Abstract
In recent years, we have witnessed the spectacular electoral breakthrough of nationalist, anti-immigrant, and xenophobic political parties throughout Europe. In the face of this growing threat, the thinking of the critical left appears powerless, when it does not favor regressive reflexes that lead it to lock itself in turn into narrow nationalism. This text argues that this intellectual impotence rests on certain mental cramps provoked in left-wing thinkers by the philosophical thought inherited from modern times—be it moral, political, or historical philosophy. We show how such mental cramps disappear if we adopt the sociological point of view defended by Durkheim. It then becomes possible to understand what are the “real” (i.e., not fantasized) means to act politically on the most pathological aspects of our societies and thus prevent their nationalist drift. But it also becomes possible to recognize the political ideal that we, as moderns, must want: that of a self-direction of society, that is, of an ever-increasing democratization of the state—a project that corresponds to Durkheim’s definition of socialism.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
This kind of reflexivity definitely exonerates Durkheim of all objectivism without plunging him into relativism. Indeed, the fact that scientific objectivity is made possible by a certain type of society does not restrict that objectivity. Only a non-sociological conception of the production of scientific knowledge could suggest the opposite: C. Lemieux, “What Durkheimian thought shares with pragmatism”, Journal of Classical Sociology, 12 (3–4), 2012, pp. 384–397.
- 2.
L. Dumont, Homo Hierarchicus: an Essay on the Caste System, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1970, p. 17.
- 3.
B. Karsenti, C. Lemieux, Socialisme et sociologie, Paris, Editions de l’EHESS, 2017.
- 4.
On this point the situation in France contrasts starkly to that of other countries, where critical attitudes to Marxism helped lastingly sustain the socialist impulse in the social sciences. This is particularly the case in England and the US in the intellectual circles of continental European leftist intellectuals who had fled Nazism such as Karl Mannheim, Paul Lazarsfeld, Norbert Elias, and Karl Polanyi.
- 5.
The texts on which my argument is based here are É. Durkheim, “Socialisme et science sociale”, É. Durkheim, La science sociale et l’action, Paris, Presses universitaires de France, [1897] 1987, pp. 236–244; É. Durkheim, Suicide. A study in Sociology, London, Routledge, [1897] 2002; É. Durkheim, Professional Ethics and Civil Morals, London, Routledge, [1950] 2003; É. Durkheim, Socialism and Saint-Simon, London, Routledge, [1928] 2009; É. Durkheim, The Division of Labour in Society, London, Palgrave Macmillan, [1893] 2013; É. Durkheim, The Rules of Sociological Method, New York, Free Press, [1895] 2014.
- 6.
É. Durkheim, The Rules of Sociological Method, cit. Chap. 3, sect. 3, pp. 60–66.
- 7.
In this connection it is important to note the error made by interpreters who see Durkheim’s thought as “fixist” or reactionary when in fact its guiding purpose was to combat such thinking. The normative ideal of his sociology is neither consensus nor cohesion; nor is it maintaining law and order. It is instead harmonious change, with the understanding that change itself is normal and universal. For a clarification on this point see M. Plouviez, “Sociology as subversion: discussing the reproductive interpretations of Durkheim”, Journal of Classical Sociology, 12 (3–4), 2012, pp. 428–448.
- 8.
É. Durkheim, The Rules of Sociological Method, cit. Chap. 4, sect. 2, pp. 72–75.
- 9.
On the positivist origin of this notion, see B. Karsenti, Politique de l’esprit. Auguste Comte et la naissance de la science sociale, Paris, Hermann, 2006a, pp. 121 ff. For Comte, the social organisms that constitute the most complex domain of reality (in that they condense different legal regimes and therefore cannot help but produce deviations) require regulatory activity that will diagnose and rectify pathological conditions seen not in terms of an absolute norm but as a function of their own relative normality.
- 10.
It was because Michel Foucault failed to grasp this difference that he likened Durkheim’s position to that of American authors—primarily Ruth Benedict—for whom disease as difference from the norm could only be a negative phenomenon because they did not recognize its positive function as a sign that a change was under way. See M. Foucault, Mental Illness and Psychology, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1987, pp. 61–62.
- 11.
Likewise, while suicide is a universal phenomenon and therefore normal, there is nothing ineluctable in the excessive suicide rate likely to be found in modern societies (particularly suicides of the egoistic and anomic varieties). That rate could be significantly reduced if policymakers worked to regulate economic conduct and occupational integration institutionally (É. Durkheim, Suicide, cit. III, chap. 3, pp. 328–359.
- 12.
É. Durkheim, The Division of Labour in Society, cit. III, chap. 1., pp. 277–292.
- 13.
Ibid., III, chap. 2., pp. 293–303.
- 14.
Ibid., III, chap. 3., pp. 304–308.
- 15.
On this point see F. Callegaro, La science politique des modernes. Durkheim, la sociologie et le projet d’autonomie, Paris, Economica, 2015.
- 16.
Political philosophy constantly returns to the idea that conservative and reactionary thinking is anti-modern par excellence because opposed to progressivism. It is one of Karl Mannheim’s major contributions to have shown that from a sociological perspective, that type of thinking should actually be seen as one of modernity’s central ideological stances. See K. Mannheim, Conservatism: a Contribution to the Sociology of Knowledge, London, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1986.
- 17.
The first to break with this understanding were the pioneers of socialist and positivist thinking, particularly Saint-Simon and Comte. On the intellectual continuity between Durkheim’s approach and these two thinkers, see F. Hulak, “Sociologie et théorie socialiste de l’histoire. La trame saint-simonienne chez Durkheim et Marx”, Incidence, 11, 2015, pp. 83–106. However, their as-yet abstract recourse to a great law of history (emblematically designated in Comte’s thinking as the Law of Three Stages), while making it possible to conceive of progress, did not involve analyzing forms of social differentiation. Durkheim’s break from philosophy of history is more radical than theirs as his approach implies examining the empirical process of the division of labor.
- 18.
É. Durkheim, Socialism and Saint-Simon, cit. Chap. 1, p. 13.
- 19.
Ibid., cit. Chap. 3, p. 34.
- 20.
This point is developed in B. Karsenti, C. Lemieux, Socialisme et sociologie, cit. pp. 52–58. See also É. Durkheim, Socialism and Saint-Simon, cit. Chap. 2, pp. 19–28.
- 21.
As suggested by Anne Rawls, Durkheim’s whole approach can be interpreted as the search for empirical (i.e., sociological) evidence of the functional necessity of justice in modern societies: A. W. Rawls, “Durkheim’s theory of modernity: Self-regulating practices as constitutive orders of social and moral facts”, Journal of Classical Sociology, 12 (3–4), 2012, pp. 479–512. Durkheim makes the assumption that, whatever the object studied by sociologists (family, occupation, political life, or other), the method of sociological inquiry, properly implemented, is very likely to lead once again to the conclusion that the functioning of modern societies requires egalitarian and democratic principles—rather than authoritarianism and unconditional respect for collective beliefs.
- 22.
N. Elias, The Civilizing Process, London, Blackwell, 2000.
- 23.
É. Durkheim, Professional Ethics and Civil Morals, cit. Chap. 7–9, pp. 76–109.
- 24.
É. Durkheim, Socialism and Saint-Simon, cit. Chap. 1, p. 13.
References
Callegaro, Francesco, La science politique des modernes. Durkheim, la sociologie et le projet d’autonomie, Paris, Economica, 2015.
Dumont, Louis, Homo Hierarchicus: An essay on the caste system, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1970.
Durkheim, Emile, « Socialisme et science sociale » É. Durkheim, La science sociale et l’action, Paris, Presses universitaires de France, [1897] 1987, pp. 236–244.
Durkheim, Emile, Suicide. A study in Sociology, London, Routledge, [1897] 2002.
Durkheim, Emile, Professional ethics and civil morals, London, Routledge, [1950] 2003.
Durkheim, Emile Socialism and Saint-Simon, London, Routledge, [1928] 2009.
Durkheim, Emile, The division of labour in society, London, Palgrave Macmillan, [1893] 2013.
Durkheim, Emile, The rules of sociological method, New York, Free Press, [1895] 2014.
Elias, Norbert, The civilizing process, London, Blackwell, 2000.
Foucault, Michel, Mental illness and psychology, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1987.
Hulak, Florence, « Sociologie et théorie socialiste de l’histoire. La trame saint-simonienne chez Durkheim et Marx », Incidence, 11, 2015, pp. 83–106.
Karsenti, Bruno, Politique de l’esprit. Auguste Comte et la naissance de la science sociale, Paris, Hermann, 2006a.
Karsenti, Bruno, La sociologie en personnes. Études durkheimiennes, Paris, Economica, 2006b.
Karsenti, Bruno, Lemieux, Cyril, Socialisme et sociologie, Paris, Editions de l’EHESS, 2017.
Lemieux, Cyril, 2009, Le devoir et la grâce. Pour une analyse grammaticale de l’action, Paris, Economica.
Lemieux, Cyril, « What Durkheimian thought shares with pragmatism », Journal of Classical Sociology, 12 (3–4), 2012, pp. 384–397.
Plouviez, Mélanie, « Sociology as subversion: Discussing the reproductive interpretations of Durkheim », Journal of Classical Sociology, 12 (3–4), 2012, pp. 428–448.
Mannheim, Karl, Conservatism: A contribution to the sociology of knowledge, London, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1986.
Rawls, Anne W., « Durkheim’s theory of modernity: Self-regulating practices as constitutive orders of social and moral facts », Journal of Classical Sociology, 12 (3–4), 2012, pp. 479–512.
Trom, Danny, La promesse et l’obstacle: la gauche radicale et le problème juif, Paris, Éditions du Cerf, 2007.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Section Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lemieux, C. (2021). Socialism as a Reaction to Nationalisms: A Durkheimian Perspective. In: Marcucci, N. (eds) Durkheim & Critique. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75158-6_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75158-6_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-75157-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-75158-6
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)