part o.f the co.llectivity. On the o.ther hand, he denies this efficacity to'
it: fo.r him it is o.nly a pro.duct. In the end the social fo.rms o.f which he
speaks have no. reality in themselves, being o.nly the pattern o.f
underlying individual interactio.ns, merely independent in appear
ance (cf.
Annee sociologique,
1 , p. 74 and
Ober soziale dif
ferenzierung,
p. 13). Ho.w therefo.re can be assigned to. distinctive
sciences things which are o.nly different and independent o.n a
superficial and mistaken view?
20. 'Le pro.bleme de la so.cio.lo.gie,
Revue de mttaphysique,
pp. 501-2,
no.te. All the quo.tatio.ns which fo.llo.w are drawn fro.m the same
passage.
21. 'Co.mment les fo.rmes so.ciales se maintiennent'.
22. 'Superio.rity and subo.rdinatio.n',
American Journal of Sociology,
1896.
23.
History, Conditions and Prospects of the Indian Tribes of the United
States,
1851.
24. Bancroft,
The' Native Races of the Pacific States of North America.
25. Waitz.Gerland,
Anthropologie der Naturv6lker,
1858-72.
26. Po.st,
Grundriss der ethnologischen Jurisprudenz,
I, p. 4.
27. Care must be taken no.t to' co.nfuse the
V 6lkerpsychologie
o.f the
Germans with what in France and Italy is frequently called so.cial
psycho.lo.gy. The latter term serves to' designate in France so.mewhat
indeterminate studies which deal With crowd psycho.lo.gy and ,also.
generalities o.f all kinds. So.metimes the wo.rd is taken as being
syno.nymo.us with so.ci0.10.gy.
V6lkerpsychologie,
o.n the o.ther hand,
is a study who.se subject matter is definite: it aims to. investigate the
laws o.f co.llective tho.ught through its o.bjective manifestations, in
particular mytho.lo.gy and language (cf. Wundt's very recent wo.rk,
V 6Ikerpsychologie).
28. Cf.
Annee sociologique,
vo.!. 2ff. , 6th sectio.n.
29. 'Erscheinen dann die Rechte aller Volker der Erde als der vo.m
Vo.lksgeiste erzeugte Niederschlag des allgemeinen menschlichen
Rechtsbewusstseins. '
Grundriss der ethnologischen Jurisprudenz, I,
p. 4.
Debate on the Relationship between Ethnology
and Sociology (1907)*
Rene Worms states that,! according to the etymology, ethnology is
simply the description of peoples; sociology is the science of
societies. The former only assembles the materials; the latter, with
th� materials, builds structures. The former analyses, the second
synthesises. Moreover, ethnology studies only barbaric and savage
societies; sociology is interested, at least as much, in civilised
societies. Ethnography can only be linked. to the present, for one
can only describe what one has seen; sociology also takes into
account the past. From all this it may be concluded that sociology
borrows from ethnography a part of the facts that it elaborates, but
only a part. Only, is that part the most important? There is some
reason to doubt it.
Ethnography rendered great services to sociology when the
latter was formed. Thus the investigations concerning the family
among more civilised peoples have brought to light a multitude of
forms of unions (androgamy, marriage by classes, etc.) the study
of which has been particularly profitable to sociology, broadening
current ideas concerning domestic organisation. But today it may
be that there is rather more to be gained by examining the great
�ivilised societies of the West of the present day.
Not only is knowledge of them of more practical use to us than
knowledge of any other, but scientifically they are of greater
significance because being more complex, such societies afford
richer material for research.
Their very history, the study of preceding social forms in the
same regions, is perhaps of greater importance than the descrip-
.. Extract from
Bulletin du Comite des travaux historiques et scientifiques.
Section des sciences economiques et sociaies,
19.pp.
199--201.
209
210
Writings of Durkheim on Sociology and its Method
tion of backward tribes still extant, for it reveals both more perfect
types and ones more capable of attaining perfection. Ethno
graphical data are not therefore the main source of information for
present-day sociology.
The chairman thanks Rene Worms and points out that he had
not come to speak himself about the problem posed in the
programme, but since Worms invites him to express his views, he
thinks it would be churlish to refuse to do so.
It is quite plain that sociology is not to be confused with
ethnography. But for him [Durkheim] it appears impossible to
restrict ethnography to being a mere descriptive study. Hardly any
ethnographical works exist which are not explanatory as well as
descriptive. If sociology goes beyond ethnography, on the other
hand ethnography is a sociological science. The word 'ethno
graphy' has moreover no definite accepted meaning. It is said to be
a description whose subject is uncivilised societies; but the ex
pression is then extremely vague, because there is no human
society which does not have its civilisation. We have here on� of
those scientific frameworks which, because they have been built
up empirically, are destined to be transformed in the future, as and
when the different"branches of sociology become more conscious
of themselves and their solid links with each other.
Finally Durkheim thinks that he must add that, in his view, the
usefulness of these studies does not seem destined to grow less in
the future. The so-called lower societies have a very special
interest for the sociologist: all the social forms which are observ
able as distinct and organised in more complex societies are to be
found there in a state of interpenetration which highlights better
their unity. Moreover, the functioning of more advanced societies
" can only be understood when we are informed about the organisa- "
tion of less developed societies.
Debate oil Explanation in History and Sociology
.
(1908)*
DURKHEIM:
I feel a little embarrassed in replying to Seignobos's
paper, for I am not very sure whether I have mastered his thought.
Before setting out to him my objections I would like to know
whether or not he admits the reality of the unconscious. I cannot
see clearly what view he takes on that point.
SEIGNOBOS :
I think that, among known phenomena, there are
certainly some (for example, physiological phenomena such as the
digestion) which have a spontaneous character and which undeni
ably exert a causal influence, but one of which we are ignorant.
DURKHEIM:
In his exposition Seignobos seemed to oppose history
to sociology, as if we had there two disciplines using different
methods. In reality, so far as I know there is no sociology worthy
of the name which does not possess a historical character. So if it
were established that history cannot admit the reality . of the
unconscious, sociology could not say otberwise. Here there are not
two methods and two opposing conceptions. What is true for
history will be true for sociology. Only what must be examined
carefully is whether history really does allow us to enunciate the
conclusion at which Seignobos arrived: the unconscious, is it the
unknown and the unknowable? Seignobos claims that this is the
thesis of historians in general; but I believe that there are many
who would refute that assertion. Let me mention in particular
Fustel de Coulanges.
SEIGNOBOS :
Fustel de Coulanges abominated the very notion of the
'collective consciousness' .
*
Extract · from
Bulletin de la Societe jranraise de philosophie,
1908,
pp.
229-45.
211
212 Writings of Durkheim on Sociology and its Method
DURKHEIM :
But at this moment we are not talking about the
collective consciousness. These are two completely different prob
lems. We can imagine the conscious and the unconscious in history
without bringing in the Rotion of collective consciousness. The two
questions are in no way related to each other. The unconscious can
be unconscious in relation to the individual consciousness and yet
none the less be perfectly real. ' So let us distinguish the two
problems: the ideas of Fustel de Coulanges about the collective
consciousness are completely irrelevant here. The question is to
know whether in history we can really acknowledge causes other
than conscious causes, those which men themselves attribute to
events and to actions of which they are the agents.
SEIGNOBOS:
But I have never said there were no other causes. I said
that the conscious causes were those whiclt we can determine most
easily.
DURKHEIM :
You said that the sole causes that the historian can
determine with any degree of certainty are those revealed in the
documents by participants or witnesses. Why are these to be
privileged? On the contrary, I think that they are the most suspect
of the causes.
'
SEIGNOBOS:
But at least the witnesses or the participants saw the
events, and that counts for a great deal.
DURKHEIM:
We are not talking about events, but the inner motives
which may have determined those events. How are these to be
known? Two procedures are possible. Either we will seek to find
out these motives objectively by some experimental method.
Neither the witnesses nor the participants have been able to do
that. Or we will seek to arrive at them by an inward-looking
method, by introspection. That is the only method that witnesses
and participants can apply to themselves. So it is the introspective
method which you are introducing into history and that in an
unrestricted fashion. But everybody knows how full the conscious
ness is of illusions.
For a very long time now there has been no longer any
psychologist who believes that by introspection he can arrive at the
deep causes. Every causal relationship is unconscious, it must be
divined after the event. By introspection we only arrive at the
facts, never the causes. How then can the participants, who are
themselves mixed up with the facts, how then would they be able
Debate on Explanation in History and Sociology (1908) 213
to account for these causes? They are in the most awkward
conditions in which to discover them precisely. And if this is true
for individual psychical facts, how much more so is it for social
events whose causes elude even more plainly the consciousness of
the individual.
These causes, pointed to by the participants, far from having
any kind of importance, must generally be.held to be very suspect
hypotheses. For my
p
art I am aware of no case in which the
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |