Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Schopenhauer’s Will and Idea in Durkheim’s Methodology

  • Chapter
The Qualitative-Quantitative Distinction in the Social Sciences

Part of the book series: Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science ((BSPS,volume 112))

  • 162 Accesses

Abstract

There are many ways of apprehending the qualitative-quantitative distinction in social research, of course. A useful approach is to distinguish these two methodologies along the rough outlines of the object-subject debate, a distinction that has taken many forms in various arguments. Nevertheless, according to most textbooks, the quantifiers are supposed to be ‘objective’ and positivistic. They allegedly deal with ‘facts’ and their ‘totem’ is purported to be Emile Durkheim. By contrast, the qualifiers are supposed to pay attention to the actor’s ‘subjective’ point of view, and they are said to be phenomenological.1 Max Weber is often cited as their ‘totem.’ Much has been written about the epistemological crises in sociology that stem from pushing this object-subject distinction to an extreme.2 Recently, Horowitz has exposed the ideological biases that afflict sociological theory as a result of this distinction.3 Nevertheless, notwithstanding the many fine efforts that have been made to transcend this distinction, it is undeniable that it continues to inform — in some manner, however dilluted — contemporary social research textbooks, and that it continues to afflict sociology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. Robert Bogdan and Steven J. Taylor, Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods, New York, John Wiley & Sons, 1975, pp. 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  2. For recent examples, see Anthony Flew, Thinking About Social Thinking: The Philosophy of the Social Sciences, New York, Basil Blackwell, 1986; David Sylvan and Barry Glassner, A Rationalist Methodology for the Social Sciences, New York, Basil Blackwell, 1986; Roger Trigg, Understanding Social Science, New York, Basil Blackwell, 1985; Jerry A. Fodor, Representations: Philosophical Essays on the Foundations of Cognitive Science, Cambridge, MIT Press, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Irving L. Horowitz, `Disenthraliing sociology,’ Society 24, 1987, pp. 48–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Marcel Mauss, Sociology and Psychology, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, [ 1950 ] 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ibid., p. 24.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ibid., p. 25

    Google Scholar 

  8. Célestin Bouglé, The French Conception of `Culture Générale’ and Its Influences upon Instruction, New York, Columbia University Press, 1938, p. 24.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Ibid., p. 22. See also Stjepan G. Megtrovic, `Durkheim’s Concept of Anomie Considered as a `Total’ Social Fact,’ British Journal of Sociology 38 (4), 1987, pp. 567–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Arthur Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Idea, New York, AMS Press, [ 1818 ] 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bouglé, op. cit., p. 21.

    Google Scholar 

  12. My interview was conducted in Paris in 1987 with Pierre Halbwachs, retired professor of linguistics at the Sorbonne in Paris, and son of Maurice Halbwachs, who was one of Durkheim’s most prolific followers.

    Google Scholar 

  13. André Lalonde, `Allocution pour le centenaire de la naissance d’ Emile Durkheim,’ Annales de l’ Université de Paris, 1960, p. 23.

    Google Scholar 

  14. See Steven Lukes, Emile Durkheim: His Life and Work, New York, Harper & Row, 1972, p. 21, though Lukes does not invoke Schopenhauer. See also Stjepan G. Megtrovié, `Durkheim’s conceptualization of political anomie,’ Research in Political Sociology, 1988, forthcoming and Stjepan G. Megtrovié, `Durkheim, Schopenhauer and the Relationship Between Goals and Means: Reversing the Assumptions in the Parsonian Theory of Rational Action,’ Sociological Inquiry, 1988, forthcoming.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Sigmund Freud, The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, Vol. 20, 1974, pp. 59–60. Henri Ellenberger, The Discovery of the Unconscious, New York, Basic Books, 1970, treats Schopenhauer’s influence on Freud at some length. See also Ernest Jones, The Life and Work of Sigmund Freud, New York, Basic Books, 1981, Vol. 1, pp. 319, 375; Vol. 2, pp. 226, 415; Vol. 3, pp. 205, 313.

    Google Scholar 

  16. André Lalande, Vocabulaire technique et critique de la philosophie, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France, [1926] 1980, p. 1221.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Bryan Magree, The Philosophy of Schopenhauer, New York, Oxford University Press, 1983, p. 264 and pp. 379–390.

    Google Scholar 

  18. David W. Hamlyn, Schopenhauer, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1980; Patrick Goodwin, Schopenhauer,’ The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol. 8, New York, Macmillan, 1967, pp. 325–32.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Thomas Mann, `Introduction,’ in W. Durant (ed.), The Works of Schopenhauer, New York, Frederick Unger Publishers, [1939] 1955, pp. iii—xxiii.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Georg Simmel, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, Amherst, University of Massachusetts Press, [ 1907 ] 1986. See also Stjepan G. Mestrovié, `Simmel’s concept of the unconscious,’ paper presented to the Western Social Science Association in San Diego, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Stjepan G. Mestrovié, `Durkheim’s renovated rationalism and the idea that `collective life is only made of representations’,’ Current Perspectives in Social Theory 6, 1985, pp. 199–218.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Alan Janik and Stephen Toulmin, Wittgenstein’s Vienna, New York, Simon & Schuster, 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  23. André Lalande, [1926] 1980, op. cit., pp. 920–22.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Marcel Mauss, op. cit.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Emile Durkheim, `Review of Ferdinand Tönnies, Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft,’ in Mark Traugott, ed., Emile Durkheim on Institutional Analysis, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1978, pp. 115–122.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  26. Ferdinand Tönnies, Community and Society, New York, Harper & Row, [ 1887 ] 1963.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Georg Simmel, ‘Georg Simmel on University of Chicago Press, 1971. See Individuality and Its Social Forms, Chicago, especially pp. 376–91.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Ernest Jones, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 226.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Wilhelm Wundt, Ethics, New York, See also Magee, op. cit., p. 283.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Bryan Magee, op. cit. Macmillan, [ 1886 ] 1902, pp. 58–96.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Schopenhauer, op. cit., p. 124.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Ibid., p. 32.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Ibid., Vol. 3, pp. 105–118.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Ibid., Vol. 1, pp. 405–20.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Ibid., Vol. 3, p. 79.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Ibid., p. 77.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Ibid., Vol. 1, p. 254.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Ibid., p. 414.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Ibid., p. 410.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Emile Durkheim, Suicide, New York, Free Press, [ 1897 ] 1951.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Sigmund Freud, `The ego and the id,’ in The Standard Edition, op. cit., Vol. 19, pp. 1–59.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Thomas Mann, op. cit.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, New York, Charles Scribner’s Sons, [1904–1905] 1958.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Emile Durkheim, `The dualism of human nature and its social conditions,’ in R. Bellah (ed.), Emile Durkheim on Morality and Society, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, [ 1914 ] 1973, pp. 149–66.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Georg Simmel, op. cit., 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Ferdinand Tönnies, op. cit.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Emile Durkheim, Socialism and Saint-Simon, Yellow Springs, Antioch Press, [ 1928 ] 1958.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Lucien Levy-Bruhl, The History of Philosophy in France, Chicago, Open Court, 1899.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Bouglé, op. cit.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Hamlyn, op. cit., p. 45; Magee, op. cit., p. 35.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Hamlyn, op. cit., p. 5.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Ibid., p. 45, and Magee, op. cit., p. 76.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Emile Durkheim, The Rules of Sociological Method, New York, Free Press, [1895] 1983, p. 34.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Emile Durkheim, Sociology and Philosophy, New York, Free Press, [ 1924 ] 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Durkheim, op. cit., [1914] 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Stjepan G. Mesgtrovie, In the Shadow of Plato: Durkheim and Freud on Suicide and Society, doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Mauss, op. cit.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Charles Camic, `The matter of habit,’ American Journal of Sociology 91, 1986, pp. 1039–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Maurice Halbwachs, The Collective Memory, New York, Harper & Row, [ 1950 ] 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Emile Durkheim, Incest: The Nature and Origin of the Taboo, New York, Lyle Stuart, [1897] 1963, p. 114.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Emile Durkheim, The Division of Labor in Society, New York, Free Press, [1893] 1933, p. 97, emphasis added.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Stjepan G. McIItrovie, `Durkheim’s concept of the unconscious,’ Current Perspectives in Social Theory 5, 1984, pp. 267–88.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Hamlyn, op. cit., pp. 95–105.

    Google Scholar 

  64. See Schopenhauer’s scattered discussion of art as a state of ‘will-lessness.’

    Google Scholar 

  65. Goodwin, op. cit.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Sjepan G. Meltrovic and Helene M. Brown, `Durkheim’s concept of anomie as dérèglement,’ Social Problems 33, 1985, pp. 81–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Robert K. Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure, New York, Free Press, 1957.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Maurice Halbwachs, The Causes of Suicide, [ 1930 ] 1978, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, p. 314.

    Google Scholar 

  69. A. Alvarez, The Savage God, New York, Bantam, 1970.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Durkheim, op. cit., [1897] 1951, p. 52, emphasis added.

    Google Scholar 

  71. For discussions in the context of Emile Durkheim, see Stjepan G. Megtrovic and Barry Glassner, `A Durkheimian hypothesis on stress,’ Social Science and Medicine 17, 1983, pp. 1315–27 and Stjepan G. Mestrovic, `A sociological conceptualization of trauma,’ Social Science and Medicine 21, 1985, pp. 835–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Durkheim, op. cit., [1897] 1951, pp. 305–6.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Anthony Giddens, The New Rules of Sociological Method, New York, Basic Books, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Bogdan and Taylor, op. cit.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Durkheim, op. cit., [1897] 1951, p. 306.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Mes“trovid, op. cit., 1982, pp. 239–75.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Durkheim, op. cit., [1897] 1951, p. 68.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Asenath Petrie, Individuality in Pain and Suffering, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1967.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Durkheim, op. cit., [1897] 1951, p. 69.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Ibid., p. 71.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Ibid., p. 73.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Ibid., p. 323.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  84. For reviews of the use of the concept of ‘integration,’ see Mestrovic, op. cit., 1982 and Mestrovid & Glassner, op. cit., 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Durkheim, op. cit., [1897] 1951, p. 209.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Ibid., p. 221.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Ibid., p. 299.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Ibid., p. 117.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Ibid., p. 119.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Ibid., p. 101.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Ibid., p. 215.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  94. For a recent example, see G. Klerman (ed.), Suicide and Depression Among Adolescents and Young Adults, Washington, D.C., American Psychiatric Association, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Durkheim, op. cit., [1897] 1951, pp. 100–1, emphasis added.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Ibid., p. 214.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  99. Ibid., pp. 221, 289.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Ibid., p. 209.

    Google Scholar 

  101. Ibid., p. 247.

    Google Scholar 

  102. Ibid., p. 270.

    Google Scholar 

  103. See Mestrovid, op. cit., 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  104. Emile Durkheim, Professional Ethics and Civic Press, [ 1950 ] 1983, pp. 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  105. Emile Durkheim, Moral Education, Glencoe, Free

    Google Scholar 

  106. Dennis Wrong, `The over-socialized conception American Sociological Review 26, 1961, pp. 183–93.

    Google Scholar 

  107. Durkheim, op. cit., [1897] 1951, p. 312.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Stjepan G. Meštrović
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology, University of Connecticut, USA

    Barry Glassner

  2. Division of Humanities in Medicine, SUNY Health Science Center at Brooklyn, USA

    Jonathan D. Moreno

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1989 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Meštrović, S.G. (1989). Schopenhauer’s Will and Idea in Durkheim’s Methodology. In: Glassner, B., Moreno, J.D. (eds) The Qualitative-Quantitative Distinction in the Social Sciences. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol 112. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-3444-8_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-3444-8_7

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-90-481-8460-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-017-3444-8

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation