Search

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Sociology is the property of Canadian Journal of Sociology 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.)

This paper analyzes Durkheim's concepts of society and collective representation in order to get an insight of the self-justification dilemma of modern society. Though Durkheim studied the primitive religion in The Elementary Form of Religious Life, he concerned more about the dilemma of modern society, especially excessive individualism. On one hand, Durkheim inherited the social contract tradition, emphasizing society being a creation of the individuals. Durkheim' s society could be traced back to social theology, different from Milband's thought that society was created and given by the God. The author argues that Durkheim's society, a human aritificum, depends more on the individuals. Firstly, the moral force of society grounds in the inner heart of the individuals. Secondly, society depends on individuals' periodic participation to reproduce it. On the other hand, Durkheim didn't agree with what the social contract tradition contended, I. e. , society generates merely from individuals' convention. He wanted to argue for society's primacy and priority. In order to resolve this tension, he introduced the theory of collective representation. Collective representations come from the interaction of the individuals when they participate in the assembly or collective effervescence, and they are so like the production from the reaction of chemical reaction that can't be reduced to the contracts or conventions among the individuals. So they are the production of the society itself, which are prior to the individuals. Through the totemic forms or symbolic signs, they not only express the individuals' emotion or affection of the society, but also become the intermediaries of the periodical reproduction of the society. In other words, collective representations not only represent the relationship between the individual and the society, but also create that relationship. Further, the theory of collective representation concerned with Durkheim' s re-interpretation of the French Revolution. He" opposed other scholars' interpretation of the French Revolution as a production of individuals' free will and reinterpreted it as a periodic reproduction of the society by itself. The sacredness of the collective representation neither depends on the God who is above society, nor grounds on each individual's will. On the contrary, it is social and results from the periodic reproduction of society. But the author doesn't think that the theory of collective representation can adequately account for the heritage of the Revolution. Collective effervescences and representations can't provide a stable and sufficient moral foundation for society to replace the foundation of individualism for modern thought. The sacredness of society has to depend on individuals' periodic participation, reproduction, and maintenance. However, without defining the essence of happiness and goodness, this artificial sacredness is nothing but an empty form that may be filled with various dogmas and opinions to induce individuals into dangerous worship instead of providing society with a stable foundation. This just reflects the problem of the self-justification of modern society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]