Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-558cb97cc8-fjc52 Total loading time: 0.32 Render date: 2022-10-06T05:55:55.591Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": true, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue false

1 - Introduction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 January 2010

Elinor Ochs
Affiliation:
University of California, Los Angeles
Emanuel A. Schegloff
Affiliation:
University of California, Los Angeles
Sandra A. Thompson
Affiliation:
University of California, Santa Barbara
Get access

Summary

One of sociology's ancestral figures, Emile Durkheim, with whom DeSaussure is often linked, is known (among many other contributions) for the claim that “the social” is not reducible to the psychological or the biological, or the sum of any individual attributes. It is, he said, an emergent phenomenon, a distinct level of organization; it is, he said, a reality sui generis – unto itself, of its own sort (Durkheim, 1938 [1895], 1951, among others). Some cynical (or astute, depending on one's point of view) students of intellectual history, of the history of sociology and of the social sciences more generally, and practitioners of the sociology of knowledge have remarked that this claim needs to be understood as part of a struggle to find a place for sociology in the structure of French academic life at the turn of the century. To have as the object of one's study a domain which was autonomous, which could not be reduced to other people's work and subject matter, was arguably one prerequisite for establishing one's own organizational niche, for establishing one's own standards of quality work, of important problems, of acceptable methods, of distinctive theories, and the like, and the professional license and mandate – the professional autonomy – to administer them.

None of this – even if true – has any bearing, of course, on the theoretical or empirical merit of Durkheim's claim. To hold otherwise would be to commit the so-called genetic fallacy.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)
35
Cited by

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×