What do you think?
Rate this book
قواعد المنهج فى علم الاجتماع
قدم هذا الكتاب إطاراً نظريا يتميز بكثير من الوضوح والقدرة على الإقناع ، وبالقليل من الغموض والإشكاليات ، وقد أثار هذا العمل منذ ظهوره � ولا يزال � عواصف عنيفة حركت العقول وأثارت حملات من النقد القاسى الراجع إلى قصور الفهم أحيانا ، كما أثارت فى الوقت نفسه وبالقدر نفسه طوفانا من التأييد والدعم ، والتوضيح والتطوير . هذا الكتاب أهم أعمال دوركايم وأعلاها قدرا.
Paperback
First published January 1, 1895
135 people are currently reading
3,043 people want to read
About the author
Émile Durkheim
317books756followersMuch of Durkheim's work was concerned with how societies could maintain their integrity and coherence in modernity; an era in which traditional social and religious ties are no longer assumed, and in which new social institutions have come into being. His first major sociological work was The Division of Labor in Society (1893). In 1895, he published his Rules of the Sociological Method and set up the first European department of sociology, becoming France's first professor of sociology.
In 1896, he established the journal L'Année Sociologique. Durkheim's seminal monograph, Suicide (1897), a study of suicide rates amongst Catholic and Protestant populations, pioneered modern social research and served to distinguish social science from psychology and political philosophy. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (1912), presented a theory of religion, comparing the social and cultural lives of aboriginal and modern societies.
Durkheim was also deeply preoccupied with the acceptance of sociology as a legitimate science. He refined the positivism originally set forth by Auguste Comte, promoting what could be considered as a form of epistemological realism, as well as the use of the hypothetico-deductive model in social science. For him, sociology was the science of institutions,[citation needed] its aim being to discover structural social facts. Durkheim was a major proponent of structural functionalism, a foundational perspective in both sociology and anthropology. In his view, social science should be purely holistic; that is, sociology should study phenomena attributed to society at large, rather than being limited to the specific actions of individuals.
He remained a dominant force in French intellectual life until his death in 1917, presenting numerous lectures and published works on a variety of topics, including the sociology of knowledge, morality, social stratification, religion, law, education, and deviance. Durkheimian terms such as "collective consciousness" have since entered the popular lexicon.
In 1896, he established the journal L'Année Sociologique. Durkheim's seminal monograph, Suicide (1897), a study of suicide rates amongst Catholic and Protestant populations, pioneered modern social research and served to distinguish social science from psychology and political philosophy. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (1912), presented a theory of religion, comparing the social and cultural lives of aboriginal and modern societies.
Durkheim was also deeply preoccupied with the acceptance of sociology as a legitimate science. He refined the positivism originally set forth by Auguste Comte, promoting what could be considered as a form of epistemological realism, as well as the use of the hypothetico-deductive model in social science. For him, sociology was the science of institutions,[citation needed] its aim being to discover structural social facts. Durkheim was a major proponent of structural functionalism, a foundational perspective in both sociology and anthropology. In his view, social science should be purely holistic; that is, sociology should study phenomena attributed to society at large, rather than being limited to the specific actions of individuals.
He remained a dominant force in French intellectual life until his death in 1917, presenting numerous lectures and published works on a variety of topics, including the sociology of knowledge, morality, social stratification, religion, law, education, and deviance. Durkheimian terms such as "collective consciousness" have since entered the popular lexicon.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 78 reviews
March 14, 2021
أتصفح في مكتبتي وجدت أنني قرأت عدد جيد من كتب علم الإجتماع،منها كتب راقت لي وأحسب أنني فهمتها وكتب أخرى كانت أشبه باللعنة فرعونية إحتجت وقت حتى أنهيها وأفُّك ولو قليلا من لغز .
لكن هذا أول كتاب أستمتع برشا بقراءته وكما نقول بالتونسي"عملت جو وانا نقرأ فيه " ولخصته،
هذا الكتاب تكليف من تكليفات أكاديمية نماء، ضمن مادة علم الإجتماع.يعتبر اميل دوركايم المؤسس الأكادبمي لعلم الاجتماع
،من خلال وضعه لأسس العلمية "منهج" والقواعد لدراسة الظاهرة الاجتماعية.مبتدأ بالتعريف بها:
حيث صاغ شرطان للحديث عن الظاهرة :أن تكون خارجية عن شعور الفرد وذات طبيعية قاهرة
ثم تحدث عن خصائصها؛كيفية التفرقة بين الظاهرة السليمة والظاهرة المعتلة؟
هل التجسدات الفردية ممكن أن تتحول إلى ظاهرة وكيف؟
من أفضل الكتب التي قرات لانه يجعلك تفهم أهمية البداية التأسيسة للعلم خاصة ان أسلوبه ممتع وليس صعب.
لاأستطيع التعمق أكثر لاننى أنتظر نتيجتي😊
لكن أشجعكم على إطلاع عليه خاصة جزئية الجريمة وكيف أنها مفيدة لنمو المجتمع ودليل صحته مثال جريمة سقراط
وجزئية أن لكل مجتمع قانون أخلاقي وطقوس تميزه لذلك يجب مرعاة الإختلاف.
في نهاية لا يسعني إلا أن أشكر شريك رحلة القراءة الذي ساعدني في تدقيق اللغوي و ادللت عليه برشا فالجميغ يعرف مشكلتي مع العربية.
عيشك برشا على وقتك ووسع بالك .
لك مني كل المحبة والتقدير.
❤❤❤❤❤❤�
لكن هذا أول كتاب أستمتع برشا بقراءته وكما نقول بالتونسي"عملت جو وانا نقرأ فيه " ولخصته،
هذا الكتاب تكليف من تكليفات أكاديمية نماء، ضمن مادة علم الإجتماع.يعتبر اميل دوركايم المؤسس الأكادبمي لعلم الاجتماع
،من خلال وضعه لأسس العلمية "منهج" والقواعد لدراسة الظاهرة الاجتماعية.مبتدأ بالتعريف بها:
حيث صاغ شرطان للحديث عن الظاهرة :أن تكون خارجية عن شعور الفرد وذات طبيعية قاهرة
ثم تحدث عن خصائصها؛كيفية التفرقة بين الظاهرة السليمة والظاهرة المعتلة؟
هل التجسدات الفردية ممكن أن تتحول إلى ظاهرة وكيف؟
من أفضل الكتب التي قرات لانه يجعلك تفهم أهمية البداية التأسيسة للعلم خاصة ان أسلوبه ممتع وليس صعب.
لاأستطيع التعمق أكثر لاننى أنتظر نتيجتي😊
لكن أشجعكم على إطلاع عليه خاصة جزئية الجريمة وكيف أنها مفيدة لنمو المجتمع ودليل صحته مثال جريمة سقراط
وجزئية أن لكل مجتمع قانون أخلاقي وطقوس تميزه لذلك يجب مرعاة الإختلاف.
في نهاية لا يسعني إلا أن أشكر شريك رحلة القراءة الذي ساعدني في تدقيق اللغوي و ادللت عليه برشا فالجميغ يعرف مشكلتي مع العربية.
عيشك برشا على وقتك ووسع بالك .
لك مني كل المحبة والتقدير.
❤❤❤❤❤❤�
December 25, 2015
قواعد المنهج في علم الاجتماع
ان العنوان يدل على معاني تخصصية في علم الاجتماع ، ولكن ما يذكره دوركايم من معلومات تساعد على فهم تركيبة هذا الكائن الذي يحتوينا ويمارس فينا سيطرته وقهره ، الا يجدر بِنَا فهم هذا الكائن لنتحرر من طوقه الحديدي على رقابنا ، سوف اقدم أفكار عامة عما قاله دوركايم في الكتاب قد يطول بي المقام في ذلك فالتمس منك العذر .
تعتبر الظواهر الاجتماعية هي المحرك الأساسي للكائن البشري وعليه فهو يبحث عن الطريق للتعرف على هذه الظاهرة ، ان المجتمع يمارس القهر على الفرد فهو يضغط عليه ليمارس سلوكاً معيناً وإلا فهناك العقاب الجاهز وأقله السخرية وهي تؤدي نفس نتيجة العقاب الحقيقي ( لم أجد ما يناسب هذا الرأي في تراثنا الديني أفضل من الآية التي تصف حالة قريش مجتمعين على رأي جنون النبي والاقتناع بهذا الرأي "قل إنما أعظكم بواحدة أن تقومو لله مثنى وافرادا ثم تتفكروا ما صاحبكم من جنة " وهي دعوة صريحة للتحرر من العقل الجمعي الذي يصنعه المجتمع لممارسة سيطرته على الأفراد .
كذلك ينظر الى التربية بأنها إعداد للكائن الاجتماعي عبر تشريب الطفل سلوكيات اجتماعية توارثية من الكلام وطريقة الاكل والشرب والتعلم وغيرها ويكون الانعتاق من هذا عبر الانفراد وخلق بيئة ذاتية داخلية وخارجية مستقلة عن الرأي العام وتأتي بمراحل متعددة تكون فيها الإرادة والعقل تحالف حقيقي في كيان الفرد .
يكشف دوركايم عن لغة المعاني والاشياء في حياتنا اليومية ، فان المعاني دائماً تأخذ مكان الأشياء نفسها حيث لا نستطيع ان نستحضرها دائماً للمقارنة والتحليل ولكن يقف عن نقطة ان استخدام المعاني دائماً يتحدد ليس من خلال حب الحقيقية وإنما تبعاً للمنفعة الذاتية .
يقول ان الظواهر الاجتماعية ظواهر طبيعية حسية قد لا تدركها بسبب سيطرت المعاني السابقة على ذائقتنا الفكرية وهكذا تكون معرفتنا بالقواعد الخلقية مثلا لا تأتي الا من خلال القواعد الخلقية التي تسود بيئتنا .
وعن الظواهر السليمة والمعتلة تقف الملاحظة الشخصية فالملحد مثلا ينظر الى ان الظاهرة الدينية على انها طاهرة معتلة بينما ينظر المؤمن الى ظاهرة الإلحاد بأنها خطر على الاجتماع البشري ولكل اسبابه ونظرته انها العواطف الشخصية للباحث .
وإذا كانت العمومية الظاهرة تجعلها ظاهرة سليمة فكيف يكون الوضع عند ارتفاع معدل الجريمة في مجتمع ما يؤدي الى عموميتها مع انها معتلة ، لم تكن جريمة سقراط الا جريمة في ميزان العدل المرحلي مع انه افاد الانسانية بهذه الجريمة حتى اننا نقول بان هبوط نسبة الجريمة قد يؤدي الى إضطرابات اجتماعية .
ولا تتحدد تفسير الظاهرة الاجتماعية من خلال الوظيفة التي تؤديها فهناك الكثير من الظواهر الاجتماعية هي عبارة عن فضلات وبقائها كان بفعل العادة ولكن يجب البحث دئما عن وظيفة الظاهرة الاجتماعية عن طريق دراستنا للصلة التي تربط بين هذه الظاهرة وإحدى الغايات الاجتماعية .
ان العنوان يدل على معاني تخصصية في علم الاجتماع ، ولكن ما يذكره دوركايم من معلومات تساعد على فهم تركيبة هذا الكائن الذي يحتوينا ويمارس فينا سيطرته وقهره ، الا يجدر بِنَا فهم هذا الكائن لنتحرر من طوقه الحديدي على رقابنا ، سوف اقدم أفكار عامة عما قاله دوركايم في الكتاب قد يطول بي المقام في ذلك فالتمس منك العذر .
تعتبر الظواهر الاجتماعية هي المحرك الأساسي للكائن البشري وعليه فهو يبحث عن الطريق للتعرف على هذه الظاهرة ، ان المجتمع يمارس القهر على الفرد فهو يضغط عليه ليمارس سلوكاً معيناً وإلا فهناك العقاب الجاهز وأقله السخرية وهي تؤدي نفس نتيجة العقاب الحقيقي ( لم أجد ما يناسب هذا الرأي في تراثنا الديني أفضل من الآية التي تصف حالة قريش مجتمعين على رأي جنون النبي والاقتناع بهذا الرأي "قل إنما أعظكم بواحدة أن تقومو لله مثنى وافرادا ثم تتفكروا ما صاحبكم من جنة " وهي دعوة صريحة للتحرر من العقل الجمعي الذي يصنعه المجتمع لممارسة سيطرته على الأفراد .
كذلك ينظر الى التربية بأنها إعداد للكائن الاجتماعي عبر تشريب الطفل سلوكيات اجتماعية توارثية من الكلام وطريقة الاكل والشرب والتعلم وغيرها ويكون الانعتاق من هذا عبر الانفراد وخلق بيئة ذاتية داخلية وخارجية مستقلة عن الرأي العام وتأتي بمراحل متعددة تكون فيها الإرادة والعقل تحالف حقيقي في كيان الفرد .
يكشف دوركايم عن لغة المعاني والاشياء في حياتنا اليومية ، فان المعاني دائماً تأخذ مكان الأشياء نفسها حيث لا نستطيع ان نستحضرها دائماً للمقارنة والتحليل ولكن يقف عن نقطة ان استخدام المعاني دائماً يتحدد ليس من خلال حب الحقيقية وإنما تبعاً للمنفعة الذاتية .
يقول ان الظواهر الاجتماعية ظواهر طبيعية حسية قد لا تدركها بسبب سيطرت المعاني السابقة على ذائقتنا الفكرية وهكذا تكون معرفتنا بالقواعد الخلقية مثلا لا تأتي الا من خلال القواعد الخلقية التي تسود بيئتنا .
وعن الظواهر السليمة والمعتلة تقف الملاحظة الشخصية فالملحد مثلا ينظر الى ان الظاهرة الدينية على انها طاهرة معتلة بينما ينظر المؤمن الى ظاهرة الإلحاد بأنها خطر على الاجتماع البشري ولكل اسبابه ونظرته انها العواطف الشخصية للباحث .
وإذا كانت العمومية الظاهرة تجعلها ظاهرة سليمة فكيف يكون الوضع عند ارتفاع معدل الجريمة في مجتمع ما يؤدي الى عموميتها مع انها معتلة ، لم تكن جريمة سقراط الا جريمة في ميزان العدل المرحلي مع انه افاد الانسانية بهذه الجريمة حتى اننا نقول بان هبوط نسبة الجريمة قد يؤدي الى إضطرابات اجتماعية .
ولا تتحدد تفسير الظاهرة الاجتماعية من خلال الوظيفة التي تؤديها فهناك الكثير من الظواهر الاجتماعية هي عبارة عن فضلات وبقائها كان بفعل العادة ولكن يجب البحث دئما عن وظيفة الظاهرة الاجتماعية عن طريق دراستنا للصلة التي تربط بين هذه الظاهرة وإحدى الغايات الاجتماعية .
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
April 19, 2019
In The Rules of Sociological Method (1895), Émile Durkheim wrote down his own take on the (then) new science of sociology. According to Durkheim, sociologists like Spencer got it all wrong. The interesting thing about Durkheim is that he wasn’t just a criticizer, he actually offered an alternative approach. And in The Rules he sketches the outlines of the new science
.
The book itself is divided into six parts; each part deals with a specific problem for the new science of sociology.
In book 1, Durkheim explains what the object of study is supposed to be: social facts. But what is a social fact? A social fact is a thing that emerges from the interactions of individual people in a given society, which then introduces a restraining force on those very same people. Simply put, the way we think, feel and act shapes social facts, which then force us to think, feel and behave in certain ways. Social facts thus include things like family relationships, law, morality, religion, etc.
For Durkheim, all those things are collective representations, operating on the level of society as a whole, while manifesting themselves in individual lives. Sociology should study the things on the societal level, while keeping away from the individual manifestations. This means that induction is necessary: statistics and study of history and law show us the societal trends; the individual instances of these trends are un-scientific (at least, from a sociological point of view). So, in his earlier work The Division of Labour in Society (1893), Durkheim studied social solidarity as a social fact, by studying the differences in systems of law in different cultures, not by looking at individual manifestations of solidarity. And in his later work, Suicide (1897), he would use statistics to describe general trends in society which could manifest themselves in certain vulnerable peoples� lives in case of suicide.
In book 2, Durkheim immediately answers how we should study these social facts. According to him, this should be done objectively, as opposed to the subjective approaches of his predecessors. The flaw in their thinking lies in their empiricism: they study social phenomena through their own preconceived ideas, which colour their experience. In other words, they study ideas and not facts. So, for example, economists studying the market mechanism of supply and demand study their own notion of it, not reality. Durkheim, in contrast, sees himself as a rationalist � someone who uses his reason to objectively study the facts by studying their indices. Studying social solidarity, for instance, requires observing the different systems of laws, as indices of social solidarity. One should leave his/her own ideas out of this research.
To be able to observe social facts, one needs to keep three rules in mind:
1. One must systematically discard all preconceptions.
2. One must define beforehand which group of phenomena are to be studied on the basis of common criteria, and all phenomena which correspond to this definition must be included.
3. One should consider observed social facts in isolation from their individual manifestations.
In short, this is a plea to end the subjectivism in social sciences, where the researches projects his/her own thoughts and feelings unto reality. At the time Durkheim was writing this book, this was a flaw that psychology suffered from as well � most psychologists tried to explain the human mind through introspection. But introspection doesn’t yield reliable and valid data; only by studying external, objective phenomena can one proceed in science. (Durkheim actually mentions the similarity with contemporary psychology.)
So far, so good. But in Book 3 Durkheim begins to mess up his own objective approach. In this book he deals with the problem of distinguishing the normal from the pathological. Durkheim seems to view himself as a diagnostician of society: through studying the state of affairs in a society, he is able to point to the pathological aspects of a given society and to point to their consequences. Of course, a diagnostician can’t sit on his hands when he has discovered pathology, so this immediately leads him to offer cures. Durkheim, for instance, sees socialism as a symptom of social pathology � something is going wrong in society (i.e. economic inequality and its corollary: power struggles) and many men suffer because of this social fact.
That this approach (distinguishing normal from pathological social facts) leads to controversial inroads, can be seen in Durkheim’s view on crime. He views crime as a normal social fact, a symptom of a healthy society, so to speak. Why? Because crime is inherently tied to humanity. But not only that, through enforcing the law on criminals (punishment), social solidarity on a societal level is strengthened. Yes, a terrible crime has been committed, but now we all see the law � our common law � in working and we feel all warm inside. We are one under the law � it’s just, sometimes we need a criminal to make us appreciate this.
(In my own view, Durkheim seems to mix up different types of ‘normal� in his view on the pathological. There's statically normal, meaning a characteristic that falls within one standard deviation from the mean. Then there’s morally normal, meaning people who behave according to cultural expectations. Those who deviate are termed odd or transgressors. And of course, there are many more types of ‘normal�. For example, the religious ‘normal� � not eating cows is normal for Hindu’s. It seems to me that Durkheim tries to smuggle in his own preconceived moral standard by judging what is normal and what is not.)
Next, in Book 4, Durkheim deals with social types. Since societies differ, to compare them means to define them in terms of different types. Comparative sociology stands or falls with the application of social types. While Durkheim observes an historical evolutionary trend in societies, he doesn’t think of social types as a linear progression from lower to higher, or simple to complex, etc. He likens the different types of societies (past and present) to a tree, much like Darwin came up with the ‘Tree of Life� to illustrate the products of natural selection.
What are the criteria we use to class these different social types? According to Durkheim, these criteria need to be based on the social structure, or structural characteristics. Here, Durkheim seems to observe some sort of linearity: from fragmented small structures to huge, complex, concentrated structures. So, it seems that the development of administrative and political structures can be used to classify different types of society. This resembles Marx� perspective on historical development, from tribes and clans to city states to kingdoms. The difference is Marx focused on the economic underpinnings, driving this historical development, while Durkheim focused on the structural characteristics of each society (politics, administration, demography, geography, etc.).
The fifth book is an important part of The Rules. In it, Durkheim sets out what a sociological explanation looks like. This might seem trivial, but it really isn’t. In science, an explanation is deemed to be valid if it establishes a causal connection between multiple phenomena. To establish the connection, one experiments with changing one variable while controlling all the rest. Differences in outcome are then deemed to be due to the different states of the variable. Sociology studies societies, the superstructure, so to speak, which makes experimentation practically impossible. (It shares this fate with all the other social sciences, economics included, and even cosmology.)
So if we cannot establish experimentally any causal relationship between social phenomena, how do we come up with reliable and valid sociological theories?
Here, Durkheim makes to important distinctions: (1) we have causes and we have functions. To describe a function of a thing is not causally explaining the thing. At best, the function of a thing can drive the needs or desires of individual people, setting in motion causal mechanisms. But the two aren’t the same. And then we still have (2) the difference between social and individual causation. For Durkheim, social facts emerge from individual behaviour and thinking, and social explanations should occupy themselves with explanations on the level of the social superstructure. Social facts can cause individuals to behave, think or feel in a certain way, just as individual behaviour, thoughts and feelings can cause social facts to exist or change. But the two should be separated clearly and sociology should occupy itself solely with social causation.
Durkheim’s view on causality is, unfortunately, very vague and ambiguous. It is also very outdated. For Durkheim a single cause is a necessary and sufficient condition for a single effect. Nowadays, statisticians and scientists work with multi-causal models, in which multiple causes create one effect, or a single cause creates multiple effects, or a combination of both. Also, nowadays we recognize multilevel causation, something which Durkheim steers clear from.
In short, Durkheim wants to explain social facts on the level of the society, in terms of other social facts. There is no recognition whatsoever of reciprocity between the macro-level and the micro-level (the individuals that make up such a society). It would be interesting how Durkheim would explain a bankrun in social terms. In the end, it’s individual people rousing suspicion and fear in the masses, who then en masse go the their bank and withdraw the savings. You can’t explain such a ‘social fact� in terms of other social facts � somewhere along the line you have to open up your explanation for individual decisions on the micro-level.
In the last book (Book 6), Durkheim tries to mop up the mess he created in Books 4 and 5. He acknowledges the inductive problems that sociology is confronted with. To count as a science, sociology has to be able to demonstrate its hypotheses. And in abstracto this is done by ruling out alternative hypotheses. Normally experiments are used to rule out these alternatives; due to the complexity and fluidity of the subject matter, this path is closed to sociology. So how to demonstrate the validity of your sociological theories?
Durkheim argues that the sociologist is left with studying the different historical cases in their respective contexts. And when observing these cases, to use the ‘method of concomitant variation�. This means, basically, that the sociologist is looks for systematic variation, preferably serial variation, between different cases, and then drawing conclusions from these variations. System A differs systematically in x from system B; this happens also to be the case when comparing system B to system C, and system A to C; so the difference between systems A and B is due to x. So, for example, when you observe that suicide rates rise, and that these correlate with education levels, you look for systematic transformations in the given society. A secularization and the retreat of religion can then classify as cause for both effects: due to the retreat of religion the thirst for knowledge increases and the social bonds between non-affiliated people weakens.
But this is solely observing transformations in a given society, while for Durkheim sociology is almost identical with comparative sociology. He sees the study of different societies, past and present, as the only road to sociological knowledge. Comparing different societies of the same social types, preferable through time, offers us a wealth of information and might point us to social laws. Also, comparing different social types leads to unique insights, for example a genetic development of societies (how family ties develop in different social types). This last method will show us, according to Durkheim, the fundamental phenomena of sociology � we observe rudimentary social facts developing over time and between social types into complexes of “component elements� (p. 109).
As Steven Lukes explains in his fine introduction, the word elementary is crucial to understand what Durkheim is doing. It not only means elementary, in the sense of rudimentary, but also elemental, in the sense of the composing elements of a social fact. So in his last book, The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (1913), Durkheim sets out to describe how religion originated as well as what elements complex religions are composed of.
The Rules of Sociological Method is an interesting look at the attempts to raise a scientific artifice around the domain of social phenomena. Durkheim rightfully stressed the need to define the subjects of sociology (social facts); the need for definitions and objectivism; and the necessity of demonstrating the validity of theories. His main flaws (for which he can be forgiven, given that he was writing in 1895) are his mixing up ethics with science (normal/pathological) and his limited perspective on causality. The most important lesson to draw from this book � and this can be extended to psychology, economics, and like sciences � is that facts, not ideas, should be studied.
Just a quick glance at the contemporary humanities departments would make Durkheim turn over in his grave. One can laugh at his attempts, but studying solidarity through the type of laws or the pathology of society through suicide rates is a much more honest attempt than studying ‘black history� or researching in ‘gender studies�. All these modern day social studies are ideologies dressed in the clothes of science.
.
The book itself is divided into six parts; each part deals with a specific problem for the new science of sociology.
In book 1, Durkheim explains what the object of study is supposed to be: social facts. But what is a social fact? A social fact is a thing that emerges from the interactions of individual people in a given society, which then introduces a restraining force on those very same people. Simply put, the way we think, feel and act shapes social facts, which then force us to think, feel and behave in certain ways. Social facts thus include things like family relationships, law, morality, religion, etc.
For Durkheim, all those things are collective representations, operating on the level of society as a whole, while manifesting themselves in individual lives. Sociology should study the things on the societal level, while keeping away from the individual manifestations. This means that induction is necessary: statistics and study of history and law show us the societal trends; the individual instances of these trends are un-scientific (at least, from a sociological point of view). So, in his earlier work The Division of Labour in Society (1893), Durkheim studied social solidarity as a social fact, by studying the differences in systems of law in different cultures, not by looking at individual manifestations of solidarity. And in his later work, Suicide (1897), he would use statistics to describe general trends in society which could manifest themselves in certain vulnerable peoples� lives in case of suicide.
In book 2, Durkheim immediately answers how we should study these social facts. According to him, this should be done objectively, as opposed to the subjective approaches of his predecessors. The flaw in their thinking lies in their empiricism: they study social phenomena through their own preconceived ideas, which colour their experience. In other words, they study ideas and not facts. So, for example, economists studying the market mechanism of supply and demand study their own notion of it, not reality. Durkheim, in contrast, sees himself as a rationalist � someone who uses his reason to objectively study the facts by studying their indices. Studying social solidarity, for instance, requires observing the different systems of laws, as indices of social solidarity. One should leave his/her own ideas out of this research.
To be able to observe social facts, one needs to keep three rules in mind:
1. One must systematically discard all preconceptions.
2. One must define beforehand which group of phenomena are to be studied on the basis of common criteria, and all phenomena which correspond to this definition must be included.
3. One should consider observed social facts in isolation from their individual manifestations.
In short, this is a plea to end the subjectivism in social sciences, where the researches projects his/her own thoughts and feelings unto reality. At the time Durkheim was writing this book, this was a flaw that psychology suffered from as well � most psychologists tried to explain the human mind through introspection. But introspection doesn’t yield reliable and valid data; only by studying external, objective phenomena can one proceed in science. (Durkheim actually mentions the similarity with contemporary psychology.)
So far, so good. But in Book 3 Durkheim begins to mess up his own objective approach. In this book he deals with the problem of distinguishing the normal from the pathological. Durkheim seems to view himself as a diagnostician of society: through studying the state of affairs in a society, he is able to point to the pathological aspects of a given society and to point to their consequences. Of course, a diagnostician can’t sit on his hands when he has discovered pathology, so this immediately leads him to offer cures. Durkheim, for instance, sees socialism as a symptom of social pathology � something is going wrong in society (i.e. economic inequality and its corollary: power struggles) and many men suffer because of this social fact.
That this approach (distinguishing normal from pathological social facts) leads to controversial inroads, can be seen in Durkheim’s view on crime. He views crime as a normal social fact, a symptom of a healthy society, so to speak. Why? Because crime is inherently tied to humanity. But not only that, through enforcing the law on criminals (punishment), social solidarity on a societal level is strengthened. Yes, a terrible crime has been committed, but now we all see the law � our common law � in working and we feel all warm inside. We are one under the law � it’s just, sometimes we need a criminal to make us appreciate this.
(In my own view, Durkheim seems to mix up different types of ‘normal� in his view on the pathological. There's statically normal, meaning a characteristic that falls within one standard deviation from the mean. Then there’s morally normal, meaning people who behave according to cultural expectations. Those who deviate are termed odd or transgressors. And of course, there are many more types of ‘normal�. For example, the religious ‘normal� � not eating cows is normal for Hindu’s. It seems to me that Durkheim tries to smuggle in his own preconceived moral standard by judging what is normal and what is not.)
Next, in Book 4, Durkheim deals with social types. Since societies differ, to compare them means to define them in terms of different types. Comparative sociology stands or falls with the application of social types. While Durkheim observes an historical evolutionary trend in societies, he doesn’t think of social types as a linear progression from lower to higher, or simple to complex, etc. He likens the different types of societies (past and present) to a tree, much like Darwin came up with the ‘Tree of Life� to illustrate the products of natural selection.
What are the criteria we use to class these different social types? According to Durkheim, these criteria need to be based on the social structure, or structural characteristics. Here, Durkheim seems to observe some sort of linearity: from fragmented small structures to huge, complex, concentrated structures. So, it seems that the development of administrative and political structures can be used to classify different types of society. This resembles Marx� perspective on historical development, from tribes and clans to city states to kingdoms. The difference is Marx focused on the economic underpinnings, driving this historical development, while Durkheim focused on the structural characteristics of each society (politics, administration, demography, geography, etc.).
The fifth book is an important part of The Rules. In it, Durkheim sets out what a sociological explanation looks like. This might seem trivial, but it really isn’t. In science, an explanation is deemed to be valid if it establishes a causal connection between multiple phenomena. To establish the connection, one experiments with changing one variable while controlling all the rest. Differences in outcome are then deemed to be due to the different states of the variable. Sociology studies societies, the superstructure, so to speak, which makes experimentation practically impossible. (It shares this fate with all the other social sciences, economics included, and even cosmology.)
So if we cannot establish experimentally any causal relationship between social phenomena, how do we come up with reliable and valid sociological theories?
Here, Durkheim makes to important distinctions: (1) we have causes and we have functions. To describe a function of a thing is not causally explaining the thing. At best, the function of a thing can drive the needs or desires of individual people, setting in motion causal mechanisms. But the two aren’t the same. And then we still have (2) the difference between social and individual causation. For Durkheim, social facts emerge from individual behaviour and thinking, and social explanations should occupy themselves with explanations on the level of the social superstructure. Social facts can cause individuals to behave, think or feel in a certain way, just as individual behaviour, thoughts and feelings can cause social facts to exist or change. But the two should be separated clearly and sociology should occupy itself solely with social causation.
Durkheim’s view on causality is, unfortunately, very vague and ambiguous. It is also very outdated. For Durkheim a single cause is a necessary and sufficient condition for a single effect. Nowadays, statisticians and scientists work with multi-causal models, in which multiple causes create one effect, or a single cause creates multiple effects, or a combination of both. Also, nowadays we recognize multilevel causation, something which Durkheim steers clear from.
In short, Durkheim wants to explain social facts on the level of the society, in terms of other social facts. There is no recognition whatsoever of reciprocity between the macro-level and the micro-level (the individuals that make up such a society). It would be interesting how Durkheim would explain a bankrun in social terms. In the end, it’s individual people rousing suspicion and fear in the masses, who then en masse go the their bank and withdraw the savings. You can’t explain such a ‘social fact� in terms of other social facts � somewhere along the line you have to open up your explanation for individual decisions on the micro-level.
