In order to establish itself as a discipline, it was not enough for sociology to disassociate itself from philosophy and psychology. The lines appearing in the above epigraph, published exactly one hundred years ago, remind us of what is often not considered in the difficulty of establishing social sciences in the world as a whole: first – and as a question of priority – disciplines had to fight the widely prevailing influence jointly held by evolutionism, “social Darwinism,” and “biological sociology” at the end of the nineteenth century. Durkheim's methodological warning thus contains something that elicits a “feeling of déjà vu” in us, with respect to some of the theoretical debates that the “scholarly community” puts forward today for the general public. Is this simply a superficial and somewhat coincidental similarity, or is it, rather, the rebirth of an idea?

From its very beginnings, this century has been under the sign of genetics. Indeed, it was in 1900 that the laws established by Mendel in the mid-nirieteenth century were rediscovered. In that same year, Landsteiner identified the first human blood typing, the ABO system. At that time, agronomists, eugenicists, and physicians were the principal agents of the development of genetics. The chromosome theory of heredity was asserted beginning in 1911; it was followed in the 1940s by the understanding of the role of the gene in cellular metabolism, and in 1954 by the explanation of the structure of the DNA double helix. The pre-eminence of genetics was to increase through the second half of the century, particularly in the 1970s with the advent of genetic engineering.

The primary method by which science endeavors to order the world is the analytic approach, consistent with Cartesian principles of dividing the problem in as many sections as required for an optimal solution, and progressing from the simplest to the most complex reasoning. When the interactions among the various elements of the system being studied are minimal, such a procedure indeed makes it possible to formulate laws that describe chains of causality. However, when the variables are interdependent and linked by non-linear equations, the atomistic method cannot account for the phenomenon in its entirety. Spurred by this inadequacy, scientists sought to discover synthetic methods which, early in the twentieth century, led to the conceptualization of holistic theories in a number of disciplines. The most highly developed fields are the psychology of form, structural anthropology (1), and the various systems theories (2). More recently, the development of epigenetic concepts in biology has corresponded to the appearance of different theories of pattern in physics and mathematics (3, 4) and to the progressive emergence of the concept of self-organization (5, 6, 7). The objective is to explain the production of complex structures on the basis of interacting elements, none of which contains a guiding scheme that dictates these structures. In biology, the challenge is to locate the constraints that are expressed in a space of possibilities (8) in order to develop a theory of organization that is capable of predicting the finite number of forms that living creatures can assume (9). This school of thought can be described as structuralist, emergentist, self-organizational, or epigeneticist, depending on the theoretical version that is emphasized.

The study of human origins is a kaleidoscopic field, a multitude of objects, reflections, and disciplines a swirl in an ever-changing tumult. The extreme diversity of the elements of information that are indispensable to this field of study (teeth, bones, apes, genes, ancient objects, present-day objects, biomechanical factors, cultural constructions …) appears all by itself to be enough to consign any attempt at synthesis to the realm of the Utopian. It hardly seems reasonable to expect the disparate sciences that fuel the field (paleoanthropology, archaeology, molecular biology, physics, psychology, and others) and the contradictory conceptions of scientific activity that they defend (human sciences, natural sciences, experimental sciences, exact sciences) to be joined with any regularity. As for formulating an overall problematics of the interdependent phenomena encountered in the field, one would have to be more than optimistic to entertain such dreams. And yet this is exactly the program that prehistory and paleoanthropology are laboring to construct tinder the label “the study of the origins of man,” an expression that includes both diachronic processes (human evolution) and activities or behaviors from particular moments, elements that are exceedingly difficult to compare given the separation of their geographic and temporal contexts.

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the field of Paleolithic art was a source of intellectual ferment and innovative interpretation. This was in direct contrast to the first forty years immediately following the recognition of graphic representations in Upper Paleolithic contexts. In this early period, all “art,” from nineteenth-century impressionist landscapes to the Pleistocene painted bison of Altamira, was misguidedly viewed as “art for art's sake.” The only explanation required was the pursuit of aesthetic pleasure and all that was needed was sufficient time to pursue artistic activities.

Throughout the twentieth century, social anthropology has given the impression of being a science that is eternally in the throes of birth, all the while wondering whether it has the right to exist. As it has taken root, developed, and subdivided, it has become increasingly doubt-ridden. Today this self-doubt seems to have reached critical proportions: it is difficult to see how this discipline can continue to emphasize its schizophrenia without completely falling apart. Researchers who wish to sustain a belief in the potential scientific vocation of anthropology feel obliged to seek assistance from the outside; for this help they look to the thermodynamics of heat, the selfish gene, or the newly-formed coalition of “cognitive sciences” (which combines the traditionally attractive capabilities of formal logic, psychophysiology, neurology, and so forth). Such researchers prefer second-hand knowledge to ephemeral knowledge. As for anthropologists who seek to preserve the professional autonomy of their practice at any cost, most of them believe that the only way to do that is to abdicate: to hell with the mirage of objectivity, down with laws, and long live the “text”!

Meme, Mneme, Mnemosyne: two neologisms, one dating from 1976 and the other from 1904, and the mythical figure personifying Memory from the time of the Titans - a strange primordial deity that the imagination brought forth even before the time of mortal men began. Her name is all that survived through the ages, yet this fleeting presence among the gods was just as consequential as a major figure like Prometheus. Could she have been conceived of as an indispensable condition for human beings to usher in the reign of culture?

In order to leave our debate open, it is important to end with a potentially crucial encounter between two domains whose representatives have not yet engaged in direct dialogue. Epistemology and anthropology, indeed, have many ideas to exchange and interactions to stimulate, particularly insofar as both of them consider the relations between a science of nature and a science of humankind.

Recalling that the Preamble of UNESCO's Constitution refers to “the democratic principles of the dignity, equality and mutual respect of men”, rejects any “doctrine of the inequality of men and races”, stipulates “that the wide diffusion of culture, and the education of humanity for justice and liberty and peace are indispensable to the dignity of men and constitute a sacred duty which all the nations must fulfil in a spirit of mutual assistance and concern”, proclaims that “peace must be founded upon the intellectual and moral solidarity of mankind”, and states that the Organization seeks to advance “through the educational and scientific and cultural relations of the peoples of the world, the objectives of international peace and of the common welfare of mankind for which the United Nations Organization was established and which its Charter proclaims”,