This article was downloaded by: 10.3.98.104 On: 04 Oct 2021 Access details: subscription number Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG, UK

The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Social Science

Lee McIntyre, Alex Rosenberg

Durkheim and the Methods of Scientific Sociology

Publication details https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781315410098.ch2 Warren Schmaus Published online on: 22 Dec 2016

How to cite :- Warren Schmaus. 22 Dec 2016, Durkheim and the Methods of Scientific Sociology from: The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Social Science Routledge Accessed on: 04 Oct 2021 https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781315410098.ch2

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR DOCUMENT

Full terms and conditions of use: https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/legal-notices/terms

This Document PDF may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproductions, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The publisher shall not be liable for an loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. 18

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 08:39 04 Oct 2021; For: 9781315410098, chapter2, 10.4324/9781315410098.ch2 his methods ofinvestigationandexplanation,whereas hissubstantiveworkslike his methods The Rules in accounted forsocialphenomena. Second,weneedtodistinguishhisprofessedmethodology ofexplanation arethose bywhich he superior to alternativetheories in the field. His methods ofpersuasionhavetodowithhowhearguedthathis theorieswere his theories.Hismethods of investigation,Imeanthewaysinwhichheanalyzedempirical dataandusedittosupport ofexplanation. By methods ofpersuasion,andmethods ofinvestigation, methods guish methods keep severalcross- Durkheim’s InordertoevaluateDurkheim’s methods. social sciencemethodology, weneedto managed tobeincludedintheHolyTrinity offoundingfathers: Marx,Durkheim,and Weber. and unattractivethinker— term withitsexactoppositeinEnglish.Durkheimhasbeen madeouttobesuchanincoherent theorists buildingonunreliabletranslations,whichsometimes gosofarastotranslateaFrench ful exegesisofhisworks.InAnglophonesocialsciences,theproblemhasbeencompoundedby his career. Rarely has the aim of the social science literature on Durkheim been to give a care Method in of deviatinginhisempiricalstudiesfromprofessedmethodology provides atheoreticaljustificationforthestatusquoandconservatism.Othershaveaccusedhim ofexplanationthat sciences onthenaturalandforemployingafunctionalistmodel thesocial is seenaswrongwiththesocialsciences.Hehasbeenattackedfortryingtomodel appeal inthejustificationofone’s ownmethodology, orasawhippingboytopunishforallthat torical use,eitherasafounderofthedisciplinesociologyoranthropology, towhomonecan Social scientistswritingaboutEmileDurkheim(1858– Some oftheproblemsinterpretationcanbeexplained atleastinpartbyambiguities (1895a) METHODS OFSCIENTIFIC from his actual working methods inhisempiricalstudies. fromhisactualworkingmethods DURKHEIM ANDTHE 1 or have argued that he was constantly changing his methods overthecourseof orhavearguedthathewasconstantlychanginghismethods ​cutting andoverlappingdistinctionsinmind.Firstofall, weneedtodistin ​at leastinAnglophonesociology— SOCIOLOGY Warren Schmaus Introduction 2

18 ​1917) typicallyputhimtosomerhe ​ that onecanonlywonderhowhe The Rules The RulesofSociological coversprimarily The Division - - - 19

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 08:39 04 Oct 2021; For: 9781315410098, chapter2, 10.4324/9781315410098.ch2 Durkheim waseducatedasaphilosopherandheusedphilosophicaltermsinhissociological may notbeexactlywhatheprescribedin order inwhichhederivedthem.Finally, bywhichheexplainedthephenomena themethods works isnotnecessarilyeitherthetemporalorderinwhichhearrivedatthemorlogical ofpersuasion.Also,theorderinwhichhepresentedhisresultsthese make useofmethods of LaborinSociety time thatTalcott Parsonspublished Division of Labor ethnographies. day cultureswereinthepast.TheyhavealsocriticizedDurkheim forrelyingonquestionable questioned theassumptionthatsomepresent- More recently, however, anthropologistshavemovedawayfromstructuralfunctionalismand Malinowski bringingittoYale andLévi- English, in1915.Subsequently, Durkheimian- tradition. The Evans- E. E. other hand,wasrelativelyignoredinFrance. Social structuresandfunctionswereimportantexplanatory concepts.Durkheim’s “elementary” formsinearlysocieties to theirmorecomplexformsinadvanced societies. oftracingconceptsandsocialpracticesfromtheirsupposedly was characterizedbyamethod continued afterDurkheim’s deathupthroughtheworkofClaudeLévi- Henri Hubert, and Lucien Lévy- disciplines aredrawndifferentlyintheUnitedStates,Europe,andLatinAmerica. sidered afoundingfatherinbothanthropologyandsociology, buttheboundariesbetweenthese Durkheim’s works have been put to different uses according to country and discipline. He is con changed overthecourseofhiscareer. mind willalsofacilitatedeterminingwhether, andinwhatsense,Durkheim’s mayhave methods of argument in academic discourse that need no special defense. Keeping these distinctions in cal weaknesses,hesimplytookitforgrantedthatthesecriticismsaregenerallyacceptedmodes ambiguity, inconsistency, question- be atextaboutargumentstrategies.Whenhecriticizedhisopponents’theoriesforthingslike stantive worksdeviatedfromhisexpressedmethodology. Durkheim neverintended of collective representations, social forces, and suicidogeniccurrents,described as a “positivist.” ture onDurkheimforthefirsttimewillbesurprisedtofindDurkheim,withhisrichontology third senseinphilosophytoday. Forinstance,philosophersapproachingthesociologicallitera the meaningstheyhavetakenoninmorerecentsocialsciences.Thesetermscanalsoa works. Theseterms often had different meanings in French philosophy during hislifetime than A thirdset of distinctionshas more todowiththe meanings ofthe terms Durkheim used. American sociologists,onthe otherhand,wereattractedtoDurkheim’s earlier works. British socialanthropologistssuchasBronislawMalinowski, AlfredRadcliffe- In France,Durkheim’s These distinctionsshouldbekeptinmindwhenevaluatingthechargethatDurkheim’s sub Pritchard whodevelopedstructuralfunctionalismwereinfluenced bythisFrench ​ Elementary Forms and (1893b), D urkheim Durkheim’s ReceptionintheSocialSciences The Rules Elementary Forms Suicide

