In the English-speaking world, at least, it seems straightforward to talk of the social. We might slip phrases such as the “end of the social” into our essays, lectures, conversations or papers. We think that we know what we mean. But do we? As will be seen throughout the course of this book, it is interesting to note the lack of the use of the phrase “the social” in the works of Durkheim, Marx and Weber. The same applies to later writers such as Parsons (1951, 1968a, 1968b) and Giddens (1984).

The following chapters will, through their readings of Durkheim, Marx and Weber, argue that none of these writers had a fixed conception of “society”, and it is only Weber who develops a clear conception of what constitutes “sociality”. As I have already indicated, it will turn out that the notion of the social hardly ever arises in these texts. This leads to the obvious but important question of why, if Durkheim, Marx and Weber do not talk of “the social”, has this concept been made a mainstay of the book? Is it not unfair or unwise to interrogate Durkheim, Marx and Weber with respect to a concept that they do not seem to recognize? The simple answer is that “the social” has become a problem for us. Although I have been unable to unearth exactly when the phrase “the social” was first used, I am tempted to state that it was first taken seriously and gained prominence as a stand-alone concept when social theorists started to argue that we are “at the end of the social” (for example, Baudrillard 1982, 2007). This is perhaps why discussions of the concept are so urgent today. They signal an uncertainty as to the very foundations and possibility of social theory, sociology and social research.