In the last book (Book 6), Durkheim tries to mop up the mess he created in Books 4 and 5. He acknowledges the inductive problems that sociology is confronted with. To count as a science, sociology has to be able to demonstrate its hypotheses. And in abstracto this is done by ruling out alternative hypotheses. Normally experiments are used to rule out these alternatives; due to the complexity and fluidity of the subject matter, this path is closed to sociology. So how to demonstrate the validity of your sociological theories?
Durkheim argues that the sociologist is left with studying the different historical cases in their respective contexts. And when observing these cases, to use the ‘method of concomitant variation�. This means, basically, that the sociologist is looks for systematic variation, preferably serial variation, between different cases, and then drawing conclusions from these variations. System A differs systematically in x from system B; this happens also to be the case when comparing system B to system C, and system A to C; so the difference between systems A and B is due to x. So, for example, when you observe that suicide rates rise, and that these correlate with education levels, you look for systematic transformations in the given society. A secularization and the retreat of religion can then classify as cause for both effects: due to the retreat of religion the thirst for knowledge increases and the social bonds between non-affiliated people weakens.
But this is solely observing transformations in a given society, while for Durkheim sociology is almost identical with comparative sociology. He sees the study of different societies, past and present, as the only road to sociological knowledge. Comparing different societies of the same social types, preferable through time, offers us a wealth of information and might point us to social laws. Also, comparing different social types leads to unique insights, for example a genetic development of societies (how family ties develop in different social types). This last method will show us, according to Durkheim, the fundamental phenomena of sociology � we observe rudimentary social facts developing over time and between social types into complexes of “component elements� (p. 109).
As Steven Lukes explains in his fine introduction, the word elementary is crucial to understand what Durkheim is doing. It not only means elementary, in the sense of rudimentary, but also elemental, in the sense of the composing elements of a social fact. So in his last book, The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (1913), Durkheim sets out to describe how religion originated as well as what elements complex religions are composed of.
The Rules of Sociological Method is an interesting look at the attempts to raise a scientific artifice around the domain of social phenomena. Durkheim rightfully stressed the need to define the subjects of sociology (social facts); the need for definitions and objectivism; and the necessity of demonstrating the validity of theories. His main flaws (for which he can be forgiven, given that he was writing in 1895) are his mixing up ethics with science (normal/pathological) and his limited perspective on causality. The most important lesson to draw from this book � and this can be extended to psychology, economics, and like sciences � is that facts, not ideas, should be studied.
Just a quick glance at the contemporary humanities departments would make Durkheim turn over in his grave. One can laugh at his attempts, but studying solidarity through the type of laws or the pathology of society through suicide rates is a much more honest attempt than studying ‘black history� or researching in ‘gender studies�. All these modern day social studies are ideologies dressed in the clothes of science.
December 9, 2014
A very organized structure on how to look at society in order to understand it from a sociological standpoint.
"In thinking about the world of the senses each one of us colours it in his own way, and different people adapt themselves differently to an identical physical environment."
-Emile Durkheim
"One must systematically discard all preconceptions... [Feelings] are not due to some transcendental precognition of reality, but are the result of all kinds of disordered impressions and emotion accumulated through chance circumstance, lacking systematic interpretation."
-Emile Durkheim
"In thinking about the world of the senses each one of us colours it in his own way, and different people adapt themselves differently to an identical physical environment."
-Emile Durkheim
"One must systematically discard all preconceptions... [Feelings] are not due to some transcendental precognition of reality, but are the result of all kinds of disordered impressions and emotion accumulated through chance circumstance, lacking systematic interpretation."
-Emile Durkheim
January 10, 2014
A seminal work in sociology (or more broadly, as Durkheim would prefer, in social science), this book details what a scientific approach to the study of societies ought to look like. Many of the rules the author sets out appear self-evident, even though a myriad of social scientists, students, and amateur thinkers today still fail to abide by them.
These rules are for the most part reasonably justified, from his conception of social facts as phenomena external to the individual, to the proper means of observing them (one must always try to discard any preconceptions), to the proper means of explaning them, to demonstrating an explanation through further proofs. Sections on determining the cause of a social fact in previously existing social facts and not in personal psychological sources ring true among those of us frustrated by current social explanations given in internal or individualistic terms: "It's human nature", "Some people just aren't open-minded enough", "Liberals/conservatives are always trying to do this", and so on.
Two chapters in this volume on distinguishing between "normal" and "pathological" societies and on identifying social types--to which the author ascribes the moniker "social morphology"--are interesting but largely dismissable in today's academic environment as they reflect a very 19th-Century image of progress in social evolution; while Durkheim doesn't strictly adhere to the contemporary ethnocentric progression of "savage" to "barbarian" to "civilized man", he does approximate it with assumptions about "lower peoples" who are "less developed" and a distinguishing of societies into genera and species based on "given phase[s] of development", etc. Yet it is in these chapters that we find one of the most controversial and thought-provoking examples in this book: that of crime being both normal (in cause) and necessary (in function) to the normal evolution of morality and law.
Included in this edition are fifteen additional essays, articles, notes, and letters written by and about the author to further expound on his method and philosophy. These do well to explain sociology's place in relation to other social sciences and disciplines, how Durkheim's vision of a positivist sociology differs from that of the Marxists (among his many criticisms: Marxism assimilates preexisting ideas and calls them its own, it rests on inadequate proofs and unproven hypotheses, and it contradicts both itself and scientifically-established facts), and to elaborate on a few points of the book that may have generated confusion.
To those who, like me, abhor academic ignorance and believe in the importance of a set scientific paradigm, this is essential reading. It is a dry text (I've attempted to capture it's tone in my review), but it is not without its merits.
These rules are for the most part reasonably justified, from his conception of social facts as phenomena external to the individual, to the proper means of observing them (one must always try to discard any preconceptions), to the proper means of explaning them, to demonstrating an explanation through further proofs. Sections on determining the cause of a social fact in previously existing social facts and not in personal psychological sources ring true among those of us frustrated by current social explanations given in internal or individualistic terms: "It's human nature", "Some people just aren't open-minded enough", "Liberals/conservatives are always trying to do this", and so on.
Two chapters in this volume on distinguishing between "normal" and "pathological" societies and on identifying social types--to which the author ascribes the moniker "social morphology"--are interesting but largely dismissable in today's academic environment as they reflect a very 19th-Century image of progress in social evolution; while Durkheim doesn't strictly adhere to the contemporary ethnocentric progression of "savage" to "barbarian" to "civilized man", he does approximate it with assumptions about "lower peoples" who are "less developed" and a distinguishing of societies into genera and species based on "given phase[s] of development", etc. Yet it is in these chapters that we find one of the most controversial and thought-provoking examples in this book: that of crime being both normal (in cause) and necessary (in function) to the normal evolution of morality and law.
Included in this edition are fifteen additional essays, articles, notes, and letters written by and about the author to further expound on his method and philosophy. These do well to explain sociology's place in relation to other social sciences and disciplines, how Durkheim's vision of a positivist sociology differs from that of the Marxists (among his many criticisms: Marxism assimilates preexisting ideas and calls them its own, it rests on inadequate proofs and unproven hypotheses, and it contradicts both itself and scientifically-established facts), and to elaborate on a few points of the book that may have generated confusion.
To those who, like me, abhor academic ignorance and believe in the importance of a set scientific paradigm, this is essential reading. It is a dry text (I've attempted to capture it's tone in my review), but it is not without its merits.
September 12, 2010
Pretty much the founding text in the formation of sociology as a field, this book centers sociology within an academy that holds the scientific as the highest of disciplinary methods. Whether or not you agree, the language of legitimization is fascinating and, considering that the call to form a new discipline was a political act in 1895 France, tight.
October 2, 2022
mais quil ferme sa gueule
August 19, 2024
هذا الكِتاب لم يُكتب لي أو لك أيّها القارئ العادي! ✍�
هنا انت بصدد منهج علمي ذا قواعد ونظم.
بعبارة أخرى: طوّل بالك .
هنا انت بصدد منهج علمي ذا قواعد ونظم.
بعبارة أخرى: طوّل بالك .
December 26, 2015
كنت سمعت قبل قراءتي للكتاب أو بمعني أصح للمقال إن التأسيس الحقيقي لعلم الإجتماع بيبدأ عند إميل دوركايم ، و فعلاً أقدر أقول إن كتاب ( قواعد المنهج ) بالنسبة لعلم الإجتماع ما يقلش أهمية عن ( مقال في المنهج ) بالنسبة للفلسفة
ببساطة دوركايم وضع أمام عينيه هدف محدد ، هو وضع علم الإجتماع في أرض الإمبيريقية ، أراد وضعه في أرض الملاحظة مش في أرض التأمُل. يمكن السبب هو متابعته لنشأة علم النفس و الصعوبات اللي واجهتها نشأته بسبب سيطرة فرويد و مدرسة التحليل لفترة ، أو بمعني أصح مدرسة التأمل اللي عطلت علم النفس الحقيقي لمدة تزيد عن ال 20 سنة
دوركايم حدد هدفه بوضوح و بتعبير جدامير كان عنده ( تحيز ضد التحيز ) ، أراد تأسيس علم الاجتماع علي أرض صلبة و موضوعية. و حاول بقدر كبير عزله عن أرض الفلسفة.
كتاب بسيط و واضح بس بشرط ، إنك تكون عارف يعني إيه كلمة ( علم ) بالمعني الأوروبي الحديث
ببساطة دوركايم وضع أمام عينيه هدف محدد ، هو وضع علم الإجتماع في أرض الإمبيريقية ، أراد وضعه في أرض الملاحظة مش في أرض التأمُل. يمكن السبب هو متابعته لنشأة علم النفس و الصعوبات اللي واجهتها نشأته بسبب سيطرة فرويد و مدرسة التحليل لفترة ، أو بمعني أصح مدرسة التأمل اللي عطلت علم النفس الحقيقي لمدة تزيد عن ال 20 سنة
دوركايم حدد هدفه بوضوح و بتعبير جدامير كان عنده ( تحيز ضد التحيز ) ، أراد تأسيس علم الاجتماع علي أرض صلبة و موضوعية. و حاول بقدر كبير عزله عن أرض الفلسفة.
كتاب بسيط و واضح بس بشرط ، إنك تكون عارف يعني إيه كلمة ( علم ) بالمعني الأوروبي الحديث
January 30, 2015
I read the Turkish translation of Durkheim's masterpiece. Interesting to know the rules of thought and science. As far as I know, Leninist philosophers tried adopt the materialism to determine the orientation of future physical and social sciences.
June 5, 2020
C'était plus court que prévu, et à vrai dire je me ne lassais pas d'aller vers le revers du décor et comprendre en quelque sorte la naissance de la sociologie moderne.
Cette édition est suivie d'un article sur l'état des études sociologiques en France, qui reprenait l'idée générale du livre en détaillant les camps et orientations de spéculations sociologiques : anthropologique et ethnographique, criminologique... Etc
Le plus intéressant et comme stipulé au niveau du titre c'est la méthodologie scientifique suivie pour étudier bien entendu les faits sociaux. Biensur que quand mise dans une perspective de philosophie positive et enrichie des écrits de Comte, elle revêt un caractère presque contre intuitif mais tout de même rationnel celui de son apport pragmatique.
Loin d'un déterminisme qui est selon Durkheim le fruit de fausse prénotions de départ, dont il a signalé la fatalité si elles sont la base de nos études et analyses sociologique... La sociologie telle qu'il l'appréhende est une étude objective et organisée de faits où l'historique reste insuffisante pour confirmer telle ou telle théorie.
La spécificité de ce champ est peut être l'absence d'un consensus similaire à celui qu'ont les chercheurs en sciences exactes.
Ensuite, l'essai regorge d'exemples explicatifs qui rassurent le lecteur et enlèvent toute ambiguïté.
En bref, je dors moins bête tout simplement !
Cette édition est suivie d'un article sur l'état des études sociologiques en France, qui reprenait l'idée générale du livre en détaillant les camps et orientations de spéculations sociologiques : anthropologique et ethnographique, criminologique... Etc
Le plus intéressant et comme stipulé au niveau du titre c'est la méthodologie scientifique suivie pour étudier bien entendu les faits sociaux. Biensur que quand mise dans une perspective de philosophie positive et enrichie des écrits de Comte, elle revêt un caractère presque contre intuitif mais tout de même rationnel celui de son apport pragmatique.
Loin d'un déterminisme qui est selon Durkheim le fruit de fausse prénotions de départ, dont il a signalé la fatalité si elles sont la base de nos études et analyses sociologique... La sociologie telle qu'il l'appréhende est une étude objective et organisée de faits où l'historique reste insuffisante pour confirmer telle ou telle théorie.
La spécificité de ce champ est peut être l'absence d'un consensus similaire à celui qu'ont les chercheurs en sciences exactes.
Ensuite, l'essai regorge d'exemples explicatifs qui rassurent le lecteur et enlèvent toute ambiguïté.
En bref, je dors moins bête tout simplement !
June 24, 2024
Nie polecam, miło że krótka
October 17, 2015
Emile Durkheim gets a lot of well-deserved credit for legitimizing the field of sociology, but this book shows you the insane myopia he went through for that achievement. Durkheim desperately wanted sociology to be as much of a science as physics and biology, but he just couldn't accept the fact that sociology has no laboratory environment where contingent variables can be removed. When the only place you can observe your object of study (society) is the real world, then obviously a lot of things are going to get involved in the mix. So to legitimize sociology as a science that can demonstrate causality, Durkheim fills the book with shoddy unconvincing explanations as to why just about anything that's not "sociological" like history, economics, psychology, technology, etc. is irrelevant to understanding social facts. Again, Durkheim REALLY wants people to think sociology is a science (you can feel his cold sweat oozing out of the text). To get this done he bullshits himself into believing that the study of social phenomena can be as neat and clean as a clear independent and dependent variable.
Even though Durkheim explicitly begins by saying that he's not engaging in "metaphysical thinking," that's literally ALL he does for the rest of the goddamn book. Durkheim either doesn't know what the word "metaphysical" means or he's a liar. Durkheim's contemporary Georg Simmel fully acknowledged all of sociology's deficiencies in his essay The Problem of Sociology, where he says that unlike geometry, sociology has no perfect forms that can be abstracted from their particular instances. Even though Simmel fully accepted the fact that sociology doesn't have the objectivity of mathematics, he still wrote some really damn incredible sociology that's still relevant today. If Durkheim could just get that through his thick French skull, maybe he could start looking at the real world instead of some fantasy society in the sky that follows all of his stupid made-up rules.
Even though Durkheim explicitly begins by saying that he's not engaging in "metaphysical thinking," that's literally ALL he does for the rest of the goddamn book. Durkheim either doesn't know what the word "metaphysical" means or he's a liar. Durkheim's contemporary Georg Simmel fully acknowledged all of sociology's deficiencies in his essay The Problem of Sociology, where he says that unlike geometry, sociology has no perfect forms that can be abstracted from their particular instances. Even though Simmel fully accepted the fact that sociology doesn't have the objectivity of mathematics, he still wrote some really damn incredible sociology that's still relevant today. If Durkheim could just get that through his thick French skull, maybe he could start looking at the real world instead of some fantasy society in the sky that follows all of his stupid made-up rules.
October 17, 2021
The rules of the sociological method are one of the foundational works of sociology. It, in short, attempted to establish sociology as physical science. The Nobel goal no doubt began 60 or so years earlier in the same country Durkheim came from France, from the writings of Comte and his teacher saint Simon, and from the now notorious, once praised Herbert spencer in Britain. The goal, a sort of enlightenment project, was to look at the writings of Newton, Darwin, and the early chemists and establish sociology as a continuation of their projects. That being, explaining physical phenomenon via the theorizing of the patterns made by sensory impressions. In Durkheim's ideal social facts, a sort of basic element of sociology can be combined together to create an established science. Perhaps it sounds a book wacky, but Durkheim was in a sense was attempting to establish a science that studies how social structures, that being from small to large groups could be seen as sort of time-based structures. And with studying them, he proposes, we could eventually have what Comte, called "social physics". In other words, a deterministic model of how groups of human beings behave with one another.
It's a fun concept, but of course, many years after Durkheim we are still not quite there yet.
Recommended for those interested in the history and philosophy of sociology, and some ideas of how it is a coherant science.
It's a fun concept, but of course, many years after Durkheim we are still not quite there yet.
Recommended for those interested in the history and philosophy of sociology, and some ideas of how it is a coherant science.
November 11, 2018
I don't even know how I manage to finish this book aside the fact that it is a mandatory reading for the classical theory class in Sociology. I feel the book is okay? Not necessarily radical, but Durkheim's criticism against Descartes is really interesting and lively, and spot-on.
March 21, 2017
*college related*
February 18, 2024
تكمن المشكلة الوحيدة في الكتاب في أن دوركايم حاول أن يقنعنا أن مبدأه الذي انطلق منه لتأسيس علم الاجتماع لهو يقيني وبرهاني في حين أن محاولات من سبقه ظنية وميتافيزقية وقائمة على أفكار عامة غير ممحصة.
فهو يلوم على كونت فكرة الطبيعة الإنسانية والتطور التاريخي، ويعيب على سبنسر أيضا فكرة التطور، ولكن هل فكرته المتمثلة في أن المجتمع (كائن) له صفات نوعية تجعله مختلف نوعيا عن مجموع أفراده وله خصائصه المستقلة والنوعية التي تجعله مجال لدراسة مستقلة عن الدوافع الفردية نفسية كانت أم عضوية، أقول هل فكرته هذه أقل ميتافيزقية وعمومية من سابقاتها؟
حاول دوركايم البرهنة على صحة فرضيته بقياس المجتمع على الكائن العضوي، فالكائن الحي لا شك في أنه ليس مساويا لمجموع أعضائه بل ينتج عن تركيب الأعضاء كائن جديد له خصائص مستقله، ولكن هذا ليس ببرهان على الإطلاق، فنعم الإثنان يندرجان تحت مقولة أنهما مركبان، ولكن هذا لا يعني بالضرورة أن كل تركيب ينتج عنه مركب مختلف نوعيا عن مجموع أفراده!
فكان عليه أولا أن يثبت أن:
كل تركيب ينتج عنه مركب مختلف نوعيا عن مجموع أفرده
المجتمع مركب
إذا المجتمع مركب مختلف نوعيا عن مجموع أفراده
وعليه يكون تركيب الكائن الحي مندرج مع تركيب المجتمع تحت ظل قضية عامة واحدة، أما أن يستخدم أحدهما كمقياس يقيس عليه فهذا لا يثبت شيئا على الإطلاق.
والسؤال هو هل كل تركيب ينتج عنه مركب مختلف نوعيا عن مجموع أفراده بالضرورة؟!، بالاستقراء نجد أن كلا النوعين من التركيب موجود وبالتالي لا يمكن بناء قضية عامة مفادها أن كل تركيب ينتج عنه مركب مختلف نوعيا عن مجموع أفراده ، بل ولو فرضنا أنننا بالاستقراء وجدنا أن كل تركيب ينتج عنه مركب مختلف نوعيا ، فإن هذا الاستقراء سيظل ناقصا وليس حاصرا لكل الحالات التركيبية ولكنه مقتصر على ما وقع تحت نظرنا فقط لا غير، وبالتالي تكون مباديء دوركايم لا تقل ميتافيزقية عن سابقيه، ربما يكون منهجه أكثر موضوعية ولكن يظل قائم على مبدأ ميتافزيقي بحت يحتاج إلى برهان يقيني ليفضل غيره، وإن كنت أعتقد أن كل المباديء في علم الاجتما ستؤول إلى أن تكون ميتافيزقية لا يسأل عن مصدرها بل يتم الانطلاق. منها مباشرة، وهو ما يفسر تضارب النظريات الاجتماعية إلى حد يبلغ التناقض أحيانا...... والله أعلم.
فهو يلوم على كونت فكرة الطبيعة الإنسانية والتطور التاريخي، ويعيب على سبنسر أيضا فكرة التطور، ولكن هل فكرته المتمثلة في أن المجتمع (كائن) له صفات نوعية تجعله مختلف نوعيا عن مجموع أفراده وله خصائصه المستقلة والنوعية التي تجعله مجال لدراسة مستقلة عن الدوافع الفردية نفسية كانت أم عضوية، أقول هل فكرته هذه أقل ميتافيزقية وعمومية من سابقاتها؟
حاول دوركايم البرهنة على صحة فرضيته بقياس المجتمع على الكائن العضوي، فالكائن الحي لا شك في أنه ليس مساويا لمجموع أعضائه بل ينتج عن تركيب الأعضاء كائن جديد له خصائص مستقله، ولكن هذا ليس ببرهان على الإطلاق، فنعم الإثنان يندرجان تحت مقولة أنهما مركبان، ولكن هذا لا يعني بالضرورة أن كل تركيب ينتج عنه مركب مختلف نوعيا عن مجموع أفراده!
فكان عليه أولا أن يثبت أن:
كل تركيب ينتج عنه مركب مختلف نوعيا عن مجموع أفرده
المجتمع مركب
إذا المجتمع مركب مختلف نوعيا عن مجموع أفراده
وعليه يكون تركيب الكائن الحي مندرج مع تركيب المجتمع تحت ظل قضية عامة واحدة، أما أن يستخدم أحدهما كمقياس يقيس عليه فهذا لا يثبت شيئا على الإطلاق.
والسؤال هو هل كل تركيب ينتج عنه مركب مختلف نوعيا عن مجموع أفراده بالضرورة؟!، بالاستقراء نجد أن كلا النوعين من التركيب موجود وبالتالي لا يمكن بناء قضية عامة مفادها أن كل تركيب ينتج عنه مركب مختلف نوعيا عن مجموع أفراده ، بل ولو فرضنا أنننا بالاستقراء وجدنا أن كل تركيب ينتج عنه مركب مختلف نوعيا ، فإن هذا الاستقراء سيظل ناقصا وليس حاصرا لكل الحالات التركيبية ولكنه مقتصر على ما وقع تحت نظرنا فقط لا غير، وبالتالي تكون مباديء دوركايم لا تقل ميتافيزقية عن سابقيه، ربما يكون منهجه أكثر موضوعية ولكن يظل قائم على مبدأ ميتافزيقي بحت يحتاج إلى برهان يقيني ليفضل غيره، وإن كنت أعتقد أن كل المباديء في علم الاجتما ستؤول إلى أن تكون ميتافيزقية لا يسأل عن مصدرها بل يتم الانطلاق. منها مباشرة، وهو ما يفسر تضارب النظريات الاجتماعية إلى حد يبلغ التناقض أحيانا...... والله أعلم.
May 2, 2021
El admirable sistema de Durkheim propone elevar a nivel de ciencia la sociología, es decir, considerando los hechos sociales como cosas dignas de ser objetos de estudio en tanto tales. Si la sociología quiere llegar a tal nivel riguroso, debe sustraerse casi del todo a las explicaciones de tipo psicológico (pues éstas se enfocan en los individuos y pueden ser tan subjetivas como cualquier prejuicio popular sobre las cosas en general) y a las representaciones sociales que ejercen su coerción (el término es suyo) sobre los individuos. Lo anterior me hace entrar en conflicto, y al propio Durkheim sin que se percate, por la contradicción en la que cae, pues explicar los eventos sociales como independientes del todo de los individuos sólo puede meter a Émile en un prejuicio cientificista de la sociología y a sí mismo como separado de la sociedad para verla "puramente". Un esfuerzo admirable el de Émile, aunque ciertamente problemático.
November 23, 2023
Durkheim, pioniere della sociologia in questo testo argomenta il metodo , quello scientifico, oggettivo ,studiare le varie società, delineando come fatti estrinseci a chi la psicologia degli individui che la compongono,segnando per la sociologia la propria autonomia. Per chi come me lo ha letto per curiosità sul tema non è stato facile,ma un linguaggio lineare , concetti abbastanza intuitivi e con l aiuto di qualche parallelismo con fatti di normale quotidianità rendono più accogliente il contenuto.
Voglio però fare una precisazione, personalmente di non poco conto. I contenuti di saggi come questo non nascono per dare risposte definitive,ma come appunto anche l'autore sottopone all'attenzione del lettore, è un leitmotiv di nuove domande.
Voglio però fare una precisazione, personalmente di non poco conto. I contenuti di saggi come questo non nascono per dare risposte definitive,ma come appunto anche l'autore sottopone all'attenzione del lettore, è un leitmotiv di nuove domande.
September 14, 2019
If you want an understanding of the basics of sociological methods you can't do better than this book. Durkhiem makes a compelling case for why social facts are a nessecary starting point for analyzing social phenomenon and why individual psychological explaination for social trends fall flat. The Essay about Marx in the Appendix is fine with some decent criticisms of the economistc limits of Marxism. Durkhiem is worth a read and this book is a good starting point.
Read
April 19, 2023oui je mens je l'ai pas lu mais j'ai lu une fiche de Félicité
Read
February 2, 2016Here Durkheim sees to establish sociology as a science that studies 1Esocial facts 1D. He argues the very naturalistic concept of viewing social facts as things, which can be subjected to rules, just as in natural sciences
1EA social fact is every way of acting, fixed or not, capable of exercising on the individual an external constraint; or again, every way of acting which is general throughout a given society, while at the same time existing in its own right independent of its individual manifestations 1D
Such social facts are thus external and coercive. There are two types: normal and pathological. For example, he does not define crime as pathological, because a certain amount of crime is essential and natural to society, it only becomes pathological when there is too much or too little of it. The forth chapter deals with the correct categorization and definition of facts. It must be done according to their segments, they way they are composed of bits. He is arguing against Comte 19s historical method and for a comparative method, stating that 1Eone particular effect has always the same cause 1D. Lastly, he summarizes the general characteristics of such a method to three: the independence from any philosophy, its objectivity, and its sociological character. Thus sociology is more autonomous and more legitimate.
1EA social fact is every way of acting, fixed or not, capable of exercising on the individual an external constraint; or again, every way of acting which is general throughout a given society, while at the same time existing in its own right independent of its individual manifestations 1D
Such social facts are thus external and coercive. There are two types: normal and pathological. For example, he does not define crime as pathological, because a certain amount of crime is essential and natural to society, it only becomes pathological when there is too much or too little of it. The forth chapter deals with the correct categorization and definition of facts. It must be done according to their segments, they way they are composed of bits. He is arguing against Comte 19s historical method and for a comparative method, stating that 1Eone particular effect has always the same cause 1D. Lastly, he summarizes the general characteristics of such a method to three: the independence from any philosophy, its objectivity, and its sociological character. Thus sociology is more autonomous and more legitimate.
June 3, 2012
Durkheim est un empiriste qui tente d’entraîner les autres sociologues à sa suite en critiquant l’idéalisme en science et en proposant une méthode rigoureuse afin de définir et observer l’objet d’étude, le « fait social », avec clarté et rigueur.
Si les qualités heuristiques de certains éléments de son argumentation sont discutables et elles comportent parfois quelques contradictions, je crois qu’il faut y trouver les signes d’une recherche intense d’un « noyau dur » qui ne pourra être remis en cause. Et lorsque les présupposés durkheimien se montrent inefficaces, plutôt que de les remettre pas en cause, l’auteur n’hésite pas à accuser son lecteur de ne pas être apte « à…voir les choses autrement qu’elles n’apparaissent au vulgaire » (p.71).
En effet, bien qu’il ne soit pas toujours en mesure de respecter ses principes, jamais Durkheim ne met en doute la prédominance de l’empirie sur le rationnel, ni la validité des analogies entre les lois scientifiques de différentes sciences. Durkheim demeure donc un empiriste d’un bout à l’autre, mais l’héritage en problèmes circonscrits légué aux générations futures de chercheurs est plutôt lourd...
Si les qualités heuristiques de certains éléments de son argumentation sont discutables et elles comportent parfois quelques contradictions, je crois qu’il faut y trouver les signes d’une recherche intense d’un « noyau dur » qui ne pourra être remis en cause. Et lorsque les présupposés durkheimien se montrent inefficaces, plutôt que de les remettre pas en cause, l’auteur n’hésite pas à accuser son lecteur de ne pas être apte « à…voir les choses autrement qu’elles n’apparaissent au vulgaire » (p.71).
En effet, bien qu’il ne soit pas toujours en mesure de respecter ses principes, jamais Durkheim ne met en doute la prédominance de l’empirie sur le rationnel, ni la validité des analogies entre les lois scientifiques de différentes sciences. Durkheim demeure donc un empiriste d’un bout à l’autre, mais l’héritage en problèmes circonscrits légué aux générations futures de chercheurs est plutôt lourd...
October 16, 2011
Emile Durkheim is one of the big three of classical sociological theory (the other two being Marx and Weber) and I honestly hadn't read a great deal of his work before this year besides a few pages of suicide from an undergrad theory class. I get why Durkheim is still considered one of the founders of sociology but this book was an awful thing to slog through. 100 hundred years ago and translated from French does not equal a compelling read, especially when you have to give a half-hearted presentation about it. Boo, Durkheim!
July 1, 2010
Os fatos sociais devem ser tratados como coisas'. Com esta afirmação polêmica Émile Durkheim orienta de modo decisivo uma disciplina que estava se formando e à qual esta obra, mais do que qualquer outra, dava fundamentos sólidos. Para Durkheim existe uma ruptura entre a psicologia e a sociologia como existe entre a biologia e as ciências físico-químicas. O ser coletivo possui uma natureza sui generis e a consciência coletiva é distinta da consciência individual.
January 28, 2015
Me encanta el tema y me parece un excelente libro, un gran autor que se esmera en ser objetivo y muy preciso (algo no siempre presente incluso en los mejores autores). Ademas del contenido de esta tan útil y prometedora ciencia que es la sociología, también le permite tener al lector una visión del proceso de construir la estructura de una tesis o, como lo que aquí hace y/o pretende, estructurar una nueva ciencia. Es de 1895 pero me parece que sigue vigente el contenido.
December 20, 2020
من الكتاب ص ٦١
ولذا فإذا كانت العلاقات التي تربط بين هذه الطوائف وثيقة من الناحية التاريخية فإن ذلك يدعوها إلى الاندماج بعضها في بعضها الآخر. وليس الأمر كذلك إذا كانت هذه العلاقات واهية؛ وذلك لأن كل طائفة من هذه الطوائف تميل إلى الاحتفاظ بمميزاتها الخاصة.
*
الكتاب ضروري لكل طالب في كليًّة علم الاجتماع
ولأي طالب يرغب بقراءة المجتمعات (اجتماعيًّا) بشكلٍ ثقيلٍ وسليم
ولذا فإذا كانت العلاقات التي تربط بين هذه الطوائف وثيقة من الناحية التاريخية فإن ذلك يدعوها إلى الاندماج بعضها في بعضها الآخر. وليس الأمر كذلك إذا كانت هذه العلاقات واهية؛ وذلك لأن كل طائفة من هذه الطوائف تميل إلى الاحتفاظ بمميزاتها الخاصة.
*
الكتاب ضروري لكل طالب في كليًّة علم الاجتماع
ولأي طالب يرغب بقراءة المجتمعات (اجتماعيًّا) بشكلٍ ثقيلٍ وسليم
February 12, 2008
Pretty interesting (and at the same time soporific) stuff. I now know what a social fact is, and that they should not be analyzed according to individual practices but by analyzing related social facts. We are products of our society, and not the other way around. Now you know!
March 15, 2014
Snoozefest to the max.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 78 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.