Finished re-reading of Durkheim’s Elementary Forms (first time I read the Fields translation), and I wanted to write about two passages where Durkheim seemingly critiques aspects of his own argument.
In this passage he points out the sacredness of the notion of progress which so underlies many aspects of his work:
Just as society consecrates men, so it also consecrates things, including ideas. When a belief is shared unanimously by a people, to touch it – that is, to deny or question it – is forbidden, for the reasons already stated. The prohibition against critique is a prohibition like any other and proves that one is face to face with a sacred thing. Even today, great though the freedom we allow one another may be, it would be tantamount to sacrilege for a man wholly to deny progress or to reject the human ideal to which modern societies are attached. (p 215)
And in this passage he touches ever-so-briefly on the question of conflict:
A society is not constituted simply by the mass of individuals who comprise it, the ground they occupy, the things they use, or the movements they make, but above all by the idea it has of itself. And there is no doubt that society sometimes hesitates over the manner in which it must conceive itself. It feels pulled in all directions. When such conflicts break out, they are not between the ideal and the reality but between different ideals, between the ideal of yesterday and that of today, between the ideal that has the authority of tradition and one that is only coming into being. (425)
In the second passage you can see at work the sacred idea of progress he discusses in the first passage. We also see Durkheim talking about conflict, but conflict is seen only in terms of the steady march of modernity, not as something endemic to society or a particular kind of modernity.
At the same time, I think it is important to show that the seeds of such a critique already exist in Durkheim’s own writings. All too often I’ve seen scholars say “so-and-so was wrong about X” and proceed to throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water.
Do you think Kerim that ‘progress’ continues to occupy this sacred position in the Euro-American imaginary?
Good question. For one thing, in the nuclear age we are much more sanguine about the downsides and dangers of modernity. Also, the postmodern view of progress is tinged with irony and nostalgia for yesterday’s visions of the future. I think much of the hype surrounding the internet is based in the hope that a new, more human, vision of progress will replace the old one. But is this view “sacred” – probably not.
I cut off the last line of that quote, and I think it is probably worth putting back in. It reads: “Even the peoples most enamored of free thinking tend to place one principle above discussion and regard it as untouchable, in other words, sacred: the principle of free discussion itself.” Although not universally true, I’d say that this principle is still just as sacred in the “Euro-American imaginary.”
I agree… modernity’s self-awareness has incorporated the dangers it poses to itself, and see Giddens, Beck, et al. I think maybe these days, in some circles, ‘progress’ would be understood as taking steps to repair the damage done in prior eras as they marched in time with their own notion of progress. I am not sure then that ‘progress’ is sacred these days — it is rather contested in these potentially pomo times.
However, I also think progress understood as ‘more comfortable lives’ is still alive and well. Progress means a better picture on your new flat screen, which makes Halo 3 or your Wii more fun. {Sidenote: I am convinced that flatscreen sales (across the industrial-retail spectrum, from airline seat tops to home entertainment centers) are the _only_ thing sustaining the world economy; thank god for Taiwan.} However, progress as ‘social justice’ or something along those lines is gone, and that notion becomes the object of the left melancholy that Wendy Brown has mentioned. Political progress (in the West) today seems mostly to be about securing individual liberties, themselves best expressed through activity that ultimately leads to material comfort… Someday, we will all drive VW SUVs powered by some hybrid drive type technology, with little TVs for the kids to watch in the back seats, and that can park themselves! (I saw a commercial for one of these today at lunch.)
Outside of America I think ‘progress’ is still a viable idea. The EU is itself an idea of progress, albeit social, rather than technological. One measure of progress had been how many people are joining the ‘band wagon’, and certainly the size of the EU attests as a measure of political progress over the past 50 years.
As for Strong’s idea that ‘progress’ would be understood as taking steps to repair the damage done in prior eras, this idea would certainly fit the EU. But certainly the idea of progress as embodied in the EU is/has been challenged–eg. desires to retard the loss of national sovereignty.
But what if the idea of ‘progress’ was never sacred, then the issue should dissolve. Certainly, my understanding of the 19th century European history does not suggest an absolute faith in progress, as is commonly understood. One need only consider the Revolutions of 1848 and the reactionary politics which followed; or consider that the 19th century was one long recession followed by the Great Depression of 1873-1890 (a long disinflationary period). In some sense there was progress–i.e. nationalism, limited enfranchisement of the middle classes. In this sense the 19th century is better understood as a period of idealistic thinking and action. But progress cannot be said to have been unheld as sacred, nor universal.