Search

Émile Durkheim's collaborations with other French intellectuals during the war in various committees and polemical pamphlets, editorials, and scholarly essays are treated here as both a continuation of and a challenge to ideas he had developed earlier concerning social solidarity, the science of sociology, socialism, the modern state, and, ultimately, the moral foundations of civilization itself. Writing on behalf of the French war effort and against German "barbarism," he tacitly or explicitly developed insights from his books On the Division of Social Labour, Suicide, The Rules of Sociological Method, and The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, and he elaborated on themes from his lecture courses on socialism, professional ethics and civic morals, and education. Although his wartime writings were largely commissioned, written, and published as propaganda, they also provided him with an opportunity to test, refine, and in some instances revise sociological arguments he had been working on throughout his career. Rather than bringing Durkheim's scholarly production to an abrupt halt or signaling a gradual decline in his intellectual capacities, the war provoked him to rethink some of his key sociological ideas and inspired him to take his research program in new directions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Emile Durkheim, one of the founding figures of sociology, placed religion and morality at the center of his theoretical framework. He identified religion and morality as indispensable elements for society and undeniably emphasized their functions in society. Because according to him, the continuity and order of social life depends on the normative structure produced by religion and morality. In this context, he has something to say about living together and sustaining life as a social being, which is one of the most important problems of our age. This study aims to evaluate Durkheim's theory of religion and morality in terms of contemporary social issues and social theory. In order to achieve this goal, firstly, Durkheim's understanding of society, which allows us to comprehend his understanding of religion, will be explained and then Durkheim's main concerns about the phenomenon of religion will be explained. Finally, based on Durkheim's thoughts, a path will be presented on how to approach the macro problems of today's world. In this way, it will be proposed to recall Durkheim with a critical eye for the solution of today's social issues. In the article, which is written with the intention of questioning the meaning of classical sociologists and more specifically Emile Durkheim in terms of contemporary social theory, it will be claimed that macro theories are still functional for the solution of macro problems. However, the necessity of a critical evaluation in this functional focus will be underlined. In this sense, the study, which includes a theoretical discussion and is based on a literature review, opens up for discussion Durkheim's contributions to the solution of current problems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ÖZ: Émile Durkheim, bilim olarak sosyoloji ülküsünün en önemli mimarlarından birisidir. O, sosyolojide “olguların dili”yle konuşmayı ilkeleştiren önemli figürler arasındadır. Ancak tüm bu “nesnel”, “olgusal” ve “ilmi” görüntüsüne rağmen, Durkheim aynı zamanda iyi bir polemikçidir. Durkheim’ın metinlerinde sadece olgusal gözlemlere ilişkin genellemeler yer almaz. Durkheim, aynı zamanda agresif, tartışmacı, nüktedan ve eleştirel kimliğiyle öne çıkan iyi bir yorumcu ve “metin yazarı”dır. Özellikle toplumsallık, ahlak, anomi ve sosyalizm gibi konularda Durkheim’ın bu yönü daha baskın bir biçimde tespit edilebilmektedir. Bu makalede Durkheim’ın polemik repertuarı, toplumsallık ve ahlak konusu üzerinden yansıtılmaktadır. Her iki tema, Durkheim’ın sosyoloji projesinin en belirleyici direkleri olduğundan, Durkheim’ın polemik repertuarında geniş bir yer tutar. Durkheim’ın toplumsallığın neliğini ve ahlakın kökenini delillendirme girişiminde bir olgusal tanıtlama yüzeyi bir de polemik mütalaa düzeyi bulunur. Bu anlamda makalenin amacı, Durkheim’ın en belirleyici çalışma odaklarından biri olan toplumsallık ve ahlâk konularında, eksik kaldığı, güçlükle savaştığı, düşünce ikliminin aksaklıklarını sergilediği, satır aralarında gizlenen polemikçi tavrı gündeme getirmektir. Bu yönüyle makale, Durkheim’ı farklı biçimlerde yeniden tartışmaya açmak ve onun polemik yönlerini farklı veçheleriyle daha anlaşılır kılma gayesindedir. ABSTRACT: Émile Durkheim is one of the most important architects of the ideal of sociology as a science. He is among the important figures in sociology who adopted the principle of speaking in the “language of facts”. However, despite all this “objective”, “factual” and “scientific” appearance, Durkheim is also a good polemicist. Durkheim’s texts do not contain only generalizations about factual observations. Durkheim is also a good commentator and “text writer” who stands out with his aggressive, argumentative, witty and critical identity. This aspect of Durkheim can be detected more dominantly, especially on issues such as sociality, morality, anomie and socialism. In this article, Durkheim's polemical repertoire is reflected on the subject of sociality and morality. Since both themes are the most defining pillars of Durkheim’s sociological project, they occupy a wideplace in Durkheim's polemical repertoire. In Durkheim’s attempt to prove the essence of sociality and the origin of morality, there is a surface of factual demonstration and a level of polemical consideration. In this sense, the aim of the article is to bring to the agenda the polemical attitude hidden between the lines, where Durkheim was incomplete, struggled with difficulty, and exhibited the flaws in his thought climate, on the issues of sociality and morality, which were one of his most decisive focus of work. In this respect, the article aims to reopen Durkheim for discussion in different ways and to make his polemical aspects more understandable from different aspects.

Copyright of Sociologia Italiana is the property of EGEA S.p.A and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Émile Durkheim is one of the most important architects of the ideal of sociology as a science. He is among the important figures in sociology who adopted the principle of speaking in the "language of facts". However, despite all this "objective", "factual" and "scientific" appearance, Durkheim is also a good polemicist. Durkheim's texts do not contain only generalizations about factual observations. Durkheim is also a good commentator and "text writer" who stands out with his aggressive, argumentative, witty and critical identity. This aspect of Durkheim can be detected more dominantly, especially on issues such as sociality, morality, anomie and socialism. In this article, Durkheim's polemical repertoire is reflected on the subject of sociality and morality. Since both themes are the most defining pillars of Durkheim's sociological project, they occupy a wideplace in Durkheim's polemical repertoire. In Durkheim's attempt to prove the essence of sociality and the origin of morality, there is a surface of factual demonstration and a level of polemical consideration. In this sense, the aim of the article is to bring to the agenda the polemical attitude hidden between the lines, where Durkheim was incomplete, struggled with difficulty, and exhibited the flaws in his thought climate, on the issues of sociality and morality, which were one of his most decisive focus of work. In this respect, the article aims to reopen Durkheim for discussion in different ways and to make his polemical aspects more understandable from different aspects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

After documenting Tarde's neglect and placing him in the 19th-century sociological context, this paper argues that his concept of "imitation" was important because social learning (writ small) or culture (writ large), a non-genetic form of heredity, means that a distinct cultural evolutionary process including variation and selection resulting in descent with modification is inevitable. Beginning in the last half of the 20th century there was a flowering of theorizing and research about cultural evolution across the humanities and social sciences and eventually about culture in general in sociology. Unfortunately, what should have been recognized as Tarde's role as a forefather of these has only occasionally been recognized. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines how the Durkheimian approach to the 'ideal' delineates a possible way of straddling the dilemma between the normative orientation of 'powerful knowledge' accounts and the critical orientation of 'knowledge of the powerful' accounts. It argues that the normative aims are embedded in the fabrics of the sociological description with which the Durkheimian notion of 'elementary form' is concerned. To see where this enterprise can lead, this paper turns to the sociology of education of Bourdieu and Bernstein. Both draw on Durkheim's writings on primitive classifications in education and society, working towards uncovering the regularities of the world of knowledge classifications. Keeping in line with Bourdieu and Bernstein, this paper argues that one has to make the same refusal to the advocates of an abstract ideal of educational knowledge that is dissociated from its social conditions of historical realization in pedagogic contexts, and to the advocates of a cynical relativism of ideal that rejects any necessities socially established. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Throughout the past forty years, the concept of religion has been criticized at regular intervals without having led to the development of actual analytical alternatives. In what follows, I will not repeat the criticism of the concept of religion. Instead, I will develop an alternative analytical approach to a description of a significant part of what we usually call religion in Denmark. The first aim of the article is to provide an overview of the most important Danish feasts and celebrations. The second aim is to argue that there is a culturally and historically determined pattern in the typical and recurrent Danish feasts and celebrations. This second argument will be based on the description of the social group of Émile Durkheim, Norbert Elias and John Searle. The analytical strategy of the article is to depart from the simple observation of who it is that is responsible for the feast and celebration. The result of this analytical strategy is that there are celebrations that are the responsibility of state, church and family, which corresponds to a state-, church- and family-cult. Based on the analysis, the article continues to argue that Danish feasts and celebrations are interwoven. Several of the celebrations support each other. The article therefore argues that there is a system of celebrations in which family celebrations, or the family cult plays a crucial but overlooked role, simply because family celebrations fall outside usual definitions of religion. DANSK RESUMÉ: Gennem de sidste fyrre år er religionsbegrebet med blevet kritiseret med jævne mellemrum, uden at det har ført til egentlige analytiske alternativer. I det følgende vil jeg ikke gentage kritikken af religionsbegrebet. For at tilvejebringe et egentligt analytisk alternativ, vil jeg i stedet eksperimentere med en ny beskrivelse af en væsentlig del af det, vi normalt kalder religion i Danmark. Artiklens teoretiske grundlag er Émile Durkheim, Norbert Elias og John Searles tanker om sociale grupper. Resultatet af artiklens analytiske eksperiment er, at der er fejringer, som er statens, kirkens og familiens ansvar, og at disse fejringer derfor kan forstås som en stats-, kirke- og familiekult. I forlængelse af denne analyse argumenterer artiklen for, at danske højtider og fester udgør en sammenhængene fletværk eller ligefrem et system, da flere af festlighederne støtter hinanden. I dette fletværk af fester er det familiefesterne, eller familiekulten som spiller en afgørende, men overset rolle, formodentlig fordi familiefester falder uden for de sædvanlige definitioner af religion.

In Matteo Bortolini's elegant and thoughtfully-written biographical account of Robert Bellah, we are given the opportunity to study an arc of development in U.S. sociological theory over the course of the 20th Century, in contact with several of sociology's most influential shapers. This means that, to grapple with Bellah's life, as presented by Bortolini, is to grapple with the ways that a broad range of social movements in American history, perhaps most powerfully the 1960's "counter-culture," have shaped contemporary American sociological theory and cultural life, particularly in the area of religion, but also in the area of politics. It is difficult, perhaps impossible, to remain neutral about such developments, and therefore about the character of Bellah himself, as Bortolini presents him. And yet Bortolini manages to achieve an admirable even-handedness in his treatment of Bellah, albeit through a rhetorical strategy that carries risks, as this essay illustrates. In this essay, I accept Bortolini's welcome and important invitation to grapple with Robert Bellah's life and legacy. Unlike Bortolini, I am unable to be even-handed, but I do strive to be fair. While I acknowledge the ways in which Bellah enriched sociological theories of culture, my overall assessment of Bellah's legacy is very negative. In Robert Bellah's religiously-tinged politicization of sociology, and in his relentlessly hostile attacks on political and religious positions with which he disagreed, I see prescriptions for the terribly intensified culture wars of today. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Classic theoretical arguments by seven Black and Jewish sociologists—informed by their experience of "double-consciousness"—comprise an important legacy in sociology. Approaches that ignore the role of racism and slavery in the rise of Western societies suppress and distort this legacy in favor of a White Christian Hero narrative. By contrast, Durkheim, a Jewish sociologist, took Roman enslaved and immigrant guild-workers as a starting point, positing the "constitutive practices" of their occupations as media of cooperation for achieving solidarity across diversity. His argument marks a transition from the treatment of social facts as durable symbolic residue in homogeneous cultures, to the qualitative study of constitutive social fact making in interaction in diverse social situations. Because making social facts in interaction requires mutual reciprocity, troubles occur frequently in contexts of inequality. Like W.E.B. DuBois, who first theorized double consciousness as a heightened awareness produced by racial exclusion, Harold Garfinkel looked to troubles experienced by the marginalized as clues to the taken-for-granted practices for making social order, calling them "ethno-methods." Together with other Black and Jewish sociologists—Eric Williams, Oliver Cromwell Cox, Erving Goffman, and Harvey Sacks—they challenge popular interpretations of classical social theory, center Race and marginality, and explain how features of practice that unite/divide can be both interactional and institutionalized. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Family Upbringing / Wychowanie w Rodzinie is the property of Family Upbringing Editorial Board / Redakcja czasopisma Wychowanie w Rodzinie and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In this article, I would like to use the case of Rudolf Eucken to examine how the historiography of philosophy, and especially the interpretation of German Idealism, became a medium of national self-assurance. By referring to the philosophical classics of German Idealism, Eucken, at the end of the 19th century, develops a model of a publicly effective philosophy to which he ascribes the task of contributing to the recovery of unity and strength. My aim is to work out the social background and the social function of this characterisation of the history of philosophy. The thesis I would like to develop is that Eucken, in reaction to his perception of social crises and the inner-scientific questioning of the role of philosophy, attempts to establish philosophy as a fundamental element of the historical discourse and practices of the new German nation state. This historical discourse, into which philosophy attempts to inscribe itself, can be interpreted, following Durkheim's sociological reflections on religion, as an attempt to sacralise the nation. This reveals the social function of this form of philosophical historiography: it becomes the theology of the new German nation state. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Not all hope is equal. For the Christian religion, hope is a theological virtue, and refers to the expectation of future life, beyond death. With the transformation of European society in a secular sense and the rise of individualism between the 17th and 18th centuries, hope becomes a program of political and social transformation, aimed at this world. In my contribution I trace the emergence of the concept of hope in social thought and, then, in sociology. My analysis begins with the Philosophie sociale (Paris, 1793) by Moses Dobruska (1753–1794), a pioneering and largely overlooked text that founds a new vision of social science. After Dobruska, I then devote my attention to the great thinkers of the early nineteenth century, Henri de Saint-Simon (1760–1825) and Auguste Comte (1798–1857), and then I move on to the work of Émile Durkheim (1858–1917). It is a historical perspective that has been neglected until now, and that allows us to appreciate the construction of an idea of hope that frees itself from religious determinants and is oriented toward society and the individuals who live in it, and that anticipates the utopias and failures of the social ideologies of the 20th century. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Political Imaginarium, which is the topic of this special issue, is not static. Older modes of representing the body politic, as illustrated by Ernst Kantorowicz's account of the King's Two Bodies, were focused on the figure of the monarch. With the transition to democratic republics based on popular sovereignty, was this older aesthetic of sovereignty abandoned, extended, or transformed? I argue that the shift to focus on the People represented only a partial break with older modes of representation, due to the difficulty of figuring the masses as such in their unformed condition. Case studies from England and France suggest that the problem of representation remains without a final solution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Contributions to Contemporary History / Prispevki za Novejšo Zgodovino is the property of Prispevki za Novejso Zgodovino and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Durkheimian Studies is the property of Berghahn Books and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Information economics has become a major branch of the discipline, but economists have not always agreed on how information operates in the economy. This paper starts with the debates over information stretching back to the 1930s, follows the rise of a neoclassical information economics tradition, and brings to bear recent critiques of information from a surveillance perspective. In particular it engages with the claims of Shoshana Zuboff on the rise of surveillance capitalism, unpacking and critiquing her use of this concept. It takes a special look at her intellectual debt to Émile Durkheim. Zuboff sees surveillance capitalism as a recent aberration in capitalism's otherwise successful development, whereas this essay argues that it is both much more deeply embedded in capitalism historically and that her essentially functionalist, humanistic perspective does not fully account for the workings of subjectivity and power in surveillance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

