Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T19:16:57.462Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Communauté et société, Collingwood contre les sociologues

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 April 2009

Laurent Jaffro
Affiliation:
Université Blaise Pascal, Clermont-Ferrand

Abstract

The opposition between community and society set out by Collingwood in his New Leviathan (1942) should be compared with the distinction between Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft that Tönnies had introduced in 1887. The debate on ideal types of social organizations apparently pertains to «pure sociology» and was continued by Durkheim and Weber. However, Collingwood's use of this distinction may be construed as an attack on the very idea of sociology in the name of the primacy of rational will.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Philosophical Association 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Réferences bibliographique

Adair-Toteff, C. 1995 «Ferdinand Tönnies: Utopian Visionary», Sociological Theory, vol. 13, n° 1, p. 5865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aldous, J. 1972 «An Exchange between Durkheim and Tönnies on the Nature of Social Relations», The American Journal of Sociology, vol. 77, no6, p. 11911200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bond, N. 2002 «Le refus de la bürgerliche Gesellschaft et la genèse de la sociologiemoderne allemande: l'exemple de Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft de Ferdinand Tönnies», dans C. Colliot-Thélène et J.-F. Kervégan, dir., De la société à la sociologie, Lyon, ENS éditions, p. 93120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breuer, S. 2002 «De Tönnies à Weber. Sur l'existence d'un “courant allemand” en sociologie», dans C. Colliot-Thélène et J.-F. Kervégan, dir., De la société à la sociologie, Lyon, ENS éditions, p. 121147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collingwood, R. G. 1989 Essays in Political Philosophy, Oxford, Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Collingwood, R. G. 2001 Le Nouveau Léviathan, trad. par L. Carrive, Paris, Kimé.Google Scholar
Connelly, J. 2007 «Character, Duty and Historical Consciousness», dans W. Sweet, dir., British Idealism: Moral, Social and Political Philosophy, Exeter, Imprint Academic.Google Scholar
Durkheim, E. 1975 «Communauté et société selon Tönnies (1889)», dans E. Durkheim, Textes 1, Paris, Minuit, p. 383390.Google Scholar
Maine, H. S. 1861 Ancient Law: Its Connection with the Early History of Society and Its Relations to Modern Ideas, Londres, Murray.Google Scholar
Mestrovic, S. 1989 «Rethinking the Will and Idea of Sociology in the Light of Schopenhauer's Philosophy», The British Journal of Sociology, vol. 40, no 2, p. 271293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitzman, A. 1971 «Tönnies and German Society, 1887–1914: From Cultural Pessimism to Celebration of the Volksgemeinschaft», Journal of the History of Ideas, vol. 32, no4, p. 507524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, L. H. 1877 Ancient Society or Researches in the Lines of Human Progress from Savagery through Barbarism to Civilization, Londres, Macmillan Press.Google Scholar
Orenstein, H. 1968 «The Ethnological Theories of Henry Sumner Maine», American Anthropologist, vol. 70, no2, p. 264276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, A. 2000 Repenser l'inégalité, trad. par P. Chemla, Paris, Seuil.Google Scholar
Tönnies, F. 1940 Fundamental Concepts of Sociology, trad. par Ch. Loomis, New York, American Book Company.Google Scholar
Tönnies, F. 1944 Communauté et société. Catégories fondamentales de la sociologie pure, trad. de la 8e édition par J. Leif, Paris, Presses universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Vance, R. B. 1941 «Fundamental Concepts of Sociology (Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft) by Ferdinand Tönnies», Social Forces, vol. 20, no 2, p. 272273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, M. 2003 Économie et société, trad. par J. Freund, P. Kamnitzer, P. Bertrand, et al., Paris, Pocket.Google Scholar
Wirth, L. 1926 «The Sociology of Ferdinand Tönnies», The American Journal of Sociology, vol. 32, no3, p. 412422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar