. H i s concepts of the tree of social life and of s o c i a l n o r m a l i t y and pathology fu rnished a way of coordinating a conception of transhistorical values and a critical theory of moral relativism. There were certain transhistorical values - autono my, reciproc i ty, c o m m u n i ty, and the sacred. B u t t h e i r manifest­ ations depended on specific historical and s o cial circumstances. To the extent that moral relativism led t o their realization in the normal state of a given type of society, it was j u s t i fi e d . To the extent that i t conferred legitimacy on pure s u b j e c t i vi ty, decision i s m , or pathological states o f s o c i e ty, it was a sym p t o m a t i c fo rm of "false consciousness." T h e goal o f s o cial l i fe was the creation and maintenance of a state of society that was b o th rationally j u s t i fi e d and sym b o l ically legitimated. This was not a static state. I t included and required a significant measure of change that corresp o n d e d to t h e destructive and creative role of anomie in life. A t t i m e s Durkheim realized that, in modern s o c i e t i e s , t h i s role, a l o n g w i t h t h a t of criticism a n d contestat i o n , w o u l d b e significant. S t i l l , o n c e t h e normal s t a t e h a d b e e n viably achieved, one's fundamental commitment w a s t o i t s maintenance and to the use of fre e d o m in evaluating alternatives and warding o ff unwanted change. Anomie, in this state of commitment, w o u l d for the m o s t p a r t b e restricted to a marginal aspect o f t h e ordi nary personal­ ity a n d to a marginal group o f extraordinary individuals in s o c i e ty. H e n c e t h e r e w a s a p l a c e fo r Prometheus b u t n o t o n e to b e confused with t h a t o f "every m an . " This n o t i o n of s o c i a l normality w a s essential t o D u rkheim's philosophical conservatism. By and large, Durkheim proved unable to extend his own c o m m i t m e n t to the p o i n t o f thinking and working more completely for the realization o f his vision. I n this respect, h e is not atypical of the m o d ern intellectual, especi ally o n e s i tu a t e d in the academy. But i t is possible t o derive fro m Durkheim an appreciation of the rare c o m b i n a t i o n of intellectual rigor and moral fervor that respects careful, discriminating thought and avoids self­ righteous dogmatism. More over, h e proved able b o t h to intervene effectively in current deb ates and to provide thought of e n d u r i n g value. I f anything, the questions o f explanation, understanding, prescri p t i o n , and action that

Fpilogue

285

D u r k h e i m raised were more complex and problematic than he admitted. Durkheim came to believe that ultimately one needs secular d i s p lacements o f religion t o make sense o f things. His m e r i t was in seeking modalities o f displacement t h a t complemented reason instead o f contradicting i t . It would seem o b v i o u s t h a t an existentially gripping mode o f thought and practice must d o more than D u rkh eim's social metaphysic was able t o do. B u t D u rk h e i m may be credited w i t h seeking not a narrowly instrumental or technical rat ionality but a substantive, socially informed conception o f rea­ son that did not exclude afc t or require a p h o b i c , quasi-ritualistic antipathy to ritual and religion. In this respect his work retains a t h o u gh t - provoking p ower of contestation even fo r those w h o may not agree with him.

286

J:rnile Durkheirn: Sociologist and Philosopher

Index Alain (Emile Chartier), 29, 44, 47 Alpert, Harry, 5 7 - 5 8 Ankersmit, Frank, 2 7 9 n Aristo tle, 1 49 Aron, Raymond, 22n, 4 3 , 6 6 n , 23 1 n Bacon, Sir Francis, 2 5 3 Bakhtin, t-.1ikhail, 1 5 6 , 23 1 n , 274n Bakunin, M i chael, 55 Balzac, Honore de, 1 77 n , 1 87 Barres, Maurice, 5 0 Barthes, Roland, vii Bastide, Roger, 1 3 5n Bataille, Georges, vii, 6 7 n , 1 57 , 2 6 6 Bayer, Albert, 1 44 Bazard, Saint-Amand , 2 1 9 Belot, Gustave, 2 7 , 43 Benjamin, Walter, 92, 2 0 8 , 275n Bentham, Jeremy, 1 1 3 Berger, Peter, 275n Bergson, Henri, 2 7 , 4 3 , 1 94 , 254 Bernard, Claude, 1 8 9 Bernstein, Eduard, 1 8 Bert, Paul, 49 Bloch, M arc, 1 8 6 - 1 8 7 Blonde!, Charles, 4 5 , 2 3 3 n Blonde!, M aurice, 27 Blum, Leon, 5 5 , 67n Bonald, Louis de, 1 5 , 46 Bossuet, Jacques Benigne, 6 1 Bougle, Celestin, 27, 5 8 , 1 29 , 1 3 4n Bourdieu, Pierre, vii, 22n, 67n, 277n Bourgeois, Leon, 57 Bourget, Paul, 59 Boutroux, Emile, 27, 44, 76 Brochard, Victor, 40

Brunetiere, Ferdinand, 6 0 Buisson, Ferdinand, 3 1 , 3 6 , 3 8 Buder, Judith, 279n Camus, Albert, 1 37 , 1 77n- 1 7 8 n Canivez, Andre, 4 2 Cassirer, Ernst, 2 5 6 Chateaubriand, Franc,:ois Auguste, 1 5 6 , 1 77 n Chevalier, L o u i s , 6 8 n - 6 9 n Clapham, John, 3 3 Clemenceau, Georges, 3 6 Codrington, Robert H e n ry, 2 5 0 Columbus, Ch ristop her, 22n Combes, Emile, 49 Comte, August, 2, 4, 1 1 , 1 5 , 24n, 3 1 , 4 1 , 46, 76, 84, 108, 1 1 3, 1 1 5, 1 2 5 , 1 8 2- 1 8 5 , 1 8 9, 1 96 , 23 1 n , 270 Cooley, Charles Horton, 79 Coulanges, Fustel de, 27, 1 90 Croce, Benedetto, 1 90 Cuvillier, Armand, 43 Darwin, Charles, 1 1 3 , 1 93 Davy, Georges, 2 , 2 6 , 30-3 1 , 63, 6 n , 282 Deleuze, Gilles, v i i Derrida, Jacques, v i i , 2 7 8 n Descartes, Rene, 4 , 6 , 86, 9 8 , 1 8 0 Dostoevsky, Fyodor, 1 77n Douglas, Jack C . , 1 4 2 Dowden, Edward, 1 6 8 Dreyfus Affair, 9 , 3 3 , 3 5 - 3 6 , 4 0 , 4748, 52, 5 5 - 5 6 , 59-62, 1 7 9 Drieu L a Rochelle, Pierre, 2 0 8

2R8

Emile Durkheim: Sociologist a12d Philosopher

Duguit, Leon, 5 7 Durkheim, Emile, " D etermination du fai t moral," 43 ; "Deux Lois de 'evolution penale," 9 3 - 9 5 ; The Divisio12 ofLabor i 12 Society, 34, 5 8 , 7 5 - 1 3 6 , 1 3 7- 1 4 1 , 1 441 4 5 , 1 48 , 1 5 1 , 1 5 3 , 1 5 8 , 1 7 1 , 1 7 9- 1 8 0 , 2 1 8 -2 1 9 , 277n; "Le Dualisme de I a nature humaine et ses conditions sociales," 2 1 8 ; The Eleme12tary Forms ofReligious L�(e, 20-2 1 , 3 4 , 4 4 , Go, 8 1 - 8 2 , 1 05 , 1 40, 1 8 0, 1 8 6 , 1 94, 1 97, 2 2 5 , 227, 235-279; L'Evolutio12 p edagogique e12 Fra12ce, 1 9 0, 1 95 ; Germa12y Above All, 6 3 , 87; r:Individualisme et l e s imel­ lectuels," G O ; Moral Educatio12, 92, 94-95, 1 5 6 , 1 75 n , 177n, 1 8 0, 1 97, 2 1 3 ; "La Morale," 2 1 , 1 94 ; Mo12tesquieu a12d Rousseau: Fore­ ru1212er5 ofSociology, 230n-2 3 1 n ; Pragmatisme et Sociologie, 97, 1 66 , 2 5 2 ; Primitive Classijicatio12, 2 5 8 ; Projessio12al Ethics a12d Civic Morals, 1 7 9 - 1 8 0 , 2 0 7 ; "Represen­ tations individuelles et representa­ tions collectives," 2 1 7-2 1 8 ; The Rules ofSociological Method, 4 , 8, 12, 8 1 , 88, 1 80, 186, 2 1 3 , 222, 2 5 3 , 277n; Le Socialisrne, 1 8 0- 1 8 1 , 1 97 ; Sociology a12d Phi­ losophy, 43; Suicide, 2 5 , 3 4 , 4 9 , 5 6 , 87, 93, I l l , 1 2 2, 1 24, 1 2 5 , 1 37- 1 78 , 1 8 0 , 1 84 , 2 1 1 , 223 Eliade, M i rcea, 273n Eliot, T. S . , 2 1 5 Erikson, Erik, 1 6 5 Espinas, Alfred, 3 0 , 76 Evans-Pritchard, E. E . , 3 4

�auconnet, P a u l , G G n , 9 7 Febvre, Lucien, 1 8 7, 2 2 8 n Ferry, Jules, 3 0 , 3 6 , 39 Fischer, Fritz, 7 4 n Flaubert, Gustave, 1 52 Fontaine, Andre, 40 Foucault, Michel, vii-viii, 94, 223, 232n, 233n, 2 6 6 , 278n Fouillee, Alfred, 57 Frazer, Sir James, 247 Freud, Sigmund, 84, 92, 1 04, 1 641 6 5 , 2 1 5 , 232n-233n, 2 6 2 Fromm, Erich, 2 3 3 n Gambetta, Leon, 3 4 , 5 3 Gaulle, Charles de, G G n Gide, Charles, 57 Gillen, Francis James, 246 Girard, Rene, 2 6 6 , 2 7 3 n Goblot, Edmond, 2 7 Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von, 1 77n Goldmann, Lucien, 9 1 Gouldner, Alvin, 24n Granet, Marcel, 282 Guesde, Jules, 5 4 - 5 5 Guizot, Fran<;:ois, 7 0 n Gurvitch, Georges, 2 2 n , G G n Halbwachs, Maurice, 3 1 , G G n , 1 7 4n1 75 n , 2 3 3 n , 2 8 2 Hamelin, Octave, 28-29 Hayward, J. E . S . , 73n Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, 7 , 1 0 , 5 9 , 1 9 1 , 283 Hendin, Herbert, 1 76n Herr, Lucien, 5 5 Hobbes, Thomas, 1 5 0 , 2 1 5-2 1 6 H o ffman, Stanley, 6 8 n Holleaux, Maurice, 2 8 Hubert, H e n r i , 24 1 , 244

Index

H ughes, H . Stuart, 7 3 n , 228n James, William, 1 1 1 Janet, Paul, 76 Janet, Pierre, 27 Jaures, Jean, 27, 5 2 , 5 5 Kant, Immanuel, 6 , 7 , 1 5 , 2 8 , 3 6 , 4 1 , 44, 6 1 , 9 0 , 1 03 , 1 3 5 n , 2 1 2 , 2 2 6 , 269 Karady, Victor, 66n Kristeva, Julia, vii, 266 Kroeber, A. L., 34 Labriola, Antonio, 52 Lacan, Jacc.1 ues, vii, 283 LaCapra, Dominick, viin, 2 3 n , 177n, 1 7 8 n , 23 l n, 2 3 2 n , 274n, 278n, 279n Lachelier, Jules, 38, 4 4 Lacombe, Roger, 1 4 4 , 174n Laing, R. D., 232n Lamarck, Jean Baptiste d e , 1 93 Lang, Andrew, 245 Lanson, Gustave, 2 7 Lao-T se, 1 09 Lapie, Paul, 37-40 Leach, Edmund, 2 6 3 , 278n Lenin, Vladimir, 9 1 Leon, Xavier, 2 6 Leroux, Pierre, 7 6 Levasseur, Emile, 1 2 3 Levi-Strauss, Claude, vii, 1 0, 2 2 n , 8 4 , 97-98, 1 0 2, 1 07- 1 08 , 1 3 5 n , 1 8 6 , 2 3 3 n , 2 6 2 , 274n- 2 7 5 n , 277n, 278n, 282, Elementary Structures ofKimhip, 1 04-1 0 5 ; The Savage Mind, 1 02- 1 05 , 2 5 9-262; To­ temism, 1 0 5- 1 06 Levy-Bruhl, Lucien, 77, 8 2 , 1 08 , 2 5 9 , 278n