and wasthefirstofDurkheim’s majorworkstobetranslatedinto werefirsttranslatedinto English inthe1930s,around Bruhl, gave rise to a tradition of ethnological research that ​ (1897a),and ​begging, unwarrantedadhocassumptions,andmethodologi M The StructureofSocialAction ethods The Rules , alongwithotherworksbyDurkheim,MarcelMauss, ​ Strauss bringingittotheUniversityofSãoPaolo. ​inspired anthropologycrossedtheAtlantic,with 19

of ​ day culturesrepresentthewayotherpresent- The ElementaryFormsofReligiousLife S . cientific S ociology (1937),drawingheavilyon Strauss. Thistradition ​ Suicide The Rules Brown, and ​ (1912a) , onthe The to - - - - ​ 20

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 08:39 04 Oct 2021; For: 9781315410098, chapter2, 10.4324/9781315410098.ch2 entists (1937,61,67,438).Althoughthetermpositivismhadtakenonmanydifferentmeanings to conditionsintheexternalenvironment,asiftheirrelationitwerelikethatofnaturalsci time. ForParsons,itmeantexplainingsocialactors’actionsintermsoftheirrationalresponses Turner ofexplanation. (1986)havesinceshownthatDurkheimneverusedthismethod internalized normsandvalues.However, sociologists suchasWhitneyPope(1973)andStephen Parsons’ ownapproach,inwhichthebehaviorofsocialactorsisexplainedthroughpostulating through “voluntarism”to“idealism”overthecourseofhiscareer. Voluntarism correspondsto interpreted Durkheim’s ofexplanationashavingmovedfromanoriginal“positivism” methods tive workinsociology, despiteDurkheim’s unsophisticatedstatisticalmethodology. Parsons Durkheim. force orpowerthanindividual representations,whichexplainsthecoerciveorconstraining that otherssharethesamerepresentations. Theresultingcollectiverepresentationshave greater tive effervescence,” such asduring religious festivals. Fusion occurs when individualsrecognize of“collec The latterareinitiallyformed fromthefusionofindividualrepresentationsinperiods andcollectiverepresentations. of mentalrepresentationineachindividualmind: individual the constitutiveelementsofcollectiveconsciousness. He explainedthattherearetwokinds doned the term “collective consciousness” and wrote instead about collective representations, individual consciousnesses(1912a,299).To avoidthegroupmindobjection,Durkheimaban of associatedindividuals”(1898b,38– “thewhole forms throughtheunitingofallindividualconsciousnesses” (1897a,361) or individuals. Sociologyrequirednoontologicalsubstanceor substratumotherthan“thatwhich Durkheim, therewasnosuchthing,especiallyconscious entitythatexistsoverandabove tive consciousness.Thissoonledtochargesofhishaving postulatedagroupmind.Butfor social facts,buttheyareagainonlytheirexternalorobservable signs. viduals. Similarly, of law are often things taken like to suicide be statistics Durkheim’sor codes be regardedasbuttheeffectsorvisiblesignsofanunderlyingsocialrealitythatconstrainsindi law tohavingusethenationallanguage(1973,12– constraint through the examples he provided, from performing duties prescribed by custom or as StevenLukeshavecomplainedthatDurkheimequivocatedwithregardtothemeaningof external toeachindividualconsciousness,takensingly(1895a,6ff.;1897a,356).Scholarssuch facts. He defined them asways of thinkingand acting that constrain individualsand that are ogy byarguingthatthereisadistinctclassofphenomenaconstituteitsfieldstudy: social One thingonwhicheveryoneseemstoagreeisthatDurkheimdefendedtheautonomyofsociol effects tothoseofothermorallydesirablephenomena(1902b,xxxvii, 4). to determinewhetherincreasingspecializationismorallydesirablebycomparingitscausesand at generalmoralprinciplesfromthestudyoffacts(1893b,20).Inthiswork,hesought Division ofLabor to have meanttreatingmoralphilosophyasanaturalscience.Intheoriginalintroduction and others, no one at that time used it in Parsons’ sense. For Durkheim, positivism appears to in Durkheim’s daythroughtheworksofComte, Spencer, Mill,Bain,Mach,Avenarius, Ostwald, Also, Parsonsusedtheterm“positivism”inquiteadifferentsensethanithadDurkheim’s Originally, Durkheimcharacterizedthisunderlyingsocialrealityasresidinginthecollec Suicide , Durkheimhadsaidthattheaimofa“positivesciencemorality”istoarrive wastranslatedintoEnglishin1951andinspiredagenerationofquantita W ​ 39). SocietyexistedforDurkheimonlyinandthrough arren Social Facts 20 S chmaus 13). Butthesedifferentexamplescouldall ​ The ------21

