Durkheim's Misrepresentation of Spencer

A Reply to Jones' “Durkheim's Response to Spencer”

Bibliographic Data

ID11599691
AuthorsRobert G Perrin (University of Tennessee at Knoxville), Robert Perrin (0000-0002-4731-036X, University of Tennessee at Knoxville, corresponding author)
Year1975
Volume16
Issue4
Pages544-550
Publication date1975-09-01
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueSociological Quarterly (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0038-0253 • E-ISSN: 1533-8525
PublisherTaylor & Francis (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1111/j.1533-8525.1975.tb00968.x
OpenAlexW2069743091
LanguageEN
Citations received6
References cited7

THE MAJOR THESIS of Robert A. Jones' timely Response to Spencer: An Essay Toward Historicism in the Historiography of Sociology is that much of Durkheimian sociology was constructed in conscious opposition to the sociology of (1974:355). There is, Jones (1974:344) points out, no concise analysis of Durkheim's response to Spencer. After quite rightly stressing the need-from the point of view of the history of sociology-for this kind of inquiry, Jones (1974:344) handily circumscribes his task by specifically calling for, first, a precise knowledge of the degree and depth of Durkheim's 'awareness' of Spencer; second, the specific Spencerian to which [Durkheim] responded; third, Durkheim's own orientation to these ideas; and fourth, how Durkheim's critical responses figured into the larger body of his sociology. The fatal problem with Jones' treatment, however, lies in the failure to fulfill the second requirement, viz., the need for knowledge of the specific Spencerian ideas to which Durkheim reacted. Jones (1974:346, n. 13) does not provide us with Spencer's ideas, only Durkheim's version of them. Jones follows only Durkheim's limited footnoting to Spencer and restatements of him, while noting the considerable difficulty in contending with the original Spencerian sources (which involve copious volumes and numerous editions). This obviously assumes that Durkheim accurately represented the very he was to criticize and overturn [what Jones (1974:341) calls inversion]. The point is simply that Durkheim's portrayal of Spencer, while not always or necessarily distorted, is an altogether unsatisfactory source of information on specific Spencerian More to the issue, Durkheim's strategic unfairness to intellectual opponents has, in point of fact, more than once been noted.' Indeed, almost reluctantly, Jones (1974:354, n. 30) himself cites at least one example of Durkheim's far less than accurate representation of Spencer's ideas. This important observation, however, does not seem to temper Jones' procedure

Epistemology · Misrepresentation · Political science · Psychoanalysis · Sociology · Emile Durkheim and Sociology · Law · Philosophy · Psychology

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub