Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorFabiani, Jean-Louis
dc.date.accessioned2023-07-24T12:03:21Z
dc.date.available2023-07-24T12:03:21Z
dc.date.issued2023-07-05
dc.identifier.issn0003-1232
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s12108-023-09584-1
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14018/14057
dc.description.abstractThe contribution is based on Robert Bellah’s introduction to Emile Durkheim on Morality and Society (1973) and second on other references to the French sociologist in Bellah’s work as well as in Bortolini’s insightful remarks on the “homology” between Durkheim and Bellah. The publication of the book took place in a time of Durkheimian effervescence: Steven Lukes’ Emile Durkheim. His Life and Work was published on the same year and a new Durkheimology appeared in the English-speaking world: attention shifted from methodology, as expressed in Suicide or in the Rules of Sociological Method, to morality with a focus on the moral basis on a non-pathological society. Bellah’s statement is quite strong: Durkheim can “be seen as a theologian of French civil religion”. The paper will examine this point of view with respect to the state of French society at the turn of the century and Durkheim’s social project. One side question concerns the choice of texts: the editor did not give enough weight to texts that might have strengthen Bellah’s point of view, particularly l’Education morale. Bortolini mentions Bob’s long and silent work on Durkheim and his critique of mainstream analysis of The Elementary forms of Religious Life, reducing religion to a mere projection of society (:142). The biographer insists on the ambivalent, if not contradictory, vision of Durkheim in Bellah’s work, in which he finds a key to the interpretation of the oeuvre. The article focuses on how to account for its complexity, which is never as clear as in the interpretation of Durkheim’s sociology in a post-rationalist direction. Bortolini’s concept of role model/hero incarnated by the founding fathers (here Weber and Durkheim) is analyzed in connection with Parsons’ reconstitution of a pantheon. The question of civil religion is reexamined in the light of the transatlantic transfers carrying different meanings of civil religion.
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherSpringeren_US
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
dc.subjectCivil religionen_US
dc.subjectEffervescenceen_US
dc.subjectCrisisen_US
dc.subjectSecularismen_US
dc.subjectHeroen_US
dc.subjectReinventionen_US
dc.subjectSubjectivityen_US
dc.titleBellah’s Durkheim: A fruitful reinvention?en_US
dc.typeJournal article
dc.source.journaltitleThe American Sociologist
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_US
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1007/s12108-023-09584-1en_US
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_US
refterms.dateFCD2023-07-24T12:03:21Z
refterms.versionFCDVoR
refterms.dateFOA2023-07-24T12:03:21Z
html.description.abstractThe contribution is based on Robert Bellah’s introduction to Emile Durkheim on Morality and Society (1973) and second on other references to the French sociologist in Bellah’s work as well as in Bortolini’s insightful remarks on the “homology” between Durkheim and Bellah. The publication of the book took place in a time of Durkheimian effervescence: Steven Lukes’ Emile Durkheim. His Life and Work was published on the same year and a new Durkheimology appeared in the English-speaking world: attention shifted from methodology, as expressed in Suicide or in the Rules of Sociological Method, to morality with a focus on the moral basis on a non-pathological society. Bellah’s statement is quite strong: Durkheim can “be seen as a theologian of French civil religion”. The paper will examine this point of view with respect to the state of French society at the turn of the century and Durkheim’s social project. One side question concerns the choice of texts: the editor did not give enough weight to texts that might have strengthen Bellah’s point of view, particularly l’Education morale. Bortolini mentions Bob’s long and silent work on Durkheim and his critique of mainstream analysis of The Elementary forms of Religious Life, reducing religion to a mere projection of society (:142). The biographer insists on the ambivalent, if not contradictory, vision of Durkheim in Bellah’s work, in which he finds a key to the interpretation of the oeuvre. The article focuses on how to account for its complexity, which is never as clear as in the interpretation of Durkheim’s sociology in a post-rationalist direction. Bortolini’s concept of role model/hero incarnated by the founding fathers (here Weber and Durkheim) is analyzed in connection with Parsons’ reconstitution of a pantheon. The question of civil religion is reexamined in the light of the transatlantic transfers carrying different meanings of civil religion.en_US
dc.identifier.eissn1936-4784
dc.identifier.pii9584
dc.description.sponsorshipCentral European University Private Universityen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
Fabiani-Jean-Luis_2023.pdf
Size:
601.3Kb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0