The early Showa period is a very important era to analyze a study on the history of French sociology in Japan. This is largely because of the fact that Durkheim's, Durkheimien's, and anti-Durkheimien's sociology, for example, the international school created by Worms, were imported actively into Japan from France in that time. There was an important journal, Shakaigakuto, which introduced those French sociologies actively in this period. Shakaigakuto were published eighteen volumes between 1927-44, and made a great contribution to produce Japanese French sociology researchers and a lot of achievements of study on French sociology. The purpose of this paper is to resolve the study process of French sociology in Japan in the early Showa period by analyzing the results appeared in Shakaigakuto. In addition, this paper enables to clarify that French sociology after Durkheim and the period between two wars was not the winter age of French sociology.
Durkheim's concept of "collective force" was profoundly inspired by Proudhon's sociological theory. "Society is not a mere sum of individuals." This is a well-known phrase commonly attributed to Durkheim, however, we can find an almost similar idea in Proudhon's writings, especially in his System of Economical Contradictions (1846). Although Durkheim had been deeply studying on Proudhon's socialist idea for some time, he was very careful not to state his worship for Proudhon. It seems that he was too close to Proudhon to show his intimacy frankly. Georges Sorel stands on the other side. Sorel confessed that he was a disciple of Proudhon. In his eyes, Durkheim was a coward, or a sort of deserter. He thought this kind of intellectuals was difficult to deal with. Sometimes they could be the most malicious enemy against socialism. The apparent enmity between Sorel and Durkheim would be dissolved, if we observe their conceptual similitude about religious phenomenon. Durkheim's sociological concept of "collective effervescence" and Sorel's vital concept of "revolutionary myth", both praised people's irrational action based on their collective conscience. We can say that Durkheim and Sorel had the same root in proudhonien moral socialism.
As is generally known, Durkheim's practical interest was directed to the integration and reform of France as a nation-state under the Third Republic. However, in order to understand his interest adequately, it is necessary to inquire into how he defined the French nationhood, in other words, basis of national identity of France. In general, as to the basis of nationhood, there are two opposite points of view: the one is individualistic and universalistic standpoint that stemmed from French Enlightenment, the other is collectivistic and particularistic one that is mainly advocated by German Romanticism. While supporting universalism of the former, Durkheim decisively rejected its premise that nation was essentially formed of contract resulted from individuals' free will. On the other hand, approving of both collectivistic perspective and stress on historical tradition of the latter, he could not side with its particularistic cultural nationalism. In this critical synthesis, Durkheim searched for the compatibility of historical tradition of France as a collective personality and humanistic universalism that would transcend narrow ethnocentrism of his day. Durkheim's solution was to think that universalism of France was immanent in France's own historical tradition and fostered by it over a long period of time. The concept of "moral individualism" was crucial in this respect, for in Durkheim's thinking "moral individualism" seen as system of beliefs of the French nation was the very ideal that not only embodied universalistic principle which told people to respect human personality, but also was deeply rooted in French history. Therefore, the main objective of this article is to study Durkheim's understanding of French nationhood through examining his "moral individualism" and its historical background.
Nous allons montrer, dans cette etude, comment un criminologue celebre pour son epoque, Gabriel Tarde, a traite de la criminalite en s'appuyant sur sa theorie de limitation. Cette problematique est souvent jugee trop banale, quand on dit que Tarde l'a appliquee a tous les phenomenes. Mais l'application theorique ne semble pas aller de soi: dans ses etudes approfondies sur l'histoire de la sociologie, Laurent Mucchielli affirme que la theorie de l'imitation n'apparaissait <<dans son oeuvre criminologique que de maniere presqu'incidente, comme surajoutee>> (Mucchielli, 1994b: 296). Peut-on admettre, avec lui, que la theorie de l'imitation n'est pas tres importante dans la criminologie tardienne? Nous devons bien verifier la Write puisque c'est une idee principale chez Tarde. Nous commencerons par comparer la criminologie de Tarde avec les autres pensees penales de son epoque: ecole classique et ecole positiviste (paragraphe I). Puis nous verrons comment Tarde a trouve que les facteurs physiques et physiologiques jouent le role moins important que les facteurs sociaux dans la regularite de la criminalite (paragraphe II). Nous montrerons aussi que Tarde a etabli sa theorie criminologique sur la base de la notion d'imitation. Nous envisagerons ses idees sous les quatre aspects de l'imitation: l'hypnotisme, la socialisation, la coutume et la mode (paragraphe III), la conclusion etant que, dans l'etablissement de la sociologie criminelle, Tarde a joue un role plus important que Mucchielli ne le pense.