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 08:39 04 Oct 2021; For: 9781315410098, chapter2, 10.4324/9781315410098.ch2 not existindependentlyofthemindsindividuals. lective representations,aswellsocialforcesandsuicidogeniccurrents.Buttheseentitiesdid 173; 1902b,67).To besure,Durkheimdidnotshrinkfromtakingarealistinterpretationofcol power ofsocialfacts,whichtheyexertunconsciouslyoverindividualminds(1912a,297;1955a, gives sociologythestatusof a sciencelikethenaturalsciencesisuseofhypotheses about and therelationsamongthem mustbepostulatedinhypotheses.Durkheimarguedthat what tions beknownthroughintrospection, astheyworkunconsciously. Collectiverepresentations there bysimpleinductionand generalizationfromobservations.Norcancollectiverepresenta ofhypothesisandtest?One cannotget collective representationsexceptthroughthemethod the Amerindiansdo(1912a, 157). the lackofevidence,Australiansmusthavehadtotems for phratriesaswellclans,like facts, Durkheimwasnotabove“correcting”thefacts.For instance,he“inferred”thatdespite origins oftheideassouls,sacredbeings,andreligious forces.Farfromgeneralizing could explaintheoriginsofdistinctionbetween sacred andtheprofaneaswell ism istheearliestformofreligion.AccordingtoDurkheim, onlythetotemistichypothesis work, Australianreligionsprovidedthecrucialtestforwhether totemism,animism,ornatur In is, thekindsoffactsthatcandecidebetweencompetinghypothesesinacrucialexperiment. ology shouldseekinsteadarewhatBaconcalled“decisiveorcrucialfacts”(1895a,98),that approaches thatseekexhaustivedetailedaccountsofeverysociety, andarguedthatwhatsoci not oneofsimplygeneralizingfromparticularexperiences.Durkheimexplicitlycriticized ofeliminatingputativecausalexplanationsandenumerative induction,thatis,amethod has proventobeforBacon.ThekindofinductionDurkheimendorsedwaseliminative,not ofphysics,chemistry,methods andphysiology(1895a,xi– mental analysisalone,sinceweconstructitsobjectsourselves;sociologymustusetheempirical firmed (1895a,31– empirical, claimingthateventhelawofsupplyanddemand had neverbeenexperimentally con philosophy thanscience.Similarly, Durkheimsawpoliticaleconomyasmoreideologicalthan the nameofsociologyatthattime— things andthenturnstothefactsonlyasillustrationsorconfirmations.Oftenwhatwentunder ence andnotjustaformofsocialtheorythatproceedsbyanalyzingourordinarynotions external characteristics(1895a,20ff.). card allprenotionsorpreconceptionsandtodefinegroupsofsocialphenomenaintermstheir things, ratherthanfromthingstoideas,andthen,soundingabitlikeBacon,hisadvicedis This reading is reinforced by Durkheim’s criticism of those who would proceed from ideas to regard totheformer, ithasbeenreadasendorsing aformofnaïveinductivismandempiricism. ofexplanation.With ofinquiryandmethods preted inseveralways,concerningbothmethods things, thatis,asjustrealthingsinthematerialworld(1895a,xi,20).Thishasbeeninter It isalsogenerallyrecognizedthatDurkheimadvisedsociologiststoconsidersocialfactsas After all,howelsewouldDurkheimhavebeenabletoarrive atunobservableentitiessuchas The naïveinductivistandempiricistinterpretationisjustaswrongforDurkheimit In thepassagesinquestion,Durkheimwassimplyarguingthatsociologyisanempiricalsci The ElementaryForms ​34). ForDurkheim,mathematicsistheonlysciencethatcanproceedthrough D urkheim , hecalledthisa“well-

and ​ such astheworksofComteandSpencer— Methods ofInquiry M ethods 21

of ​ made experiment”(1912a,135,593).Inthis S cientific ​xiii). S ociology ​ looked morelike ------22

