Publication: Luchas de auto-afirmación disciplinar en la universidad francesa de la Tercera República: el debate Simiand-Seignobos
Loading...
Official URL
Full text at PDC
Publication Date
2020
Advisors (or tutors)
Editors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
UNED
Citations
Exportar
Abstract
En este artículo revisaremos el clásico debate que enfrentó a Simiand y Seignobos en la primera década del siglo XX. Por lo general, la imagen oficial del asunto retiene sólo el aspecto epistemológico de la disputa. Se recuerda a esta última por la crítica de Simiand a los determinismos implícitos (ídolo político, individual, cronológico) en el método de los historiadores. Lo que se propone, sin embargo, en este texto es un cambio de mirada en la comprensión de esta disputa intelectual. Lejos de agotar el interés en la confrontación sobre las prácticas científicas normales, se procederá a insertar la disputa en el marco de una lucha más amplia que opone dos candidaturas (sociología e historia) a la hegemonía de las ciencias humanas de la universidad francesa. Para ello es preciso analizar qué margen de cobertura institucional detentaba en ese momento la disciplina histórica y la sociología en el marco de la enseñanza superior republicana. Por último, se reflexiona sobre la falta de simetría que caracterizó a la relación entre ambas disciplinas, para concluir que tal disparidad quizá sea la causa del semifracaso del ataque durkheimiano frente a los historiadores.
In this article we will review the classic(well-known/traditional) debate faced by Simiand and Seignobos in the first decade of the 20th century. Generally, the epistemological aspect of the dispute is considered the main matter at stake. The debate is usually remembered due to Simiand’s critique on the implicit determinisms (political, individual, chronological idol) in the historians’s method. Nevertheless, the purpose of this article is to suggest a change of look in understanding this intellectual dispute. Far from exhausting the discussion on normal scientific practices’ confrontation, the dispute will be studied within the framework of a broader struggle in which two candidatures (sociology and history) strives for the hegemony of the human sciences of the French university. To that end, it is necessary to analyze which institutional spaces were respectively filled by the historical and by the sociological discipline within the framework of the republican higher education. Finally, we will reflect on the lack of symmetry that characterized the relationship between both disciplines, to conclude that such disparity may be the cause of the semi-failure of the Durkheimian attack against the historians.
In this article we will review the classic(well-known/traditional) debate faced by Simiand and Seignobos in the first decade of the 20th century. Generally, the epistemological aspect of the dispute is considered the main matter at stake. The debate is usually remembered due to Simiand’s critique on the implicit determinisms (political, individual, chronological idol) in the historians’s method. Nevertheless, the purpose of this article is to suggest a change of look in understanding this intellectual dispute. Far from exhausting the discussion on normal scientific practices’ confrontation, the dispute will be studied within the framework of a broader struggle in which two candidatures (sociology and history) strives for the hegemony of the human sciences of the French university. To that end, it is necessary to analyze which institutional spaces were respectively filled by the historical and by the sociological discipline within the framework of the republican higher education. Finally, we will reflect on the lack of symmetry that characterized the relationship between both disciplines, to conclude that such disparity may be the cause of the semi-failure of the Durkheimian attack against the historians.