Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T23:42:00.487Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Testing Durkheim: Some Theoretical Considerations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2024

Gerald Turkel
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Empirical tests of Durkheim's legal theories can neither confirm nor refute their central hypotheses. Rather than serving to substantiate or refute theoretical propositions, empirical evidence is best conceptualized as providing for the specification and elaboration of a research program. In the case of Durkheim's legal theories, the programmatic effort is to use social science to help resolve the major social, moral, and legal tensions characteristic of modern society. In this light, Durkheim's legal theories are viewed as comparative and contextual, containing insights into the relationship between law and the social constitution of morality.

Type
Research Article
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , Spring 1979 , pp. 721 - 738
Copyright
Copyright © 1979 Law and Society Association.

Footnotes

*

I wish to thank Paul Colomy for helping to formulate methodological and theoretical perspectives in earlier drafts of this paper.

References

Baxi, Upendra (1974) “Durkheim and Legal Evolution: Some Problems of Disproof,” 8 Law and Society Review 645.Google Scholar
Bendix, Reinhard (1964) Nation-Building and Citizenship: Studies of Our Changing Social Order, 1977 ed. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Bnttner, Egon (1973) “Objectivity and Realism in Sociology,” in Psathas, G. (ed.), Phenomenological Sociology: Issues and Applications. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Chambliss, William J. and Seidman, Robert B. (1971) Law, Order and Power. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Cicourel, Aaron (1964) Method and Measurement in Sociology. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Durkheim, Emile (1933) The Division of Labor in Society, 1964 ed. Translated by George Simpson, New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Durkheim, Emile (1938) The Rules of Sociological Method, 1964 ed. Translated by Sarah A. Solovay and John H. Mueller and edited by George E.G. Catlin. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Durkheim, Emile (1953) Sociology and Philosophy, 1974 ed. Translated by D.F. Pocock with an introduction by J.G. Peristiany. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Durkheim, Emile (1972) Selected Writings. Edited and translated by Anthony Giddens. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gusfield, Joseph R. (1963) Symbolic Crusade: Status Politics and the American Temperance Movement. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen (1971) Knowledge and Human Interests. Translated by Shapiro, Jeremy J.. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Harding, Sandra (ed.) (1976) Can Theories be Refuted?: Essays on the Duhem-Quine Thesis. Boston: D. Reidel Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hay, Douglas (1975) “Property, Authority and Criminal Law,” in D. Hay, P. Linebaugh, J. Rule, E. Thompson and C. Winslow, Albion's Fatal Tree: Crime and Society in Eighteenth-Century England. London: Allen Lane, Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. (1970a) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. (1970b) “Logic of Discovery or Psychology of Research?,” in Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lakatos, Imre (1970) “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes,” in Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. London: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marx, Karl (1972) “The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte,” in Tucker, R. (ed.), The Marx-Engels Reader. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Schwartz, Richard (1965) “Reply,” 70 American Joural of Sociology 627.Google Scholar
Schwartz, Richard (1974) “Legal Evolution and the Durkheim Hypothesis: A Reply to Professor Baxi,” 8 Law and Society Review 653.Google Scholar
Schwartz, Richard and Miller, James (1964) “Legal Evolution and Societal Complexity,” 70 American Journal of Sociology 159.Google Scholar
Spitzer, Steven (1975) “Punishment and Social Organization: A Study of Durkheim's Theory of Penal Evolution,” 9 Law and Society Review 613.Google Scholar
Udy, Stanley (1965) “Dynamic Inferences from Static Data,” 70 American Journal of Sociology 625.Google Scholar
Wimberley, Howard (1973) “Legal Evolution: One Further Step,” 79 American Journal of Sociology 78.Google Scholar