RESUMO Após meses com as salas de aula fechadas, professores e alunos ainda não vislumbram quando se poderá voltar às escolas. Roger Chartier, no artigo “Mundo pós-pandemia”, publicado em 1º de junho na página virtual do Sesc-SP, destaca a “infinita tristeza do ensino” no isolamento. Na esteira dessa percepção, vimos desde a interrupção das aulas avaliações as mais diversas sobre o papel da instituição escolar e da socialização que ela realiza para a formação educacional da infância e juventude. Interessados em alargar a visão sobre o tema, propomos historicizar o que chamamos aqui de “imagem da sala de aula”. Para concretizar nosso propósito, escolhemos para análise as imagens presentes nas famosas histórias em quadrinhos francesas do Petit Nicholas, assinadas por René Goscinny e ilustradas por Jean-Jacques Sempé entre 1956 e 1964. Tais imagens serão interpeladas com o auxílio da noção de representação, na voz de autores há muito tempo lidos e relidos entre os educadores: Émile Durkheim e Roger Chartier. O uso do conceito de representação nos será útil para explorar as múltiplas respostas dos autores de seus respectivos tempos históricos sobre os problemas e as potências da escola. Lembrando as palavras de Ítalo Calvino (1993), convém dedicarmos um tempo para revisitar leituras importantes de nossa formação. As referências permanecem as mesmas, mas nossas trajetórias e desafios mudam. A atual situação é um convite à releitura dessas obras “clássicas” que, pela sua fecundidade, sobretudo quando explicam a força da representação, permitem refletir sobre a construção do desejável em educação hoje.

In this piece I explore how Bhambra and Holmwood's Colonialism and Modern Social Theory implies three different questions that can be asked concerning the connections between colonialism and social theory. With reference to their discussion of Durkheim, I suggest the answers they offer to these possible questions return us to what Kurasawa termed the 'constitutive paradox' of Durkheim's relation to colonialism, namely a mix of political acceptance while also questioning its ideological legitimacy. While exploring Durkheim's comments on colonialism, race, the state and his own Jewishness, I emphasise the need for a careful historical sociology which reckons with the different possible connections between social theory and colonialism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny (0035-9629) is the property of Adam Mickiewicz University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Despite widespread criticism of the failure to achieve the predetermined penal and criminological goals of Iran’s post-revolution war on drugs, the harsh penal practices remain in practice until today. By applying Durkheim’s attitude in his last major work, the elementary forms of religious life, the purpose of this paper is to analyze the rationale for the Iranian war on drugs from the perspective of religion and not penal code or criminology. This article draws on qualitative analysis, and data were collected through analysis of legal documents, literature discussing the war on drugs, news reports, and past journals. The findings of this article reveal that the war on drugs originates from an understanding that attributes evilness to such criminals to prevent the disintegration of Islamic society. This approach blurs the line between “preserving Islam” and the “Islamic society,” and the repressive policies are consecrated to avoid social disintegration. Our study confirms Durkheim’s attitude in which sacredness is highly contagious. Following the sanctity of preserving Islamic society from the profanity of drug crimes, the application of specialized mechanisms for fighting drugs, such as anticipating specialized criminal courts for violation of sacred values, setting special legislative authorities for the crime, and meting out harsh punishments, have all become plausible. Accordingly, all these practices would be treated as sacred because they are associated with fighting the “profane” phenomenon of drugs.

W artykule poszukuję odpowiedzi na pytanie, czy Durkheimowski utylitaryzm, zrekonstruowany na bazie koncepcji Jonathana Haidta, może stanowić uzasadnienie egzekwowania moralności za pomocą prawa karnego (tzn. czy jest adekwatną teorią moralizmu prawa). W pierwszej części przedstawiam, czym Durkheimowski utylitaryzm jest i jakie głosi tezy, w drugiej zaś, korzystając z klucza interpretacyjnego Herberta Harta wykorzystanego w polemice z Patrickiem Devlinem, wyjaśniam, jakiego stanowiska moralistycznego teoria ta rzeczywiście broni. Ostatecznie dochodzę do wniosku, że główną tezą Durkheimowskiego utylitaryzmu jest Hartowska teza o dezintegracji. Brak odpowiedniego uzasadnienia empirycznego rodzi jednak wątpliwość, czy może on stanowić satysfakcjonującą teorię moralnego uzasadnienia kryminalizacji.

O presente artigo versa sobre elementos políticos em Da divisão social do trabalho, obra de um dos pais da sociologia, Émile Durkheim. Destaco a preocupação com a definição de funções sociais para a divisão do trabalho. O respeito às hierarquias resultantes da especialização dos ofícios se desdobraria, para o autor, no estágio normal de funcionamento em sociedades de solidariedade orgânica, o que não é mais do que afirmar o caráter sacrossanto da divisão de classes sociais. Na segunda parte do artigo, observaremos como esta teoria foi instrumentalizada para a definição de um conjunto de políticas devotadas a garantirem a estabilização política em época de acirramento das contradições no capitalismo. Sobretudo desde os anos 1990, think tanks europeus aplicam receituários baseados na idealização de uma sociedade coesa. O sucesso relativo da empreitada estimulou que organizações similares fizessem o mesmo na América Latina, incluindo a Comissão Econômica Para a América Latina, que tem intermediado as trocas de tecnologias políticas entre entidades burguesas do novo e do velho mundos.

This article aims to review Durkheim's concepts of division of labour and social solidarity, especially how social solidarity developed through the division of labour and how the interplay between the two gives rise to the functionality of the social system. This study, too, explains the relevance of such concepts to studying contemporary society. This study concludes that some underlying shortcomings need addressing without denying Durkheim's attempt to provide a sound methodological and theoretical foundation for sociology as a discipline. Durkheim's contention that the Division of labour forms social solidarity is deterministic and subscribes to the law of rigidity. Individuals' occupational function is seen as a determinant and therefore has nothing to do with human free will and individuals' subjectivity to meaning. It is a sort of reductionism because it eliminates the entire propensity of human nature. It reduces the conditions of society to that of the organism of a living being. As a result, it is tough to replicate Durkheim's solidarity model to explain the complex nature of current urban societies.

According to the World Health Organization, more than 700,000 individuals die globally due to suicide. For the most part, suicide has been understood as a medical or psychological phenomenon. Beyond these two disciplines, a social aspect of suicide was posited by Émile Durkheim. He theorized that there are four types of suicide: egoistic, altruistic, anomic, and fatalistic. Recent studies suggest that there are other potential causes of suicide beyond the medical or psychological domains. Some scholars have argued that socioeconomic factors are, to some extent, associated with the incidence of suicide. This article looked into the rates of suicide in different regions. The relationship between crude suicide rate vis-à-vis GDP per capita, healthy life expectancy at birth, positive affect, and negative affect were also examined. The results reveal that suicide rates significantly interact with GDP per capita, healthy life expectancy at birth, and negative affect on the global level. On the other hand, the results of regional analysis differ slightly from the global results. This article confirms that socioeconomic factors and life expectancy at birth do interact with suicide rates. Suicide is not exclusively a medical issue; rather, there is a constellation of social and economic components that interlace with suicidal behaviors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper analyzes the sociological works of Todor Pavlović, with the aim of presenting his basic social ideas and checking the relevance of his conclusions about the relationship between social development and military organization. A special focus is placed on Pavlović's explanation of the development of military organization, within which the position of dialectical materialism about the influence of war technique on army organization and tactics is refuted. This sets Pavlović apart from other Serbian and Yugoslav sociologists of the 20th century who studied the army, and anticipates new sociological views on the relationship between technical achievements and the organization of social processes. Basic analytical and synthetic methods, content analysis as well as biographical and comparative methods were used.

The main purpose of this article is to provide some guidance and inspiration for the teaching of the classics in sociology by taking a close look at the way in which Robert K. Merton taught this topic at Columbia University. The course was entitled "History of Sociological Theory (Sociology 150)" and was given between 1958 and 1968. With the help of archival material, the article reconstructs what Merton said during his lectures, which texts he assigned, what kind of tests he gave, and what type of paper the students should write. Merton did not want the students to only study the texts of the classics but also try to figure out how these went about their research and were able to formulate their theories. This meant that he emphasized how the classics approached such activities as problem-finding, problem-solving and looking for strategic research sites. In the concluding section, the broad approach to theory in Merton's teaching is contrasted to the more narrow one he presented in Social Theory and Social Structure. Positive and negative aspects of Merton's approach to the classics are also discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Multiple religious belonging refers to the idea that individuals can belong to more than one religious tradition. This article aims to explore the concept of multiple religious belonging in modern China, focusing on its pattern as well as the social functionality that gives rise to such a pattern. The methodology is developed using structural functionalism as formulated by, in particular, Emile Durkheim, who investigated how different institutions, practices, and customs come to exist because of their contribution to the reproduction and integration of society. This article studies the social functions of multiple religious belonging in three social units, from small to large: family, community, and the state. It explains how multiple religious belonging functions in modern China and thus consolidates each member's identity within the social units. 摘要: 多重宗教身份認同意指一個人同時屬於多於一個宗教傳統。本文將研究現代中國多重宗教身份認同的概念，關注此概念的模式及該模式背後的社會功能性。本文的方法論主要採用艾彌爾·涂爾幹的結構功能主義，研究不同制度、實踐和風俗如何達到再造與整合社會的效果。本文將從三個社會單位研究多重宗教身份認同的社會功能，由小至大分別為：家庭、社群和國家。此研究有助於理解多重宗教身份認同如何在現代中國發揮作用並強化個體在社會單位中的身份認同。 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Gaston Richard was not only among the first to be informed of the 'revelation' that Durkheim announced about his reading of William Robertson Smith in 1895. Among all the Durkheimians, Richard was alone in publicly declaring himself on the matter. The radical nature of his witness went far beyond the fact of calling into question the date as well as the subject of this 'revelation'. For Richard, the constitution of Durkheim's religious sociology was ultimately 'only a moment from a more ample study' about obligation. The originality of his analysis derives as much from the fact of having seen the main source of Durkheim's inspiration in the neo-criticism of Charles Renouvier (parts 1 and 2) as from having criticized Durkheim's state-sociology, which was, if not the conclusion, then at least its political translation (part 3). Gaston Richard ne fut pas seulement aux toutes premières loges de la 'révélation' dont Durkheim fit part au sujet de sa lecture de William Robertson Smith, en 1895. De tous les durkheimiens, il fut encore le seul à s'y prononcer publiquement. La radicalité de son témoignage ira bien au-delà du fait de remettre en cause la date tout autant que l'objet de cette 'révélation' : pour Richard, la constitution de la sociologie religieuse durkheimienne ne fut en définitive 'rien qu'un moment d'une étude beaucoup plus ample' sur l'obligation. L'originalité de son analyse tient autant au fait d'en avoir vu la source d'inspiration majeure dans le néo-criticisme de Charles Renouvier (parties 1 & 2) que dans celui d'avoir critiqué la sociologie durkheimienne de l'État, qui en était sinon la conclusion, du moins la traduction politique (partie 3). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What was the nature of the 'revelation' and of the appreciation of William Robertson Smith that, in 1907, Émile Durkheim dated to 1895? This article tracks new developments in his thought after 1895, including an emphasis on creative effervescence. But there was also continuity, involving a search for origins that used the ethnology of a living culture to identify early human socioreligious life with totemism in Australia. It is this continuity, at the core of his thought after 1895, which helps to bring out the nature of his 'revelation' and of his homage to Robertson Smith. It also highlights a problem with his start from an already complex Australian world, yet without a suitable evolutionary perspective available to him. However, a modern re-reading can reinstate Durkheim's interest in origins, in a story of hominin/human evolution over millions of years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]