Alain Touraine
Sociology without Societies
Sociological analysis, whether we realize it or not, is set in a context of an
overall view of society. This is true for the sociology which deals with
describing the working of the institutions or the processes of social change,
and even more so for critical sociology. This is not to say that all sociological
work is primarily ideological. This representation of society does not imply,
at least not when the work is of interest, the expression of a biased perspective;
on the contrary, a sufficiently abstract and general image of social life
enables the inclusion of extremely varied work, in terms of spheres of application
or intellectual orientation.
In my opinion, sociology has referred to a particular concept of social
life which has been dominated by the notion of society at least in the course
of the last half century but probably over a longer period. An example will
be enough to explain what I mean: in 1961 a book titled The Theories of
Society (Free Press) was published in two volumes (reissued in a single
volume 1479 pages long in 1965) edited by Talcott Parsons, Edward Shils,
Kaspar Naegele and Jesse Pitts, in which these authors, whose own work was
not included in this collection of texts, apparently intended to show the unity
of sociological analysis over a long period of time and over and above the
various schools of thought. We can therefore consider this book, which is
now quite old, a good testimony to the continuity in representation of social
life which constituted what can be called classical sociology, a term we shall
not attempt to define. It is true that the concept considered as primordial in
this book is not society, but action; however it is clear, on reading Talcott
Parsons’ major studies – which at the time had recently been published: Social
System (with other authors) and A General Theory of Action – that the term
‘action’ refers directly both to the social system and to society.
The study of interactions, institutions, methods of socialization and processes
of change forms a whole which can be defined as the study of society.
There is nothing imprecise about the use of the word itself. On the contrary,
we can indicate some of its characteristics. In the first instance, and this has
Current Sociology, March 2003, Vol. 51(2): 123–131 SAGE Publications
(London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi)
[0011–3921(200303)51:2;123–131;031720]
been generally recognized, what is meant by society is a national entity or
part of a national entity, and even more specifically, a socioeconomic entity,
i.e. one defined to a large extent on the basis of its economic functioning.
Though it is seldom explicit, we are constantly meeting the idea that there is
an underlying unity incorporating all the phenomena: political, economic,
social, cultural, etc., and that this unity can be observed within entities of
which the principal is far from the national state.
A second characteristic, which is no less important than the first, is that
the idea of society implies high degrees of cohesion between the working and
the transformation of a society. For example, one of the constants in sociology
is a statement to the effect that there is a link between the idea of industrial
society and that of capitalist society, therefore between a ‘mode of
production’ and what has been referred to as a ‘mode of development’, or
modernization, since capitalism is primarily the control of the process of
economic transformation by a national and private (bourgeoisie) governing
elite. These two components of the idea of society lead in turn to the importance
which is constantly granted to the idea of socialization. By this I do not
only mean the idea that the school or the family fulfils primarily functions of
socialization, but also, in the tradition of the Enlightenment, that it is socialization
which shapes the individual into a being endowed with universal
rights.
There is a final dimension attributed to the idea of society which we have
to mention because it seems to be of a different orientation. Not only was
sociology never part of an optimistic and rationalist vision of progress, but,
on the contrary, was associated with the cultural pessimism dominant at the
end of the 19th century. The idea of society emerges as ‘constructive’, that is
to say as susceptible to creating order in these areas where violence, desire,
or communitarianism introduce crisis and destructuring of individuals and
communities.
Assuredly this idea of society, as I have just briefly described it, is too
general to provide us with an adequate analytical framework in all situations.
Moreover, it obviously does not completely tally with the intellectual
projects of the different sociologists. But it is difficult, perhaps even impossible,
to analyse the problems in sociology today without referring to this
general conception of social life, which is almost the life blood and, in any
event, a considerable part of the strength of sociology itself. This idea of
society has never been obvious or natural. It has always been constructed and
must be recognized as a highly elaborate and very complex approach to forms
of behaviour and social organization. It would be dangerous to imagine that
the numerous sociologists of different tendencies who participated in the
development of their discipline have nothing in common. This statement is
particularly true for the last half century, which has been dominated by what
could be called the two facets of an analysis of society as a social system. On
124 Current Sociology Vol. 51 No. 2
05 Touraine (to/d) 2/4/03 8:37 AM Page 124
one side we have the ‘institutionalists’, endeavouring to define the functions
of institutions by referring to the need for diversification, integration and
change of any concrete society; and on the other, the ‘critical’ sociologists,
for whom the underlying unity of social life is the result of a system of domination,
which increasingly uses very different channels from those used by
those in power.
The Destruction of Society
The recall of this conceptual framework is therefore the basis for a definition
of the transformations which have resulted in the almost total destruction of
the idea of society. Over the past few decades, the key to understanding the
evolution of sociology has been the desire, whether explicit or not, to
destroy the idea of society. A considerable part of sociology or the social
sciences has indeed consisted in stressing the importance of social facts
which cannot be included in the representation of society by itself. Here a
plethora of observations come to mind in support of this general statement.
We only have to make a brief reference to the most important social facts,
the explanation of which cannot be included in the representation of social
life which I have just outlined. Society, conceived of as a set of institutions,
norms or processes of social change, has been superseded; this is primarily
due to facts that are attributable to international politics on the one hand,
and to the economy on the other. We can predict that in the centuries to
come the characteristic of the 20th century will not be the enrichment of
some countries or the rapid changes in techniques in most fields but the
immensely destructive role of what is known as the ‘great war’ and totalitarianism,
even if one rejects the use of the term. Throughout the period the
world has been divided by war: first the American Civil War, then the two
world wars and the Cold War. All were horrific demonstrations of how
power structures could destroy all the internal logic of the institutions and
forms of social organization. On the other hand, the world has become
increasingly capitalist and an increasingly numerous population has entered
market economies whose prime concern is to refuse any regulation or
economic, political and social control of economic activity. This has led to a
disintegration of all the forms of social organization, particularly in the
urban context. Individualism has become widespread and one interpretation
is that it leads to the disappearance of social norms, which are replaced by
economic mechanisms and the search for profit.
In conclusion, it can be considered that the central issue of sociological
analysis has become increasingly the study of the disappearance of social
actors, who have lost ground either to the voluntarism of states, parties or
armies, or to the economic policies which permeate all spheres of social life,
Touraine: Sociology without Societies 125
05 Touraine (to/d) 2/4/03 8:37 AM Page 125
even those which appear distant from the economy and market logic. The
most influential idea in Europe and in other parts of the world, in recent
decades, has been the death of the subject, which is the equivalent of what
has been called critical sociology, or of the elements associated with the rise
of structuralism, first in linguistics and in many other spheres of sociology
or social anthropology.
Thus the immense field of studies in classical sociology is disappearing
or disintegrating, both in what we could call its optimistic variant, and in its
critical version, sustained by cultural pessimism. The question which now
arises is: can we redefine the sphere of sociology or must we admit that its
days are now numbered and that new intellectual approaches must replace
that of sociology, just as sociology replaced, or partly took the place of, the
philosophy of law and of the state at the time when the powerful development
of modern economies had deprived the state and more generally politics
of the central place they had occupied for several centuries in the understanding
of societies? There is no need to consider this sort of question as
provocative. It is perfectly possible to imagine that the majority of the studies
which are today classified as sociology could be divided up into other
subjects or linked to other modes of dealing with social realities. But we
would have to advance more specific arguments if we wished to defend such
radical conclusions as the death of sociology or the disappearance of a
specifically sociological approach to social facts. But the most serious mistake
would be to refuse to accept a general critical analysis of what is known as
sociology, as if we could enhance our knowledge step by step with no reference
whatsoever to a general mode of construction of social reality.
Obviously my role here cannot be that of a messenger from another
world bearing the answers to problems which disturb us and seem insoluble.
But it can be to stress the need for a total rethinking of the representation of
the social facts which are the foundation of what we consider to be our
specific domain of research and reflection. What we could call the philosophy
of history has now disappeared from sight and we can understand the attraction
exerted by the schools of thought which completely rejected the theme
of modernity, as if sociological knowledge had nothing to gain from setting
the phenomena studied in a historical context. But, to tell you the truth, I see
no reason why the disappearance of grand narratives, to use Jean François
Lyotard’s words, i.e. the philosophy of history, must lead to the conclusion
that we have entered a period, or at least an arena, where thinking must be
defined as postmodern or post-historical. I would like to defend a rather
different – or even opposite – idea.
Our times, and the thoughts and social movements which construct and
interpret them, can be defined in terms of a new and powerful expansion of
the historicity of societies. It is the creation of the modern state which has
led to the predominance of the social in political thought; it is industrial
126 Current Sociology Vol. 51 No. 2
05 Touraine (to/d) 2/4/03 8:37 AM Page 126
society in all its developments which has led us to have a specifically social
vision of social facts. In a society dominated by information structures,
modes of communication, the extreme diversification of modes of consumption
and even of modes of creation of new social realities, it is permissible
to imagine that our social representation of social facts necessarily gives
way to a cultural representation. This word, which is far too vague, does in
fact have a very specific meaning. It means that the main issues at stake in
all sorts of actions no longer refer to principles of rational organization of
society or to a concept of progress, but to a social subject’s chances for living
and risks of dying. The social subject opposes his or her own existence, continuity,
his or her reference to liberty and creativity to the chaotic stop and
go of modern societies and industrial societies in particular; the latter no
longer control their own fates because they are superseded, as I said at the
outset, by world wars, the globalization of the economy and the nonmanaged,
unmanageable mix of cultures, taking this word in its widest
meaning. This vision signals the emergence of new collective actors and, in
particular, new social movements.
Since the major movements which shook part of the world in the 1960s,
the key orientation of social actors – and there are no two ways about it – has
been the direct defence of the subject as such. The subject is no longer hidden
from view by a philosophy of history, a conception of the state or a religious
vision. The unity of analysis in classical sociology originated in the unity of
the social system of society. This unity has disappeared but it is replaced by
the unity of the subject itself with its reference to self and no longer to an
external or transcendental principle of order. This is why, after a long period
of silence, we are once again discussing fundamental human rights; these now
go beyond the sphere of political, and even of social, rights and extend to the
vast domain of cultural rights, that is the right of all individuals and groups
to combine, each in their own specific way, their participation in a globalized
economy with the specificity of cultural projects which are in part, but only
in part, controlled by a cultural heritage.
This type of formulation is similar to the opposition which long held
sway between the nation and the prince, or the workers and the employers.
But today it is the social order in ruins/shattered which constitutes the main
threat to movements for liberation and for self-assertion, the ultimate goal of
which is the liberty of the subject. Is this not an indication of a representation
of social life which is at least as strong and as coherent as the representation
which disappeared from view at the turn of the century?
At the same time, any reference to the social order, to a coherent set of
institutions or to agencies for socialization becomes useless and even dangerous.
It is not the idea of the class struggle which organizes our new vision; it
is that of the key opposition between a non-existent social order, which one
can also refer to as the logic of the market or the management of the
Touraine: Sociology without Societies 127
05 Touraine (to/d) 2/4/03 8:37 AM Page 127
unpredictable, and the constant reminder by the subject of his or her existence
and liberty.
Although this is not the place to define the new social actors more precisely,
we must at least point out that the central place occupied by the idea
of nation, then by that of workers, or working classes, can only be occupied
today by that of women’s action. The reason for this is that the characteristic
of masculine domination has been to terminate and therefore annihilate all
feminine self-awareness – women themselves are divided between their confinement
to a being which is that of natural life and their subordination to
categories established by the masculine order. The search by women for their
own self-unity, their awareness and their action is not in opposition to
working-class struggles for social justice or anti-colonial struggles for
national liberation; conflicts and social movements of this type are incorporated
into a broader and more radical vision. It is also permissible to imagine
that a close link between women’s movements and what seem to me to be
children’s rights will rapidly develop.
Here we could say that political and social movements have been
replaced by cultural movements which are at the same time broader in their
aims and much less linked to the creation and defence of institutions and
norms. The weakening of norms can lead to chaos and social disorganization;
it can also characterize the reinforcement of cultural orientations of values
which are now detached from social norms and constituted in opposition to
them. Societies, particularly western ones, replace the grand historical narratives
with grand personal narratives, i.e. narratives which deal with the
strengths and weaknesses of social actors who have become the ultimate aim
of their own action. This directly transforms the fields of studies about
society, and sociology, if this category is still operational, must focus on the
head-on confrontation – even if always to some extent controlled and regulated
– between the non-social logic of war and profits and the logic, which
is in no way social either, of the liberty of individual and collective subjects.
This sort of formulation is very far from the 19th- and 20th-century discourses,
but, contrary to postmodern thinking, it does maintain a historical
definition of the social facts and consequently of their analysis. We were in
societies which we referred to as industrial, or capitalist; today we are in situations
which can be analysed both as belonging to information societies and
as being incorporated into an economic, social and political power structure.
For reasons of clarity, we can call this vision hyper-modern, or we could also
use the term ‘late modernity’ in opposition to the idea of postmodernity.
The weakness of this sort of representation stems from its radical nature.
There is a more complete opposition between culturally defined subjects and
economic and financial systems than there was between social classes in
industrial society. It is true that we are often aware of living in two worlds
whose only relation with each another is their permanent conflict. We are
128 Current Sociology Vol. 51 No. 2
05 Touraine (to/d) 2/4/03 8:37 AM Page 128
dragged into violent economic, warlike and geopolitical transformations at
top speed; but we also live in worlds defined and ruled by principles of law
and we frequently attempt to redefine the major social institutions not so
much in terms of the interest of society but in terms of strengthening the
liberty and the creativity of the subject in the midst of economic and military
upheavals.
The Social Bond
However, even if the underlying principle of this radicality has to be maintained,
it cannot conceal a very heterogeneous set of unfinished, local, barely
institutionalized reconstructions of what is usually referred to as the social
bond. To prevent barbarism, social theory and social action alike appeal to
the capacity to create or recreate bonds, which can be bonds of solidarity as
well as bonds to regulate the economy; these can reinforce the networks
which are the driving force in civil society as well as the large-scale but noninstitutionalized
actions, like major humanitarian campaigns.
An increasing number of sociologists are devoting their work to the
exploration of these new forms of social life, both to the increasingly ‘weak’
forms of economic and social policy as well as to the creation of centres of
counter-culture. At times, this new field of social thought springs directly
from the desire to safeguard or create new institutions enabling direct social
interaction. On numerous occasions we have observed the emergence of
orientations of this type in some of the components of the anti-globalization
movements and which coexist with the more radical critical approaches. Similarly,
the importance given to local issues and to the environment, which is
increasingly threatened by economic and financial disorder, is most frequently
evidence of the desire to seek a compromise and a balance, rather
than to sustain confrontations between contradictory logics. We observe the
very rapid development of projects which occupy what used to be in industrial
society the space of social policies for redistribution or welfare. And the
space which used to be the preserve of the trade unions is now filled by
NGOs and various forms of mobilization of civil society. All these developments
could well lead to sociology emerging triumphant, delivered from all
subordination to political philosophy or philosophies of history. We can also
remark that the old expression ‘moral and political sciences’, used in the 19th
century and since fallen into disuse, has been rehabilitated. There is the same
opposition but also the same complementarity between the search for new
social bonds and the declaration of a fundamental conflict between markets
and subjects as there was between the idea of the class struggle and the
policies for social reform in the industrial societies we called socialdemocracy
or the welfare state.
Touraine: Sociology without Societies 129
05 Touraine (to/d) 2/4/03 8:37 AM Page 129
Thus we have the construction of a new representation of social life and
consequently a new definition of sociology which should enable the latter,
insofar as it supersedes the old modes of representation, to play an ever more
important role in the construction of the social sphere within the scope of
which it falls.
Conclusion
Sociology has often been defined as the critical analysis of modernity and this
concrete, material definition is complementary in all respects to the definition
given here. This is because the object of sociology, which has usually been
the study of modern societies, cannot be separated from a mode of construction
of this object, which is not given naturally but produced by means
of analysis and through political practice and social conflicts. In concluding,
there is something we have to add to the observations which have just been
made, and which have attempted to define a new mode of representation of
society: we need a definition of society which is more material and also more
historical since the societies which we study, no matter where they may
be, are dominated by the increasing separation between two worlds (the
economic and technical world, in which instrumental reason reigns triumphant,
and the world of cultural projects).
These two components often enter into direct conflict with one another.
If the idea of society has disintegrated, as did the idea of progress or of people
before it, the reason is that there is no longer any institutional mediation sufficiently
strong to maintain the interdependence of the world of the economy
and the world of cultures. The only mediation which exists and which consequently
constitutes the focal object in social science is the idea of the
subject, because it combines the theme of general participation in economic
life with the greatest possible respect for the multiplicity of cultural projects.
To quote Claude Lefort’s well-known words, we can say that the democratic
societies today are not those which replaced one prince by another in
the seat of power, but those which left the seat empty or which burnt it. Social
life as a whole constitutes a system without a centre, formed by the opposition
of modes of orientation of which the insurmountable opposition is only
rendered liveable by both sides recognizing that it is the subject – who is
neither an economic, nor a cultural actor – who renders the two halves of
human experience compatible by subordinating them to higher demands. It
is liberty which gives meaning to forms of behaviour which attempt simultaneously
to become part of one of the opposing logics and to make them
compatible.
An expression of this sort seems to be capable of defining the concrete
object of sociology: it is the study of situations in which the institutionalized
130 Current Sociology Vol. 51 No. 2
05 Touraine (to/d) 2/4/03 8:37 AM Page 130
forms of appeal to the subject and respect for his or her demands succeed in
establishing a zone of peace and of creation between aggressive forms of communitarianism
and a market economy which destroys all forms of social,
political, cultural and autonomous life. The object of sociology is to seek the
path to liberty through the chaos of a landscape disrupted by war, growth
and crisis.
Note
This article was originally presented at the Presidential Session, ‘Global Order or
Divided World?’, at the 15th ISA World Congress, Brisbane, 7–13 July 2002.
Touraine: Sociology without Societies 131
05 Touraine (to/d) 2/4/03 8:37 AM Page 131