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 08:39 04 Oct 2021; For: 9781315410098, chapter2, 10.4324/9781315410098.ch2 suffice to refute it (1895a, 163), assuming that the disconfirming fact is reliable (1888c, 265–​ confirmation: although severalcorroboratingfactswillnotproveahypothesis,singlefactmay may be derived directly from their causes. Disconfirmation was moreimportant to him than tion withstatementsofinitialconditions.Rather, Durkheimseemstohavethoughtthateffects hypothetico-​ sociology (1895d, 608). who wouldborrowhypothesesfromothersciencessuchasbiologywithoutverifyingthemin when attackinghisopponents.ButthiswasinthecontextofcriticizingpeoplelikeSpencer 1912a, 597;1898b,33).ItistruethatDurkheimoftenused“hypothesis”asatermofabuse unobservable entitiesinan“unknownworld”toexplainthephenomena(1897a,349,351;cf. classification oftheeighty-​ cide rates,andthencompared theaveragefamilysizeforeachgroup(1897a,209).Some other family size,heclassifiedthe eighty-​ variation thatproceedsbygrouping andaveraging.Forexample,toinvestigatetheeffects of number ofchildren(1897a,xi, n. 2). Bureau ofLegalStatisticsandthankedMaussforsorting them byage,sex,maritalstatus,and Morselli’s ously unpublishedevidence,butalsodrawsonpublishedworks bycriminologistssuchasEnrico tion, andthehypothesismustnotbecontradictedbyother facts(1897a,71–​ attributable toaccidentalcircumstances,thefactsmustnot allowofsomealternativeexplana the acceptabilityofacausalhypothesis: there mustbeasufficientnumberoffactssoasnotto concomitance orifanalternativeprovidesabetterfit. canalsoberejectedifitsaysnothingabouta tance coulddisproveahypothesis.A hypothesis like alcoholismorclimateaspossiblecausesrevealthathethoughttheabsenceofaconcomi also holdsincountriesotherthanourown.Onthehand,hisargumentsagainst factors relationship betweenthesizeoffamiliesandsuiciderates,weshouldinvestigatewhetherthis other typesofsocieties(1895a,165–​ variations forcomparison,fromthesamesociety, fromothersocietiesofthesametype,and causal relationship.Hestipulatedthatitisbettertohavenotjustonebutaseriesofconcomitant cians suchasAdolpheQueteletandFrancisGalton. bymathemati for him.Durkheimshowednoknowledgeofdevelopmentsinstatistical methods phenomena tovaryindirectorinverseproportionwassufficientindicateacausalrelationship sought precisemathematicallawswhereonevaluevariedasafunctionoftheother. Fortwo hypotheses, notformechanicallygeneratinglawsfromobservations(1895a,161).Henever fortestingcausal the mostusefulforsociology(1895a,158ff.).Durkheimusedthismethod by Mill’s canonsofinduction.OfMill’s ofconcomitantvariationwas themethod methods, cross-​ But instead,onecanappealtoready-​ whether factsindeedconfirmit(1895a,43–​ terms inone’s hypothesisclearlyintermsofobservablecharacteristicsordertobeabletell is notconfirmedbymanyotherfacts(1902a(i),321).Healsostressedtheimportanceofdefining 1895d, 608) and does not allow for alternative interpretations (1912a, 515), and the hypothesis Durkheim’s ofhypothesisandtestisnotquitethemorecurrentconcept method Durkheim actuallydidlittleoriginalempiricalworkhimself. However, Durkheimrecognizedthatthepresenceofaconcomitancewillnotaloneprove Durkheim thoughtonecouldnotactuallyperformexperimentsinsociology(1895a,159). cultural comparisons. For Durkheim, the logic of the experimental method wascaptured cultural comparisons.ForDurkheim,thelogicofexperimentalmethod Il suicido deductivism, inwhichtestconsequencesarederivedfromhypothesesconjunc of1879.Durkheimobtained26,000dossiersfromGabriel Tarde attheFrench two departmentswouldnotnecessarily haveyieldedthesameneat two departmentsofFranceinto sixgroupsaccordingtosui 69; 1909e,156).Forexample,ifweweretofindaninverse Suicide W made experimentsprovidedbystatistical,historical,and arren Schmaus 44, 54). uses a crude version of the method ofconcomitant usesacrudeversionofthemethod 22 Suicide addsthreefurtherconditionson Suicide containssomeprevi 80). 66; ------23

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 08:39 04 Oct 2021; For: 9781315410098, chapter2, 10.4324/9781315410098.ch2 degree of specialization of labor in that society. The other variable was the relative proportion whichDurkheimassumedreflectedthe position ofasocietyonscalefromprimitivetomodern, ofconcomitantvariation.Onevariablewasthe work, Durkheimalsousedaformofthemethod graphic reportsin only to leave it unconfirmed. (One could make a similar point about his use of unreliable ethno results. Ofcourse,toquestionhisuseofsuicidedataisnotrefutetheorysuicide,but cide ratevarieswithracebecause oftheambiguityconceptrace(1897a,54– for conceptualaswellempirical problems.In that hisownhypothesisdoes nothavetosolve(1912a,253).Alternativetheoriesarecriticized argued thatthehypothesis collectivetotemsderivefromindividualhasproblems for generating unsolved problems that Durkheim’s theory does not face. For instance, Durkheim contradicted by thefacts, but whentheysay nothing atallabout them.They are alsorejected experiments, but isbroader inscope.Competitors’ theories arerejected not onlywhentheyare the bestexplanationsofphenomenainquestion. alternative explanations,arguingthathisowntheoryhas wider explanatoryscopeandprovides of itsobservablecharacteristics.Alongtheway, hecomparedhistheorywithcompetitors’ teristics. Then hesought thereal essence ofthisphenomenon,whichwillprovidethecauses nomenon inquestion, such assuicideor religion, intermsofits external, observable charac Durkheim beganeachofhissubstantiveworkswithapreliminary definitionofthesocialphe The ElementaryForms 1901a(i), 245– infavor ofanarborealonefortheevolutionhumansocieties(e.g.the linearmodel accepting aclassificationofsocietiesintolinearseriesisnotclear. Attimes,hedisavowed the DirectionofMind. (Hence the title of Durkheim’s work, which alludes to Descartes’s methodological plays animportantroleingettingattherealexplanatoryessenceofsomething(1912a,5). Descartes. Indeed,Durkheimcalledita“Cartesianprinciple”thatthefirstlinkinchain in seriesaccordingtodegreeofcomplexityistraditionallyFrench,goingbackatleast ily distinguished(1912a,4;1888c,264– allowed one to analyze a social fact into elements method that could not otherwise be eas out theentireseries,asitaddselementsbecomingmorecomplex.Hethoughtthatthis most complex, and then traced the development of some social fact or institution through he arranged societies on proof a (1895a, scale 166ff.). from In simplest this tomethod of historicalanalysis,whichhehadcharacterizedin ofconcomitantvariations. tance thanthemethod of law.differences Durkheimfoundinsocieties’codes society.mechanical solidarityinmodern Ofcourse,thereareotherpossibleexplanationsofthe mechanical versus organic solidarity. The idea was to show that organic solidarity was replacing of retributivelawversusrestitutive law, whichforDurkheimindicatedtherelative strength of The DivisionofLabor Durkheim’s ofcomparativetheoryevaluationthusresemblesthelogiccrucial method After The DivisionofLabor ​46). Yet he appearstohave assumed alinearclassificationofsocietiesinboth The ElementaryForms. D urkheim and and ) Whether Durkheim followed the Cartesian model totheextentof) WhetherDurkheimfollowedtheCartesianmodel The DivisionofLabor. The ElementaryForms and

and Methods ofPersuasion Suicide M ethods ) ​ 65; 1909e, 153). This method ofarrangingthings65; 1909e,153).Thismethod , cross- 23

of Suicide S ​cultural comparisonstookonmoreimpor drawonpublishedsourcesonly. Inthefirst cientific The ElementaryForms , herejectedthehypothesisthat thesui The Rules S ociology as a method ofsociological asamethod employsamethod 68) andthe ​ Rules for ------24

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 08:39 04 Oct 2021; For: 9781315410098, chapter2, 10.4324/9781315410098.ch2 certain totemic objects in terms of the social forces that are experienced in periods ofcollective certain totemicobjectsintermsofthesocialforcesthatareexperienced in periods earliest form, as described above. Durkheim then explained the sacred character attached to form ofreligionagainstthealternativehypotheses that eitheranimismornaturismwerethe resented byAustraliantotemism.Hethendefendedthehypothesisthatthiswasearliest the essentialnatureofreligion,itturnstowhathetookbeearliestformrep the sacred and theprofane, which ismaintained by aninstitution such asachurch. To find begins withapreliminarydefinitionofreligionexpressedintermsdistinctionbetween alternative logic(1912a, 342). that madeuseofadhochypotheses,suchasLévy- insanity hypothesis for not beingfalsifiable (1897a, 21ff.).Durkheimalso rejected explanations by increasingsocial,moral,or “dynamic” density, thatis,thedensity ofinterpersonalrelationships, explanations. explanations, inspiteofhis warningsin be foundamongitseffects,Durkheim’s functionalexplanationsareoftenmistakenforcausal ence, makingcausesdifficulttodistinguishfromeffects. Since thefunctionofasocialfactisto are notonlylogicallynecessary conditions oftheircauses, but sufficientindicators oftheirpres the normalcourseofevents,causesarebothnecessaryand sufficientfortheireffects,andeffects principle, thatis,wherethesameeffectsappeartohave resulted fromdifferentcauses.Butin adistinctionbetweennormalandpathologicalcasestodealwithexceptions tothis introduced denied thepossibilityofapluralitycausesforsame effect(1895a,155ff.),althoughhe from lawsandstatementsofinitialconditions. he gaveappeartoinvolvethedeductionofeffectsdirectly frompostulatedcauses,ratherthan sentations. However, itisnotclearthatheeverdiscoveredanysuchlaws,andtheexplanations were supposed to explain how collective representations can give rise to other collective repre Theselawsofcollectiveideation and thatstillentirelyremainstobedone”(1898b,47,n. 1). isawholepartofsociologythatshouldinvestigatethelawscollectiveideation said: “There sure, he clearly stated that the knowledge of laws was the goal of sociology, for instance when he completely arriveat,andwhichwoulddefinethefactfurnishitscausefunction. To be was toprovideitsunderlyingrealessence,whichonecouldonlygraduallyapproachandnever of definitionstoaccountforthefacts(1902b,73,52,32).Ultimately, toexplainasocialfact terms appropriateforempiricalhypotheses,suchastheverificationofdefinitionsandability seem todistinguishdefinitionsfromexplanatorygeneralizations,ashewroteaboutin ing afact by subsumingitunderageneral expression, such as acausallaw. Infact, he didnot Durkheim’s conceptofexplanationcombinesexplainingthemeaningawithexplain caused byanunderlyingrealityofdifferentwavelengthslight(1912a, 597). fact causedbyanunderlyingrealityofsocialforces,muchasoursensoryexperiencecolorsis rise arebuttheresultofsocialforces.Whatpeopletaketobetheirreligiousexperiencesin include contemporaryreligions,maintainingthatthefeelingsofwell- effervescence during the performance of religious rites. Finally, he generalized this conclusion to The ElementaryForms For instance, of explanation concerns causes and A functions. second Durkheim ambiguity in his method The DivisionofLabor providesperhapstheclearestexampleofDurkheim’s procedure.It Methods ofExplanation has been construed as showing that specialization is caused hasbeenconstruedasshowing thatspecializationiscaused W arren The Rules 24 S chmaus Bruhl’s conjecturethatprimitiveshavean ​ againstconfusingcausalwith functional being towhichtheygive ​ - - - - 25

