12 research outputs found

    Vannier: La sociologie en toutes lettres

    Get PDF
    Book review of: Vannier, Patricia (Ed.) (2019) La sociologie en toutes lettres: L’histoire de la discipline à travers les correspondances. Toulouse: Presses Universitaires du Midi 284 pp.ISBN: 978-2810706228Price: €23,0

    Compte rendu de Emmanuelle Avril, Pauline Schnapper (eds.), Le Royaume-Uni au XXI siùcle : mutations d’un modùle

    Get PDF
    Le livre coordonnĂ© par Emmanuelle Avril et Pauline Schnapper est une contribution importante Ă  la science politique, la sociologie et l’histoire rĂ©cente du « modĂšle » britannique au XXIe siĂšcle. Peut-on encore parler aujourd’hui d’un modĂšle britannique ? Par modĂšle on entend un exemple qu’on admire, qu’on recopie et qui s’exporte. C’était le cas Ă  partir du XVIIIe et surtout du XIXe siĂšcle oĂč le Royaume-Uni Ă©tait perçu comme un modĂšle de dĂ©mocratie parlementaire, de dĂ©veloppement industriel e..

    ‘Rates of Exchange’ Rather than Intellectual Exchanges: An Unknown Correspondence between Marcel Mauss and Victor Branford (1923–24) about the Franco-British Relationship in Interwar Sociology

    No full text
    the newly found exchange of letters between Marcel Mauss and Victor Branford dated 1926 testifies to the active exchanges between both their traditions. Durkheimian sociology owed a great deal to the Branford-Geddes network of colleagues across the Channel, not less than a funding of the republication of their iconic journal, the Année sociologique. On the other hand, Branford was far from apologetic about his own tradition of thought and even went as far as to criticize the Institut Français de Sociologie in the 1920s. All this shows the enduring links between both countries in the field of sociology, contrary to what has often been held.RésuméUn nouvel échange de lettres entre Marcel Mauss et le sociologue britannique Victor Branford daté de 1926 a été retrouvé. Il dépeint les relations actives qui existÚrent entre deux traditions qu'on a souvent l'habitude d'opposer. Or, il faut noter que c'est grùce au financement par le réseau de Branford et Geddes que Mauss parvint à reprendre la publication de l'Année sociologique en France. De son cÎté, Branford ne se prive pas d'adresser quelques piques à ses collÚgues durkheimiens orthodoxes à l'Institut Français de Sociologie dans les années 20. Tout cela montre la force des liens qui unissent les deux pays en sociologie, contrairement à ce qu'on lit souvent.</section

    A sociology without sociologists ? Britain’s search for a discipline (1904-2014)

    No full text
    Ma thĂšse traite de la sociologie britannique au XXe siĂšcle (1904-2014). Comment expliquer que pendant longtemps, il n’y ait pas eu de sociologie en Grande Bretagne et qu’elle apparaisse si tardivement au XXe siĂšcle ? L’apport principal de mon travail est de montrer qu’une discipline se construit Ă  deux niveaux : d’un cĂŽtĂ© des institutions, de l’autre une identitĂ©. Si les britanniques ont disposĂ© des premiĂšres trĂšs tĂŽt, ils n’ont pas rĂ©ussi Ă  construire la seconde avant les annĂ©es 1960. La sociologie est donc largement restĂ©e une « affaire d’amateurs ». La faiblesse et l’oubli historiographique dont souffre la sociologie britannique tient dans ce simple constat, qui n’a pas grand-chose Ă  voir avec un Ă©chec intellectuel (Soffer, 1982 ; Goldman, 1987) comme on le croit souvent. Le fil rouge de ma thĂšse est donc la question de l’identitĂ© des sociologues. L’absence de frontiĂšres disciplinaires claires en sciences sociales avant les annĂ©es 60 a fait que la sociologie britannique est longtemps restĂ©e insulaire. Cela explique qu’il faille la chercher, notamment hors des universitĂ©s, pour la (re)trouver. Ma thĂšse apporte donc une pierre Ă  l’édifice historique de la sociologie mais elle peut aussi aider les britanniques Ă  s’affirmer comme ce qu’ils sont, une grande nation avec une sociologie originale qui mĂ©rite d'ĂȘtre au panthĂ©on des grandes disciplines. C’est tout le problĂšme du « complexe d’infĂ©rioritĂ© » qui domine les sociologues britanniques jusqu’à nos jours, alors mĂȘme que la sociologie y est florissante. Il lui reste Ă  gagner, toujours, en lĂ©gitimitĂ© – Ă  la fois sociale et scientifique. » Enfin cette thĂšse utilise des archives inĂ©dites des universitĂ©s, du Parlement et des sources primaires ainsi que N=11 entretiens et une base de donnĂ©es de N=1 565 articles sociologiques pour montrer Ă  quel point la sociologie britannique contemporaine est l’égal d’autres grands sociologies occidentales dĂ©sormais.This dissertation seeks to explain the peculiar development of British sociology in the 20th century (1904-2014). Why did it take it so long to emerge? Is it true to say that there is such things as “a British tradition in sociology?”. This thesis argues that British sociologists had institutions very early on, but lacked a coherent and cogent definition of themselves. In other words, British sociologists had institutions but no identity. This impacted on the definition of a discipline in universities, and thus its lack of recognition among academics. We therefore explore the long-running trend of “extra-mural” sociology and show how important it was for the post-WWII discipline, when the professionalisation of sociologists started as a process. It remains that British sociology was mostly insular and “parochial” for most of the twentieth century. However, our last chapter shows that British sociologists are coming to terms with the current intellectual situation in the world. British sociology has never been so lively and is on a par with all the other “grand sociologies” in the western World nowadays. But they need to realise that. To argue that sociologists lacked a definition of their discipline and still suffer from an “inferiority complex” both socially and intellectually, we use previously unused archives from universities and the Parliament, printed sociological sources such as journals, novels and newspapers as well as interviews with N=11 contemporary British sociologists and a database of N=1565 recent articles in sociology

    A sociology without sociologists ? Britain’s search for a discipline (1904-2014)

    No full text
    Ma thĂšse traite de la sociologie britannique au XXe siĂšcle (1904-2014). Comment expliquer que pendant longtemps, il n’y ait pas eu de sociologie en Grande Bretagne et qu’elle apparaisse si tardivement au XXe siĂšcle ? L’apport principal de mon travail est de montrer qu’une discipline se construit Ă  deux niveaux : d’un cĂŽtĂ© des institutions, de l’autre une identitĂ©. Si les britanniques ont disposĂ© des premiĂšres trĂšs tĂŽt, ils n’ont pas rĂ©ussi Ă  construire la seconde avant les annĂ©es 1960. La sociologie est donc largement restĂ©e une « affaire d’amateurs ». La faiblesse et l’oubli historiographique dont souffre la sociologie britannique tient dans ce simple constat, qui n’a pas grand-chose Ă  voir avec un Ă©chec intellectuel (Soffer, 1982 ; Goldman, 1987) comme on le croit souvent. Le fil rouge de ma thĂšse est donc la question de l’identitĂ© des sociologues. L’absence de frontiĂšres disciplinaires claires en sciences sociales avant les annĂ©es 60 a fait que la sociologie britannique est longtemps restĂ©e insulaire. Cela explique qu’il faille la chercher, notamment hors des universitĂ©s, pour la (re)trouver. Ma thĂšse apporte donc une pierre Ă  l’édifice historique de la sociologie mais elle peut aussi aider les britanniques Ă  s’affirmer comme ce qu’ils sont, une grande nation avec une sociologie originale qui mĂ©rite d'ĂȘtre au panthĂ©on des grandes disciplines. C’est tout le problĂšme du « complexe d’infĂ©rioritĂ© » qui domine les sociologues britanniques jusqu’à nos jours, alors mĂȘme que la sociologie y est florissante. Il lui reste Ă  gagner, toujours, en lĂ©gitimitĂ© – Ă  la fois sociale et scientifique. » Enfin cette thĂšse utilise des archives inĂ©dites des universitĂ©s, du Parlement et des sources primaires ainsi que N=11 entretiens et une base de donnĂ©es de N=1 565 articles sociologiques pour montrer Ă  quel point la sociologie britannique contemporaine est l’égal d’autres grands sociologies occidentales dĂ©sormais.This dissertation seeks to explain the peculiar development of British sociology in the 20th century (1904-2014). Why did it take it so long to emerge? Is it true to say that there is such things as “a British tradition in sociology?”. This thesis argues that British sociologists had institutions very early on, but lacked a coherent and cogent definition of themselves. In other words, British sociologists had institutions but no identity. This impacted on the definition of a discipline in universities, and thus its lack of recognition among academics. We therefore explore the long-running trend of “extra-mural” sociology and show how important it was for the post-WWII discipline, when the professionalisation of sociologists started as a process. It remains that British sociology was mostly insular and “parochial” for most of the twentieth century. However, our last chapter shows that British sociologists are coming to terms with the current intellectual situation in the world. British sociology has never been so lively and is on a par with all the other “grand sociologies” in the western World nowadays. But they need to realise that. To argue that sociologists lacked a definition of their discipline and still suffer from an “inferiority complex” both socially and intellectually, we use previously unused archives from universities and the Parliament, printed sociological sources such as journals, novels and newspapers as well as interviews with N=11 contemporary British sociologists and a database of N=1565 recent articles in sociology

    Une sociologie sans sociologues ? Les Britanniques en quĂȘte d'une discipline (1904-2014)

    No full text
    This dissertation seeks to explain the peculiar development of British sociology in the 20th century (1904-2014). Why did it take it so long to emerge? Is it true to say that there is such things as “a British tradition in sociology?”. This thesis argues that British sociologists had institutions very early on, but lacked a coherent and cogent definition of themselves. In other words, British sociologists had institutions but no identity. This impacted on the definition of a discipline in universities, and thus its lack of recognition among academics. We therefore explore the long-running trend of “extra-mural” sociology and show how important it was for the post-WWII discipline, when the professionalisation of sociologists started as a process. It remains that British sociology was mostly insular and “parochial” for most of the twentieth century. However, our last chapter shows that British sociologists are coming to terms with the current intellectual situation in the world. British sociology has never been so lively and is on a par with all the other “grand sociologies” in the western World nowadays. But they need to realise that. To argue that sociologists lacked a definition of their discipline and still suffer from an “inferiority complex” both socially and intellectually, we use previously unused archives from universities and the Parliament, printed sociological sources such as journals, novels and newspapers as well as interviews with N=11 contemporary British sociologists and a database of N=1565 recent articles in sociology.Ma thĂšse traite de la sociologie britannique au XXe siĂšcle (1904-2014). Comment expliquer que pendant longtemps, il n’y ait pas eu de sociologie en Grande Bretagne et qu’elle apparaisse si tardivement au XXe siĂšcle ? L’apport principal de mon travail est de montrer qu’une discipline se construit Ă  deux niveaux : d’un cĂŽtĂ© des institutions, de l’autre une identitĂ©. Si les britanniques ont disposĂ© des premiĂšres trĂšs tĂŽt, ils n’ont pas rĂ©ussi Ă  construire la seconde avant les annĂ©es 1960. La sociologie est donc largement restĂ©e une « affaire d’amateurs ». La faiblesse et l’oubli historiographique dont souffre la sociologie britannique tient dans ce simple constat, qui n’a pas grand-chose Ă  voir avec un Ă©chec intellectuel (Soffer, 1982 ; Goldman, 1987) comme on le croit souvent. Le fil rouge de ma thĂšse est donc la question de l’identitĂ© des sociologues. L’absence de frontiĂšres disciplinaires claires en sciences sociales avant les annĂ©es 60 a fait que la sociologie britannique est longtemps restĂ©e insulaire. Cela explique qu’il faille la chercher, notamment hors des universitĂ©s, pour la (re)trouver. Ma thĂšse apporte donc une pierre Ă  l’édifice historique de la sociologie mais elle peut aussi aider les britanniques Ă  s’affirmer comme ce qu’ils sont, une grande nation avec une sociologie originale qui mĂ©rite d'ĂȘtre au panthĂ©on des grandes disciplines. C’est tout le problĂšme du « complexe d’infĂ©rioritĂ© » qui domine les sociologues britanniques jusqu’à nos jours, alors mĂȘme que la sociologie y est florissante. Il lui reste Ă  gagner, toujours, en lĂ©gitimitĂ© – Ă  la fois sociale et scientifique. » Enfin cette thĂšse utilise des archives inĂ©dites des universitĂ©s, du Parlement et des sources primaires ainsi que N=11 entretiens et une base de donnĂ©es de N=1 565 articles sociologiques pour montrer Ă  quel point la sociologie britannique contemporaine est l’égal d’autres grands sociologies occidentales dĂ©sormais

    The British sociological tradition in the interwar years (1920-1940)

    No full text
    This thesis argues that there was a strong tradition of British sociological thought that developed in the interwar years (1920-1940) at the LSE but also outside universities under the guise of 'public sociology', 'social surveys' and 'the sociological imagination'. Sociology was seen here specifically as a democratic, reflexive discipline supposed to entail change by individuals and fostered by philanthropy as opposed to the French, academic and ex cathedra approach of collective institutions fostered by the State. It was especially under the heading of 'new anthropology' that Radcliffe-Brown and Malinowski developed their own version of it, and social anthropology is still remembered today as the 'real', most successful school of British sociology, paradoxically. Both strands represent the British sociological tradition at its best and the thesis concludes that despite two different names (Durkheim's sociologie and Malinowski's 'modern anthropology') and contexts (that of a Republic versus that of an Empire), both sciences shared a similar humanistic concern for European modernity and for the preservation of societies. This uncovers the world-enriching specificities of Britain to world sociology (the birth of a public sociology, the tradition of the social survey and the development of the sociological imagination) that only became apparent after WWII. This thesis is thus an original contribution to the field which sheds a brand new light on an old problem thanks to 1) a comparative approach between Britain and France which has never been attempted before 2) taking into account not only the institutional history but also the intellectual history and sociological ideas 3) drawing on previously unused material such as book reviews from the journal l'Année sociologique and interwar textbooks to study the reception of British sociology in France 4) finding the contours of its specific national tradition 5) extending our knowledge of the discipline in the interwar years.</p

    The British sociological tradition in the interwar years (1920-1940)

    No full text
    This thesis argues that there was a strong tradition of British sociological thought that developed in the interwar years (1920-1940) at the LSE but also outside universities under the guise of 'public sociology', 'social surveys' and 'the sociological imagination'. Sociology was seen here specifically as a democratic, reflexive discipline supposed to entail change by individuals and fostered by philanthropy as opposed to the French, academic and ex cathedra approach of collective institutions fostered by the State. It was especially under the heading of 'new anthropology' that Radcliffe-Brown and Malinowski developed their own version of it, and social anthropology is still remembered today as the 'real', most successful school of British sociology, paradoxically. Both strands represent the British sociological tradition at its best and the thesis concludes that despite two different names (Durkheim's sociologie and Malinowski's 'modern anthropology') and contexts (that of a Republic versus that of an Empire), both sciences shared a similar humanistic concern for European modernity and for the preservation of societies. This uncovers the world-enriching specificities of Britain to world sociology (the birth of a public sociology, the tradition of the social survey and the development of the sociological imagination) that only became apparent after WWII. This thesis is thus an original contribution to the field which sheds a brand new light on an old problem thanks to 1) a comparative approach between Britain and France which has never been attempted before 2) taking into account not only the institutional history but also the intellectual history and sociological ideas 3) drawing on previously unused material such as book reviews from the journal l'Ann&eacute;e sociologique and interwar textbooks to study the reception of British sociology in France 4) finding the contours of its specific national tradition 5) extending our knowledge of the discipline in the interwar years.</p

    A sociology without sociologists ? Britain’s search for a discipline (1904-2014)

    No full text
    Ma thĂšse traite de la sociologie britannique au XXe siĂšcle (1904-2014). Comment expliquer que pendant longtemps, il n’y ait pas eu de sociologie en Grande Bretagne et qu’elle apparaisse si tardivement au XXe siĂšcle ? L’apport principal de mon travail est de montrer qu’une discipline se construit Ă  deux niveaux : d’un cĂŽtĂ© des institutions, de l’autre une identitĂ©. Si les britanniques ont disposĂ© des premiĂšres trĂšs tĂŽt, ils n’ont pas rĂ©ussi Ă  construire la seconde avant les annĂ©es 1960. La sociologie est donc largement restĂ©e une « affaire d’amateurs ». La faiblesse et l’oubli historiographique dont souffre la sociologie britannique tient dans ce simple constat, qui n’a pas grand-chose Ă  voir avec un Ă©chec intellectuel (Soffer, 1982 ; Goldman, 1987) comme on le croit souvent. Le fil rouge de ma thĂšse est donc la question de l’identitĂ© des sociologues. L’absence de frontiĂšres disciplinaires claires en sciences sociales avant les annĂ©es 60 a fait que la sociologie britannique est longtemps restĂ©e insulaire. Cela explique qu’il faille la chercher, notamment hors des universitĂ©s, pour la (re)trouver. Ma thĂšse apporte donc une pierre Ă  l’édifice historique de la sociologie mais elle peut aussi aider les britanniques Ă  s’affirmer comme ce qu’ils sont, une grande nation avec une sociologie originale qui mĂ©rite d'ĂȘtre au panthĂ©on des grandes disciplines. C’est tout le problĂšme du « complexe d’infĂ©rioritĂ© » qui domine les sociologues britanniques jusqu’à nos jours, alors mĂȘme que la sociologie y est florissante. Il lui reste Ă  gagner, toujours, en lĂ©gitimitĂ© – Ă  la fois sociale et scientifique. » Enfin cette thĂšse utilise des archives inĂ©dites des universitĂ©s, du Parlement et des sources primaires ainsi que N=11 entretiens et une base de donnĂ©es de N=1 565 articles sociologiques pour montrer Ă  quel point la sociologie britannique contemporaine est l’égal d’autres grands sociologies occidentales dĂ©sormais.This dissertation seeks to explain the peculiar development of British sociology in the 20th century (1904-2014). Why did it take it so long to emerge? Is it true to say that there is such things as “a British tradition in sociology?”. This thesis argues that British sociologists had institutions very early on, but lacked a coherent and cogent definition of themselves. In other words, British sociologists had institutions but no identity. This impacted on the definition of a discipline in universities, and thus its lack of recognition among academics. We therefore explore the long-running trend of “extra-mural” sociology and show how important it was for the post-WWII discipline, when the professionalisation of sociologists started as a process. It remains that British sociology was mostly insular and “parochial” for most of the twentieth century. However, our last chapter shows that British sociologists are coming to terms with the current intellectual situation in the world. British sociology has never been so lively and is on a par with all the other “grand sociologies” in the western World nowadays. But they need to realise that. To argue that sociologists lacked a definition of their discipline and still suffer from an “inferiority complex” both socially and intellectually, we use previously unused archives from universities and the Parliament, printed sociological sources such as journals, novels and newspapers as well as interviews with N=11 contemporary British sociologists and a database of N=1565 recent articles in sociology
    corecore