학술논문
La sociologie est-elle un savoir infus ? De la nature sociale de l 'architecture cognitive
Document Type
article
Author
Source
Intellectica. Revue de l'Association pour la Recherche Cognitive 36-37(1-2):421-457
Subject
Language
French
ISSN
0769-4113
Abstract
L'ontologie contemporaine considère volontiers que l'ordre des choses s'échelonne sur une pyramide de complexité. Pour le sens commun comme pour l'Académie, les entités physiques, les composés chimiques, les phénomènes biologiques, le monde du mental et enfin les organisations sociales se succèdent dans un ordre où la complexité croissante des phénomènes étudiés accroît les risques d'approximation. Bon nombre de sociologues comme de philosophes s'escriment ainsi à montrer comment le tout naît du particulier, le social de l'individuel. C'est cet ordre ontologique apparemment inébranlable que remet en question cet article. L'éthologie, la psychologie évolutionniste et la psychologie du développement fournissent en effet de nombreux arguments, à la fois phylogéniques, ontogéniques et logiques, pour suggérer que l'ordre des faits sociaux précède en fait celui des faits psychologiques. Les auteurs plaident en particulier pour l'existence d'une «sociologie naïve », i.e. un système d'inférences sociales sans lequel les analyses de type mentaliste ne seraient même pas envisageables. Cette modification de la pyramide ontologique amène ainsi à repenser et revivifier les rapports entre la sociologie et la psychologie.
Is sociology core knowledge ? The social nature of the cognitive architecture. Contemporaneous ontology considers that the nature of things can be positioned on a pyramid of complexity. For the common sense as well as for the Academy, physical entities, chemical compounds, biological phenomena, mental realm and social organizations follow one another in an order of growing complexity and approximation. A lot of sociologists and philosophers thus try to show how the social emerges from the individual, the whole from the particular. That's precisely this apparently unshakeable hierarchy order that this article calls into question. Actually ethology, evolutionary psychology and developmental psychology provide numerous arguments, phylogenetic, ontogenetic and logical, for claiming that the order of social facts does indeed precede the order of psychological facts. The authors plead in particular for the existence of a "naive sociology", e.g. a system of social inferences without which mentalistic analyses would not even be possible. This modification of the ontological pyramid then leads to rethink and revive the relations between sociology and psychology.
Is sociology core knowledge ? The social nature of the cognitive architecture. Contemporaneous ontology considers that the nature of things can be positioned on a pyramid of complexity. For the common sense as well as for the Academy, physical entities, chemical compounds, biological phenomena, mental realm and social organizations follow one another in an order of growing complexity and approximation. A lot of sociologists and philosophers thus try to show how the social emerges from the individual, the whole from the particular. That's precisely this apparently unshakeable hierarchy order that this article calls into question. Actually ethology, evolutionary psychology and developmental psychology provide numerous arguments, phylogenetic, ontogenetic and logical, for claiming that the order of social facts does indeed precede the order of psychological facts. The authors plead in particular for the existence of a "naive sociology", e.g. a system of social inferences without which mentalistic analyses would not even be possible. This modification of the ontological pyramid then leads to rethink and revive the relations between sociology and psychology.