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 08:39 04 Oct 2021; For: 9781315410098, chapter2, 10.4324/9781315410098.ch2 that withouttheinterpersonalrelationshipsmakeupsocialdensity, peoplecouldrespond humans couldminimizecompetitionamongthem(1902b,248ff.).Durkheimisquiteexplicit tation tominimizecompetitionwithsimilarorganisms.Similarly, thedivisionoflaboramong to Darwin’s principleofthedivergencecharacter, accordingtowhichspecializationisanadap dynamic densityratherthanaresultofit.ThelatterreadingissuggestedbyDurkheim’s reference be interpretedashavingclaimedthatthespecializationoflaborisanadaptationtoincreasing which inturnresultsfromincreasingphysicalpopulationdensity. Alternatively, Durkheimcould be considered a genuine science is problematic on several levels. He was modeling sociologyon be consideredagenuinescience isproblematiconseverallevels.Hewasmodeling Durkheim’s assumption thatsociologymusthaveitsown,realtheoreticalentities inorderto cide ratesarenotreducibletoindividualpsychology. is anautonomousscienceforDurkheim,associalphenomena suchassocialsuicideandhomi individual intentionswouldbetomistakenlygivethema psychological explanation.Sociology especially notfactsabouttheirintentionalbehavior. To explainsocialphenomenaintermsof individuals cannotbeexplainedintermsoffactsaboutthe individualsthatmakeupthegroup, enon has nothing to dowith anything that people may have intended. Facts about groups of in termsofintentions,goals,orpurposes.ForDurkheim, the functionofsomesocialphenom from eachother, hewasclearaboutdistinguishingfunctionalexplanationsfrom (1912a, 632). ceptual representation of spaceandtimeinordertoorientitselfsatisfyits individual needs minds. Durkheimclaimedthatindividualshavenomoreneedthanananimaldoesofacon ing thecategories.Theserepresentationsmakeexplicitwhatarealreadyimplicitinpeople’s not allrepresentspaceinthesameway. Eachsocietymayhaveitsownsystemofrepresent need somewayofcommunicatingaboutspatialdirections.However, differentsocietiesneed and class because these categories have necessary social functions. For example, all societies According toDurkheim,allsocietiesappearusethesamecategoriesofspace,time,causality, functions andthattheircollectiverepresentationshavesocialcausesoratleastmodels. social causes.Butwhathesucceededinshowingisthatthecategorieshaveimportant He seemstohavewanted Durkheim attemptedtoidentifythem,butthiswouldbelikeconfusingnumberswithnumerals. pounded byanambiguitybetweenthecategoriesandtheircollectiveorculturalrepresentations. functions, asinhistheoryofthecategories process startedunexplained,thatis,whatcausesthedynamicdensitytoincrease. However,exact measure(1895a,140andn. 1). thatleavesthequestionofwhatgetswhole means tomeasurethedynamicdensity, astheymarchtogetherinlockstep,butthatitisnotan of physicalcauses.In defend may thenincrease.OnecouldarguethatDurkheimwrote see themselvesasmembersofthesamesocietyandstaytogether. Asaresult,populationdensity tion ofspecializationistomaintainthoseinterpersonalbonds,sothatindividualscontinue to increasingpopulationdensitysimplybydispersing(1902b,270– Although Durkheim’s causalandfunctionalexplanationsmaynothavealwaysbeendistinct Sometimes Durkheim himself appears to have been led astray by the confusion of causes with The DivisionofLabor What isProblematicabout Durkheim’s Methods D The Rules urkheim The ElementaryForms against the charge that it explains specialization ultimately in terms againstthechargethatitexplainsspecializationultimatelyinterms he argued that the physical population density may serve as the hearguedthatthephysicalpopulationdensitymayserveas

and M ethods The ElementaryForms. 25

of tobereadasshowingthatthecategorieshave S cientific The Rules S ociology ​ 71; 1895a,115).Thefunc precisely in order to try to preciselyinordertotry Theproblemisonlycom ------26

