Another Critique of Modernity:The Relation Between Individuality and Sociality in Durkheimian Sociology
Jing Xie
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.0257-0289.2018.03.009
2018-01-01
Abstract:With regard to the relation between individuality and sociality, there is a widely shared opinion about Durkheimian sociology,which defines it as holism and social determinism,and thus believes that it denies necessarily the individuality of any member of any society. In this paper,the author tries to prove that the opinion in question is inaccurate. For this purpose,three main arguments of that opinion are examined,which are all related to Durkheim's own writings. 1) Holist sociology denies the individuality ontologically speaking. 2) It finds in objective functions the genuine explanations of social phenomena, and therefore denies that individual elements (for instance intentions) could be decisive for actions. 3) It considers the political project which is based on social contract impossible. These arguments rely on two implicit conceptual premises. 1) If sociality is to be understood in a realistic sense,it must be understood as an organism. 2) Individuality relies either on physical auto-sufficiency or on moral autonomy. Both of the premises restrict the concept of"whole"and"individual". After giving account to the popular opinion,the author is to argue over its inaccuracy by showing how Durkheimian sociology has developed. First, Durkheim has made an important concept out of"institution,"in the specific sense that he defined. It meets the requirement of the holism without falling into the organic approach, and it plays a central role in the Durkheimian sociology in broad sense. Second,Mauss and Dumont have made important sociological categories out of"person"and"individual,"which subsequently prove to be specifically modern institutions. As a result, individuality no more appears to be in conflict with sociality,but turns out to be a specific way through which sociality is realized.