Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reciprocity: Bruno Latour and Émile Durkheim on Reciprocity and Control

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Sociology through Relation

Part of the book series: Palgrave Studies in Relational Sociology ((PSRS))

Abstract

Bruno Latour claims that his sociology of association has little in common with the sociology of Émile Durkheim. Is it the case? Comparing Latour and Durkheim on reciprocity, we see numerous similarities between both authors, as can be seen regarding their related considerations about the institutions and the forms of control that these institutions provide to society. This comparison, which is made in Chap. 6, enables us to link the question of legitimacy to the cycles of relation better, and to reformulate the concept of reciprocity as a closing mechanism, which puts a cycle of relation to an end, while it leads to another cycle of the relation. This comparison also enables us to take into account the inter-institutional space as the space in which forms of control are defined between institutions, before they take place in the cycle of the relation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    One might think that Latour bypasses the problem that we discussed in our previous chapter concerning legitimacy when he makes individual and corporate actors into collective actors. Indeed, in assimilating individual as well as corporate actors to collective actors, there is no way of knowing whether the distribution of legitimacy in the network rests on interpersonal relationships or, instead, on institutions. However, there is an ambiguity in Latour’s discourse because he nevertheless distinguishes interpersonal relations from those between individual and corporate actors. He does not make this distinction by accident. The distinction rests in the principles of ANT, which postulates a gradual distinction between the micro-sociological level, where Latour sees little to no associations, and the macro-sociological level, where we find numerous associations .

  2. 2.

    This is not the opinion of Laurent Mucchielli’s, who thinks that Latour misunderstands Tarde and that he takes the concept of association in order to give it a meaning that Tarde does not give it in his work (Mucchielli 2004, 53–60).

  3. 3.

    In this last quote, Latour refers to Durkheim by using the expression “the social could explain the social”—or, in the terms of Durkheim, “the social as such must be explained by the social” (Durkheim 1906 (1975), 57).

  4. 4.

    See e.g. Clark 1972, 152–186; Besnard 1987, 136ff.; Fournier 2007; Steiner 2011.

  5. 5.

    This quote refers to Durkheim’s conference as well as to his public debate with Tarde after the conference, where Tarde used the expression to speak of Durkheim’s sociology . We also find the expression in Tarde’s Logique sociale (Tarde 1898b, VIII).

  6. 6.

    This has often been described as the “German crisis of the French thought” (cf. e.g. Digeon 1959; Lukes 1973, 41 note 15; Chamboredon 1984, 517 note 71; Feuerhahn 2014, 81). It is characterised by a controversy initiated by the Belgian philosopher Simon Deploige, debated in the Revue Néo-Scholastique de Philosophie from 1905 to 1909, later published as a book (Deploige 1911). According to Deploige, Durkheim’s sociology is not original work because Durkheim takes everything from German intellectuals.

  7. 7.

    Durkheim writes reviews on them, and corresponds with them (Feuerhahn 2014, 79–98). Therefore, it is not exaggerated to speak of a debate between Durkheim and these authors. Regarding this debate, see Gane (1984, 305), Watts Miller (1996, 31–42) and Steiner (2011).

  8. 8.

    The text that Simmel published in the first volume of L’Année sociologique is entitled “Comment les formes sociales se maintiennent” (Simmel 2002, 66–106). On the conditions that led to the production of the text including the roles of intermediaries played by Xavier Léon and Célestin Bouglé in the exchanges between Simmel and Durkheim, see Simmel (2002, 382–401).

  9. 9.

    For a contextualization of the relations and conflicts between Durkheim and Simmel, see, for example, Mestrovic (1994) and Rammstedt (1999, 139–162).

  10. 10.

    The abstract and general character of the definition of social facts has often been commented on in secondary literature (e.g. Borlandi 1995, 140–144; Besnard 2003, 66–69; Paoletti 2012b, 221 note 1).

  11. 11.

    Paoletti says that Durkheim’s concept of association enabled him to stabilise his views on society as well as on the social, which Durkheim both understands as realities that are external to individuals (Paoletti 2012, 221; cf. also Alexander 1982, 470; Prendergast 1990, 316–333). Watts Miller also sees in Durkheim’s concept of association Durkheim’s hope to “find ways…to develop and renew the ‘spirit of association’ itself” (Watts Miller 1996, 153).

  12. 12.

    In the French original, Durkheim does not say “domination ”, but “subordination”: “si le vaincu peut se résigner pour un temps à une subordination qu’il est contraint de subir, il ne la consent pas, et, par conséquent, elle ne saurait constituer un équilibre stable. Des trêves imposées par la violence ne sont jamais que provisoires et ne pacifient pas les esprits. Les passions humaines ne s’arrêtent que devant une puissance morale qu’elles respectent” (Durkheim 1893a (1922), III).

  13. 13.

    Cf. Lindemann (2011, 93–110) for a similar observation.

  14. 14.

    We quote from the French original again in order to underline Durkheim’s usage of the semantic of attachment: “bien loin que l’individu ne puisse s’attacher à la société sans abdication totale ou partielle de sa nature propre, il n’est vraiment lui-même, il ne réalise pleinement sa nature qu’à condition de s’y attacher” (Durkheim 1902–1903 (1925), 77).

  15. 15.

    In the French original, Durkheim does not say “solid link”, but instead “le lien de solidarité qui unit la cause à l’effet a un caractère de réciprocité qui n’a pas été assez reconnu” (Durkheim 1895 (1919) 118).

  16. 16.

    We see here the difference between Tarde’s quantitative concept of desire, and Durkheim’s relational one (cf. also Paoletti 2012, 258ff.).

  17. 17.

    Filloux has clearly highlighted the influence of Montesquieu on Durkheim’s views regarding the relations between individuals, secondary groups and the state (Filloux 1977, 239ff.; cf. also Fournier 2007, 454–456).

  18. 18.

    For example, Latour says, “I belong to a field , science studies, which has been working hard to give a positive meaning to the term ‘scientific institution’” (Latour 2013, 4; cf. also Latour 2004, 267 note 12).

  19. 19.

    Under the influence of his collaborators at L’Année sociologique, Durkheim begins in 1898 to progressively replace his concept of communion with the concept of consecration (Fournier 2007, 396–397). This concept of consecration will evolve to the concept of communication that Mauss and Hubert use in their discourse on sacrifice (cf. Chap. 3).

  20. 20.

    As Durkheim says, “Just as society consecrates men, so it also consecrates things ” (Durkheim 1912 (1995), 215).

  21. 21.

    On this point, see for example Spitz and Surkis (Spitz 2005, 339ff.; Surkis 2011, 142f.).

  22. 22.

    On Durkheim’s views on social evil—the pathology of the social bond —see Paoletti (2008, 63–80).

  23. 23.

    In other words, control presupposes that we might not be able to control everything, and this is what makes institutional expansion , the corresponding inclusion of actors, their legitimacy , and their social positions vary. Latour underlines this point in his entire work , as does Durkheim (including in his Suicide).

Bibliography

  • Besnard, Philippe. 1987. L’Anomie, ses usages et ses fonctions dans la discipline sociologique depuis Durkheim. Paris: PUF.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2003. Etudes durkheimiennes. Genève-Paris: Droz.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Borlandi, Massimo. 1995. Les faits sociaux comme produits de l’association des individus. Le fil conducteur des Règles. In La Sociologie et sa méthode: les “Règles” de Durkheim un siècle après, ed. Massimo Borlandi and Laurent Mucchielli, 139–164. Paris: PUF.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chamboredon, Jean Claude. 1984. Émile Durkheim: le social, objet de science. Critique 445–446: 461–531.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1972. Emile Durkheim and the French University: The Institutionalization of Sociology. In The Establishment of Empirical Sociology: Studies in Continuity, Discontinuity, and Institutionalization, ed. Anthony Oberschall, 152–186. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deploige, Simon. 1911. Le conflit de la morale et de la sociologie. Paris: Alcan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Digeon, Claude. 1959. La crise allemande de la pensée française. Paris: PUF.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1887 (1975). La science positive de la morale en Allemagne. Textes I. Eléments ďune théorie sociale. Paris: Minuit, 267–343.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1890–1900 (1958). Professional Ethics and Civic Morals. Glencoe: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1892b (1966). Montesquieu et Rousseau précurseurs de la sociologie. Paris: Marcel Rivière et Cie.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1893a (1922). De la division du travail social. Paris: Alcan.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1893b (2013). The Division of Labour in Society. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1895a (2013). The Rules of Sociological Method and Selected Texts on Sociology and Its Method. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1895b (1975). L’état actuel des études sociologiques en France. Textes I. Eléments ďune théorie sociale. Paris: Minuit, 73–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1900 (1975). La sociologie et son domaine scientifique. Textes I. Eléments ďune théorie sociale. Paris: Minuit, 13–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1902–1903 (1973). Moral Education. A Study in the Theory and Application of the Sociology of Education. New York, London: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1903 (1975). La sociologie et les sciences sociales. Textes I. Eléments ďune théorie sociale. Paris: Minuit, 160–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1906 (1975). Remarques sur le problème de l’individu et de la société. Textes I. Eléments ďune théorie sociale. Paris: Minuit, 56–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1910 (1975). Formation des sociétés germaniques. Textes III. Fonctions sociales et institutions. Paris: Minuit, 282–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1912 (1995). The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1922. Education et sociologie. Paris: Alcan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feuerhahn, Wolf. 2014. Zwischen Individualismus und Sozialismus: Durkheims Soziologie und ihr deutsches Pantheon. In Europäische Wissenschaftskulturen und politische Ordnungen in der Moderne (1890–1970), ed. Gangolf Hübinger, 79–98. Munich: R. Oldenbourg Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Filloux, Jean-Claude. 1977. Durkheim et le socialisme. Genève, Paris: Droz.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2007. Émile Durkheim (1858–1917). Paris: Fayard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gane, Mike. 1984. Institutional Socialism and the Sociological Critique of Communism (Introduction to Durkheim and Mauss). Economy and Society 13: 304–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latour, Bruno. 1986. The Powers of Association. In Power, Action and Belief. A New Sociology of Knowledge? ed. John Law, 264–280. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1987. Science in Action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1991. Technology Is Society Made Durable. In A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination, ed. John Law, 103–132. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1993a. Petites Leçons de sociologie des sciences. Paris: La Découverte.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1993c. We Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1994a. On Technical Mediation – Philosophy, Sociology, Genealogy. Common Knowledge 3: 29–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2000. When Things Strike Back: A Possible Contribution of ‘Science Studies’ to the Social Sciences. British Journal of Sociology 51: 107–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2001. L’espoir de Pandore. Pour une version réaliste de l’activité scientifique. Paris: La Découverte.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2002. Gabriel Tarde and the End of the Social. In The Social in Question. New Bearings in History and the Social Sciences, ed. Patrick Joyce, 117–132. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2004. Politics of Nature. How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2005. Reassembling the Social. An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2010. The Making of Law. An Ethnography of the Conseil d’Etat. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2013. An Inquiry into Modes of Existence. An Anthropology of the Moderns. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, Bruno, Philippe Mauguin, and Geneviève Teil. 1992. A Note on Socio-Technical Graphs. Social Studies of Science 22: 33–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latour, Bruno, and Monique Girard Stark. 1999. Factures/Fractures: From the Concept of Network to the Concept of Attachment. RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics 36: 20–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1987. Redefining the Social Link: From Baboons to Humans. Social Science Information 26: 783–802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latour, Bruno, and Steve Woolgar. 1986. Laboratory Life. The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindemann, Gesa. 2011. On Latour’s Social Theory and Theory of Society, and His Contribution to Saving the World. Human Studies 34: 93–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lukes, Steven. 1973. Emile Durkheim. His Life and Work. London: Allen Lane Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mestrovic, Stjepan C. 1994. The Balkanization of the West: The Confluence of Postmodernism and Postcommunism. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mucchielli, Laurent. 2004. Mythes et histoire des sciences humaines. Paris: La Découverte.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paoletti, Giovanni. 2008. Some Concepts of ‘Evil’ in Durkheims’ Thought. In Suffering and Evil. The Durkheimian Legacy, ed. William S.F. Pickering and Massimo Rosati, 63–80. New York: Berghahn.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2012b. Durkheim et la philosophie. Représentation, réalité et lien social. Paris: Garnier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prendergast, Christopher. 1990. The Impact of Fustel de Coulanges’ La Cité Antique on Durkheim’s Theories of Social Morphology and Social Solidarity. In Emile Durkheim. Critical Assesments, ed. Peter Hamilton, 316–333. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rammstedt, Otthein. 1999. Les relations entre Durkheim et Simmel dans le contexte de l’affaire Dreyfus. L’Année Sociologique 48: 139–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2002. Französisch- und italienischsprachige Veröffentlichungen. Mélanges de philosophie relativiste. GSG 19. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spitz, Jean-Fabien. 2005. Le moment républicain en France. Paris: Gallimard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steiner, Philippe. 2011. Durkheim and the Birth of Economic Sociology. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Surkis, Judith. 2011. Sexing the Citizen. In Morality and Masculinity in France, 1870–1920. Cornell: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tarde, Gabriel. 1874. Les possibles. Bibliothèque de la ville de Lyon: Fonds Lacassagne.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1881. La psychologie en économie politique. Revue Philosophique de la France et de l’étranger 6: 232–249; 401–418.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1890b (1912). Penal Philosophy. Boston: Little Brown, and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1893. Questions sociales. Revue Philosophique de la France et de l’étranger 18: 618–638.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1895a. Les lois de l’imitation. Paris: Alcan.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1895b (1903). The Laws of Imitation. New York: Henry Holt and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1898a. Les lois sociales. Esquisse d’une sociologie. Paris: Alcan.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1898b. La logique sociale. Paris: Alcan.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1901. La réalité sociale. Revue Philosophique de la France et de l’étranger 26: 455–477.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1904. L’inter-psychologie. Archives d’anthropologie criminelle, de criminologie et de psychologie normale et pathologique XIX: 537–564.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watts Miller, William. 1996. Durkheim, Morals and Modernity. Bristol: UCL Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut f. Soziologie, Halle-Wittenberg University, Halle, Sachsen-Anhalt, Germany

    Christian Papilloud

Authors
  1. Christian Papilloud
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Papilloud, C. (2018). Reciprocity: Bruno Latour and Émile Durkheim on Reciprocity and Control. In: Sociology through Relation. Palgrave Studies in Relational Sociology. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65073-9_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65073-9_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-65072-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-65073-9

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation