Social Theory

Mike Gane, French Social Theory, Sage, London, 2003. (207 pp.)
In French Social Theory Mike Gane has produced an absorbing look at the
development of social theory in France from St. Simon to Baudrillard. Written, I
assume, for an English speaking audience, this short but dense text illustrates
not only the depth of Gane’s scholarship but also his ability to understand and
delineate the nuances of French social theory that have intrigued sociologists in
the English-speaking world since the 1960s. As a background to his discussion,
Gane reminds us that social theory in France does not exist, but is a zone
between literary and cultural theory (p. viii) and that methodology is more than a
set of positivist techniques (p.73).
Since theory, an abstract set of ordered ideas, is essential for the construction of
any science; the development of “sociology” is then dependent on its history. By
linking the progress of ideas about society to political context of French history,
Gane uses Comtean sociology to analyze the development of social theory. He
then constructs this history by following the sociological template introduced by
St. Simon and Comte, and divides the search for the “social” into three periods
creating a cycle of social theory: birth/altruism (1800-1879), rebirth/anomie
(1880-1939) and second rebirth/hypertelia (1940-2000).
The first cycle (altruism) is a sweeping narrative of the “social” in the theories of
St. Simon and Comte. It starts with the post-revolutionary void (1815) when
France faced reconstruction “without models, without theories” (p.3). This first
cycle centres on sociology’s relation to religion and Comte’s learning from
progress in mathematics, astronomy, physics, chemistry and biology. Gane
emphasizes that Comte’s analysis is organized around the development of a
“fundamental theory” (p.16) or positive philosophy to harmonize the sciences
into a general theoretical system. In order to emphasize the birth of sociology
and the “social” Comte “coined the word ‘altruism’ … to define that form of
action contrasted with egoism” (p. 9). The section ends with the work of Littré,
Comte’s disciple, who attempted to revise his teacher’s utopian notions and place
the “social” within the confines of the law. Littré fails to keep the discipline alive
as Comte’s following dwindled, as did sociology’s “intellectual discipline” (p.42).
The second cycle (anomie) is focused on the rebirth of the discipline. Gane
shows that it is not the birth of sociology that is secured by Durkheim, but its
renaissance. Durkheim takes on the mantra of Comte in trying to show
sociology’s unique place within the sciences and radicalized the discipline by
breaking with ideology (p.52). Durkheim also follows Comte’s lead in the
development of his concept of anomie in relation to unregulated development
and pathology. Indeed, Gane’s excellent discussion of Rules and the concepts of
social fact, normality and social pathology need to be read by all who are
interested in social theory and especially those in criminology. Like Littré before
him, Mauss took the reigns of French sociology after Durkheim’s death only to
pull them toward anthropology, guiding the search for the “social” through the
realm of culture. Of significance is Mauss’ classic The Gift, which concentrates on
the obligations of exchange in society and, as Gane points out, can be seen as
the beginnings of Structuralism and the analysis of power (p.85). The cycle ends
with the embodiment of anomie in the behaviors of both Mauss and Bataille, a
form of praxis that links with the next cycle.
The third cycle, the second rebirth or hyperteliai, is different from the first two in
that the connection to St. Simon and Comte is tenuous in the discussion of some
of the theorists (e.g. Lyotard) and strong in the discussion of others (e.g.
Canguilhem). Marx now becomes the prime directive of this cycle. Here, Gane
illustrates a number of various streams, which have been forged in search of the
“social” and shows their indebtedness, personified in various forms, to Marxism.
Sartre, de Beauvoir, Lyotard, Canguilhem, Kristeva, Althusser, Foucault, Deleuze
and Guattari, Baudrillard, Bourdieu and Berthelot are all discussed as key figures
in this search. The attachment to the development of the discipline of Sociology,
however, is lost or in crisisii, while the search for the “social” is now linked to
linguistics, politics, structuralism, psychoanalysis, existentialism, postmodernism
and fatalism. As in the previous cycles, the second rebirth reflects the turbulence
of the era in which theory is being formed. The plethora of these new schools
and perspectives veer from the original work of St. Simon, Comte and Durkheim
to forge an expanded discipline of sociology. They all reflect the dissolution of
the confines of the discipline. The search for the “social” is no longer bound to
understanding the structure, meaning, progress and boundaries of the social
contract. “This [new] logic is one that attacks and breaks down the traditional
polarities of ritual exchange, and produces new hypertelic forms” (p.185).
I am impressed by the work on the first two cycles, however, I have trouble with
the third. Although the discussion in each of the six chapters in this section is
excellent, in reading them together I am left with the question of why specific
theorists are incorporated in the text while others are left out. Were these
omissions purposeful or simply a matter of space and/or time? Ideally, I think an
expansion of the last cycle to incorporate the unique dialogue, or debate over
what constitutes the “social” within each of the streams would serve the English
audience well: e.g., the relation between Althusser and Poulantzas, Derrida and
Foucault and among Kristeva, Irigaray and Cixous. The assemblage of the
sections in the last cycle is not linked together as I would have hoped but this
may be that the discussion of these is more like a bricolage I am trying to
impose a structure on.iii
Overall, this is, as the advertisements say, an extraordinarily accomplished book
and Gane’s work will have an impact on my teaching of social theory. Also, I
recommend it to all who teach theory and are interested in the discipline of
sociology.
Barry Edginton, PhD
Department of Sociology
University of Winnipeg
i This term is taken from Baudrillard, which means “a tragic state of passing beyond our own
finalities” (p.99).
ii See the work of Zygmunt Bauman on the crisis of sociology.
iii For example, the section on Lyotard seems unconnected to the rest of the cycle.