Russian sociology: the second coming of August Comte

American Journal of Economics and Sociology, The,  April, 1994  by David J. Gray

• E-mail
• Print
• Link

Sigmund Freud was a special case. Noting that he was not a sociologist, I briefly mentioned his analysis of the fundamental conflict between man and society which fostered a psychic struggle of id versus superego. While my ultimate aim was to introduce the social psychological perspectives of Charles H. Cooley and George Herbert Mead, Russian interest was greater in the preliminaries than the main event. Freud's name alone might constitute a large part of the explanation. He was known, though his ideas had been "strictly forbidden"--perhaps because, as one student expressed it, "under socialism we were taught that man and society are not incompatible." As other heads nodded in agreement, it seemed that, in addition to his name, Freud's conflict perspective now was welcomed intellectually as a breath of fresh, more realistic, air. One cannot be certain, but some confirmation for this interpretation is provided by the fact that Mead's model of self, emphasizing internal symbolic tension between the "I" and the "me," was discussed more fully and enthusiastically than Cooley's more compatible view of self and society.

Most surprising of all, and I believe, most instructive concerning the state of contemporary Russian sociology, was a strongly expressed interest in Emile Durkheim and August Comte. Parenthetically, to acknowledge my own preferences in an effort to dismiss them, I long have respected the ideas of Durkheim but, in teaching the history of social thought, have "covered" those of Comte more out of sociological duty than intellectual interest. That said, at Novosibirsk State University Durkheim and Comte commanded considerable Russian attention, more so than, say, Simmel, whom I would have preferred.

IV

The Appeal of Durkheim and Comte

CAUTION IS APPROPRIATE in attempting to explain the subjective preferences of others. Yet, in this instance, several relationships are pertinent. First, both Durkheim and Comte were functionalists who viewed society as an organic whole. (The Russian experience has been totalitarian.) Second, functionalists generally have included dysfunctional elements in their analyses of the social order, specifically labelled "pathological" by Comte (a term which may not seem an exaggeration to Russians viewing their current state of social disarray.) Third, and most vital since most compatible with the way in which Russian sociologists see their professional role, both Durkheim and Comte favored enlightened social policy and reform, a matter of great contemporary interest to Russians.

Western sociologists, stressing the value of scientific objectivity, have emphasized Durkheim's statistically based analysis of the social conditions of suicide as a model of social scientific work. Yet, Durkheim's concluding chapter of Suicide, titled "Practical Consequences," indicates that objective analysis is preliminary to considerations of social policy. "Is the evil (suicide) then incurable?" Durkheim asks. And further, "By what means shall we try to overcome it?"|18~ Broad suggestions favoring occupational decentralization and increased social solidarity to curtail suicide in modern society follow as Durkheim concludes. While American sociologists have valued Durkheim's pioneering analysis of suicide as an outstanding instance of social scientific research, Russian sociologists are more inclined to emphasize Durkheim's final view that the purpose of objective social knowledge is enlightened social reform.