Various philosophers and sociologists of the nineteenth century entertained the idea that history has a direction, that it is part of an irresistible movement whereby in effect social bonds crumble in favor of a supposedly rising individualism. They believed that individuals, hitherto homogeneous, were now destined to become more heterogeneous one from the other. This was the viewpoint, for example, of Herbert Spencer and of Émile Durkheim. For his part, Tarde arrived at a completely opposite stance. Thus, he writes in Les Lois de l'imitation that “heterogeneity and not homogeneity is at the core of things.” If Tarde was not strictly speaking a determinist, in that he did not subscribe to the idea that history has a purpose, he believed nevertheless that history has a meaning that is characterized by personal decisions and intentions. That is why we must “renounce once and for all these contrived differences which the philosophy of history established between successive peoples, each of which, like the protagonists of a single immense drama, had its own predetermined role to play” (Tarde 1898a, 42). Tarde thus seeks to identify “social laws” on the basis of three principles: imitation, logic and opposition. Tarde's sociology, as we shall see, was on a collision course with Durkheim and his main collaborators.

A Theory of Imitation

Les Lois de l'imitation represents, we may say, the culmination of Tarde's career, a kind of synthesis that condenses his theoretical views, which he had developed in a series of articles published for the most part in the Revue philosophique. Situated chronologically and intellectually at the center of his life's work, this book offers some essential keys for understanding his previous writings, many of which had been devoted to criminology. At the same time, it lays out a program of original research.

Tarde opens this classic tome with some epistemological observations. He concludes that sociology is clearly lagging behind the natural sciences. Sociology, he says, has failed in its repeated attempts to define itself as a science and therefore new solutions must be found. To do so, he says, we must look to individual facts to arrive at a scientific explanation of the social fact.