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 08:39 04 Oct 2021; For: 9781315410098, chapter2, 10.4324/9781315410098.ch2 mental representationcan be the bearer of meaning,andeven the identification ofmeanings ever was. cisely becausetheyweremorepositivistinthephilosophicalanti- their attentioninsteadonthingslikesuicidestatisticsandpopulationdensityinhisworks,pre ontology ofcollectiverepresentations,socialforces,andsuicidogeniccurrentsseriously, focusing verse isquestionable.Itmaybethattwentieth- fundamental entities, and the idea of ascribing causal powers to them in this stochastic uni even thebestwaytogo.Also,physics,chemistry, allsharethesame andmolecularbiologytoday positing theoreticalentitiesandtakingarealiststancetowardsthemisnotalwaystheonlyor the directioninwhichhesawnaturalsciencesmovinghisday. Buthistorysuggeststhat tively while self- as thatprivilegescertainreligions overothers.Also,thefactthatsuicidemaybeviewed nega orothersupernaturalentities, instance, weshouldnotdefine religionintermsofbeliefsgods our ordinary notions of these things, which may simply reflect cultural and other biases. For is, toreallyunderstandsocial phenomenasuchassuicideorreligion,wemuststepback from not beexplainedintermsofindividualpsychology. als thatconstituteasociety, thereasonsomecitieshavehigherhomicideratesthanotherscan physics andchemistry. Similarly, althoughthereisnosocialentityoverandabovetheindividu cal explanations that employ conceptslike function andadaptation that cannot be reduced to Although biologicalorganismsarenothingbutphysicaland chemicalentities,therearebiologi any ontologyspecifictosociology. Thiscouldbeexplainedthroughananalogywithbiology. principledoesnot dependon Durkheim perhapsdidnotquiteseethatthismethodological towards illuminatinghow explain howdifferentsocialgroupshavesuicideandcrimerates,whichgoesalongway vidual behavior. Specifically, hearguedthatnoaccountintermsofindividualpsychologycan is a distinct class of social phenomena that cannot be completely explained in terms of indi individualism inthesocial sciences. He demonstrated that there native to methodological Perhaps Durkheim’s mostvaluablecontributionwashisdefenseofaholistorcollectivistalter attention tothestudyofsimplersocietiessuchasAustraliantotemists. any suchshared ideas incontemporary society explains the factthathesubsequently turned his shared ideasthataccomplishthistask.PerhapsthedifficultyDurkheimexperiencedinfinding took tobetheideasthatheldasocietytogether, thusmakingtheComteanassumptionthatitis representations. defined intermsoftheirfunctions,causes,andrelationshipswithothercollective least implicitinDurkheim’s works,inwhichthemeaningsofcollectiverepresentationscanbe meaning andtruth(1955a).Inallfairness,however, thereisanalternativeapproachthatat ditional conceptofideasrepresentingrealityagainstWilliam James’s pragmaticapproachto to havebeenclosednewwaysofthinkingaboutmeaning,ashestronglydefendedthetra with consciousmentalrepresentationsfacesphilosophicaldifficulties. Yet Durkheimappears There arefurtherproblemswith collective representations. It is not clearhowan unconscious Durkheim alsogavevaluableadviceaboutavoidingcommon- Durkheim thoughtheneededtopositcollective representations inordertoexplain whathe ​sacrifice maybe viewed positively shouldnot blind us to the possibility that What isValuable inDurkheim’s Methodology Suicide became a classic and a model inAmericansociology. becameaclassicandmodel However, W arren 26 S ​ century socialscientistsdidnottakeDurkheim’s chmaus sense termsandconcepts.That ​ realist sensethanDurkheim ​ ------27

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 08:39 04 Oct 2021; For: 9781315410098, chapter2, 10.4324/9781315410098.ch2 — rate question.Butonecanaskjusthowsuccessfulothersocialtheoristshavebeenintryingto Durkheim atleastattemptedtocombinethetwo;whetherhewassuccessful,ofcourse,isasepa there is no reason to think that sociology cannot concern itself with both meanings and causes. that itwasinappropriateforhimtotreatsocial facts inanaturalscientific sortofway. However, act ofamartyrtoanother. what lookstobeasuicidebombingfromonesociety’s pointofviewmayappeartobethenoble — — — — — totheSociology ofthe àlasociologiedefamille[Introduction Durkheim, E.(1888c)“Introduction Anderson, R.L.(2003)“TheDebateoverthe 1 sciences. thatiscommontoallbutonlythenatural them fromthenaturalsciences,orsetofmethods thatisspecifictothesocialsciencesdistinguishes There appearstobenosetofmethods which reflectsbackonhisconceptofreligionasawholetoformnewtentativehypothesis. Durkheim’s hypothesisabout religion is used tointerpret different sorts of rites and practices, ofanyscience,naturalorsocial,includingDurkheim’scould describethemethod sociology. whole, andendlesslyrepeatingthiscycle(Anderson2003).Butatageneralenoughlevel, ouroriginalhypothesisaboutthe pret itsparts,andthenusingtheseinterpretationstomodify Dilthey’s involvesmakinganhypothesisaboutthewholeinordertointer hermeneuticmethod contrasting thesocialscienceswithanunrealisticpictureofnaturalsciences.Forinstance, distinguish an“interpretive”from“explanatory”socialscience.Oftentheargumentsturnon

​— ​— ​— ​— ​— ​— http:// lished byStevenLukes(1973)andsubsequentlyupdatedRobertAlunJonesDanielaBarberisat able Englishtranslationsarenotalwaysreliable.Thereferencenumberingsystemisthatoriginallyestab I citetheoriginalFrenchversionsofDurkheim’s works,providingmyowntranslations,sincetheavail One couldobjectthatDurkheimnotexplainthesocialmeaningofsuicideandsay 4: 65– phie Representations],” reprinted in1975a,vol.1, 43– Paris: PUF, 1930, repr. 1986.The prefacetothefirsteditionthatwasremovedinsubsequenteditionsis 3, 70– vol. in the Human Species According to Westermarck],” Paris: Alcan, 1927. 257– vol. 2, duction tothefirsteditionthatwereremovedinsubsequent editions havebeenreprintedin1975a, oftheOrganizationHigherSocieties Labor inSociety: A Study Family],” (ed.), ​— ​— ​— ​— ​— ​— Paris: PUF, 13– . ​ (1901a(i))“Deuxloisdel’évolution pénale[Two LawsofPenalEvolution],” ​ (1898b)“Représentationsindividuelles etreprésentationscollectives[IndividualandCollective (1897a) ​ ​ (1895d)“L’origine dumariagedansl’espèce humained’aprèsWestermarck [TheOriginofMarriage (1895a) ​ (1893b) ​ ​durkheim.uchicago.edu/ The CambridgeHistoryofPhilosophy1870– ​96. Repr. in1969c,245– Annales delaFacultédesLettresBordeaux ​92. ​88. De la division du travail social: étude surl’organisationdes sociétéssupérieures De ladivisiondutravailsocial: étude esiie étudedesociologie Le suicide: Les règlesdelaméthodesociologique Revue deMétaphysiqueetMorale D ​50. urkheim . ​ ​48. ​73.

and M ethods References Geisteswissenschaften [ ucd: StudyinSociology A Suicide: Note ​ 1945 27

of 10: 257– . Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress,221– S [ 6: 273– Revue Philosophique cientific The RulesofSociologicalMethod ]. Paris: Alcan. Thepagesfromtheintro ]. Paris: Alcan. ​81. Repr. in1975a,vol.3, 9– ​ 302. Repr. in1924a, inGermanPhilosophy,” inT. Baldwin S ociology 40: 606– ] ai: Alcan.Newedn., , Paris: L’Année Sociologique ​23. Repr. in 1975a, Sociologie etphiloso [ The Divisionof ], 8thedn. ​34. ​ 34. ------

28

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 08:39 04 Oct 2021; For: 9781315410098, chapter2, 10.4324/9781315410098.ch2 Lukes, S.(1973) — — — — — — — Schmaus, W. Lukes, S. Jones, R.A. Durkheim, E. Turner, S.(1986) Pope, W. InterpretationofDurkheim,” (1973)“ClassiconClassic: Parsons’ Parsons, T. (1937) ​— ​— ​— ​— ​— ​— ​— l’action. méthode danslessciences Paris: PUF, 1986. 315– Niche lectual biographyofDurkheim. sociological readingsofDurkheim. also interpretsDurkheim’s workinhistoricalcontexttoprovideaprovocativealternativestandard methodology. Durkheim (1895a)andcontainsusefultranslationsofotherDurkheim’s essaysrelevanttohis (ed.), W. D.Halls(trans.)(New York: Free Press,1982) isthebetteroftwoEnglishtranslations Century ProblemofCause,Probability, andAction 38: 399– Fourth edn.,Paris: PUF, 1960;repr. 1985. philosophical andintellectualtraditionsofhis time. University Press, 2004) interpret Durkheim’s thought in the context of the (Cambridge: Cambridge ​— ​— ​— ​— ​— ​— ​— (1975a) ​ (1969c) ​ (1955a) ​ (1912a) ​ ​ (1909e)“Sociologieetsciencesociale[SociologyandSocialScience],”inH.Bouasse(ed.), (1902b) ​ ​ (1902a(i)) “Sur le totemisme [On Totemism],” ​52. (hcg: UniversityofChicagoPress,1994) and (Chicago: Emile Durkheim: His LifeandWork Paris,PUF, 137– ​415. The DevelopmentofDurkheim’s SocialRealism ukemsPiooh fSineadteScooyo nweg: CreatinganIntellectual Durkheim’s Philosophy ofScienceandtheSociologyKnowledge: The Rules ofSociological Method andSelectedTexts onSociologyand its Method Les formes élémentaires de la vie religieuse Textes Journal Sociologique Pragmatisme etsociologie De ladivisiondutravailsocial Emile Durkheim: HisLifeandWork The StructureofSocialAction h erhfraMtoooyo oilSine Durkheim,Weber, andtheNineteenth- The SearchforaMethodologyofSocialScience: , V. Karady (ed.).Paris: LesÉditionsdeMinuit. . Paris: Alcan, 259– . Paris: Alcan, ​58. , J.Duvignaud(ed.).Paris: PUF. [ Pragmatism andSociology W Further Reading (New York: Penguin Books,1973)isthemostcompleteintel arren [ The DivisionofLaborinSociety ​ 85. Repr. in1970a,J.- . New York: Free Press, 1968. . New York: Penguin Books. . Dordrecht,theNetherlands: Reidel. 28 S chmaus [ The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress,1999) L’Année Sociologique Rethinking DurkheimandHisTradition ] . Paris: Vrin. ​ C. Filloux(ed.), ] , 2ndedn.Paris: Alcan. Repr. 5: 82– American SociologicalReview ​121. Repr. in 1969c, La sciencesocialeet ] . Paris: Alcan. , S.Lukes De la -

​