289

Liard, Louis, 29-30, 37-40, 5 0 Lichtheim, George, 5 4 - 5 5 Lienhardt, R. Godfrey, 2 7 5 n Lowie, Robert, 2 3 5 Luckmann, Thomas, 2 7 5 n Luhman, Niklas, 1 0 Lukes, Steven, 22n-23n Lyo tard, Jean-Fran�ois, vii Maistre, Joseph de, 1 5 , 46 Malebranche, Nicolas, 98 Mannheim, Karl, 1 7 , 1 4 6 , 276n Marett, R. R . , 34 Marion, Henri, 44, 57 Marx, Karl, 1 8 - 1 9 , 2 3 n , 24n, 5 2 , 5455, 87, 9 1 , 1 1 7, 1 2 2, 1 2 5 , 1 4 6, 1 5 1 , 1 8 1 , 1 8 4, 2 1 7, 2 5 3 , 2 6 2 , 2 8 2 -2 8 3 ; Capital, 1 8 1 ; Eigh­ teenth Brumaire, 1 9 ; German Ideology, 5 1 Massis, Henri, 5 0 Maurras, Charles, 1 5 , 4 6 , 208 Mauss, t-.1arcel, vii, 1 , 1 0 , 2 1 , 30, 3 5 , 5 2 , 5 5 , 6 6 , 67n, 76-77, 90, 9 5 , 97, 1 0 7, 1 2 0 , 1 3 3 n , 1 57, 2 3 3 n , 2 4 1 , 2 4 7 , 2 5 6 , 274n , 2 7 8 n , 2 8 2 ; The Gift, 1 0 , 98- 1 0 2 ; "Sacrifice: Its Nature and Function," 244 Mazzi n i , Giuseppe, 2 1 0 Merton, Robert K., 2 3 n , 1 76n- 1 77n Mill, John Stuart, 1 1 3 , 1 96 Montesquieu, Charles Louis de, 2 7 , 7 6 , 94, 2 0 8 , 230n-23 1 n Muller, Max, 245 Muntzer, Thomas, 9 1 Nietzsche, Friedrich, 79, 1 66 , 1 77 n , 1 7 8n Nizan, Paul, 5 0 Parain, Brice, 6 2

290

J:rnile Durkheirn: Sociologist and Philosopher

Pareto , Vi l fredo , 1 26 Parson s , Talcott, 7, 22n, 7 5 , 2 3 5 - 2 3 6 , 273n, 28 1 Pascal, Blaise, 1 8 5 Pecaut, Felix, 3 6 , 3 8 , 4 0 Peguy, Charles, 4 8 , 6 2 Plato, 2 5 0 , 259, 272 Pope Leo XIII, 47 Radcliffe-Brown, A. R., 8 1 , 278n279n Reinach, Salomon, 27 Renouvier, Charles, 6 , 38, 4 1 R i chard, Gaston, 1 3 8 , 1 74n R i chter, lv1elvin, 6 0 Ross, Kristin, 6 8 n Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, 1 5 , 2 8 , 6 1 , 76, 8 4 - 8 5 , 1 03 , 1 1 3 , 1 8 6 , 2 1 2 , 230n-23 1 n Saint-Simon, Claude Henri de, 3 2 , 52, 1 07, 1 1 2, 1 8 1 - 1 8 6 , 1 9 1 , 1 93 1 9 5 , 2 1 7, 2 1 9 , 2 3 1 n Salvemini, Gaetano, 1 9 0 Sangnier, �fare, 47 Saussure, Ferdinand de, 84 SchaefAe, Albert, 29, 5 2 , 1 27 Schmitt, Carl, 208 Schopenhauer, Arthur, 1 7 1 Scott, Joan, 279n Seignobos, Charles, 1 92 Sewell, William, 73n Simmel, Georg, 1 89 Smith, Adam, 7 7 Smith, Robertso n , 6 2 Socrates, 8 9 , 9 1 , 1 9 1 Sorel, Georges, 5 4 , 208 Spencer, Sir Baldwin, 246 Spencer, Herbert, 4 , 6 1 , 9 7 , 1 1 0- 1 1 1 , 1 1 3 , 1 1 8- 1 1 9 , 1 2 1 , 1 89 , 2 1 6

Spinoza, Baruch, 2 6 , 40 Spuler, Eugene, 30 Steeg, Jules, 36, 38 Steinmetz, Sebald-Rudo lf, 94 Sutherland, Edwin Hardin, 90 Tarde, Alfred de, 50 Tarde, Gabriel, 44-45, 5 0 , 71 n, 9 1 , 1 26 , 1 49 , 2 1 6 , 2 5 4 Thibaudet, Albert, 3 7 - 3 8 Thiers, Adolphe, 3 3 Thomson, David, 32, 4 8 Tiryakian , Edward, 23n-24n To cc.1 ueville, Alexis de, viii, 33, 5 3 , 1 1 1 , 230n, 2 3 1 n Tonnies, Ferdinand, 7 9 , 1 1 5 - 1 1 6 , 1 19 Treitschke, Heinrich von, 6 3 , 74n Turner, Victor, 8 0 , 1 08 - 1 1 0 Tylor, E . B . , 34, 2 4 5 Weber, �1ax, 23n-24n, 78-79, 1 1 7, 1 44 , 1 49 , 1 6 5 - 1 70, 1 9 2, 2 1 5 , 240, 2 6 3 , 2 7 5 n Wundt, Wilhelm, 2 9 White, Hayden, 279n Wo lff, Robert Paul, 276n Zizek, Slavoj, 276n