3658925934

individual members of a group, and the essential sociological characteristics remain. This was, Tarde
held, the necessary consequence of Durkheim’s postulates, and it generated nothing more than the
“scholastic ontology” of the medieval philosophical realists. In opposition to the doctrine that the
whole is more than the sum of its parts, Tarde held that the whole is equal to no more than the sum of
its parts; he labeled himself, when forced to do so, a philosophical nominalist.
As a rigorous thinker who chose to drive his postluates to their extreme logical conclusions,
Durkheim more than once espoused the realistic position that Tarde referred to as his “ontological
Phasmagoria.” Insofar as he did so, Durkheim must be judged by subsequent sociologists as being
simply wrong, and Tarde as being right. With time, however, whether as a consequence of continued
empirical observation 18 or through being convinced by Tarde and others of the logical absurdity of his
position, or both, Durkheim moved away from the extreme realism. This was most clearly the case in
his empirical studies, 19 however, for Durkheim never explicitly contradicted his earlier
pronouncements on this issue. This was unfortunate, for in subsequent years ardent disciples adhered
to what had come to be defined as Durkheimian gospel, with near disastrous consequences for the
development of both sociology and psychology in France. 20
Tarde, however, went so far in asserting that society was composed of no more than its individual
members that he in turn underestimated the importance of certain collective influences. Nevertheless,
he presented a more sophisticated view of the relationships between the individual and society than
did Durkheim. Much social action, Tarde pointed out, was based not on constraint from the external
imposition of social norms, but grew out of spontaneous imitation of beliefs and desires that
subsequently became internalized by the individual and, through a process of learning, continued to
structure his behavior.
Growing largely from the commitment of Tarde to an emphasis on the autonomy of the individual
and a grounding of his behavior in Spontaneity, and of Durkheim to the predominance of the
collectivity and a Cartesian striving for order, the difference between the two men was reflected in
several other issues. In discussing the general bases for social change, Tarde stressed the centrality of
the creative individual in suggesting new lines of development which the collectivity would
subsequently adopt. Durkheim preferred to emphasize the structural conditions which predisposed a
given collectivity to change, minimizing the importance of individual factors. 21
To explain processes of norm formation, Tarde presented an interactionist theory similar in many
ways to that associated with the name of George Herbert Mead. Durkheim, on the other hand, relied
on such group conditions as heightened collective activity, but he was much less precise in this area
than was Tarde (see section vii below).
Tarde elaborated a theory of social control that grew out of social interaction, and was extended
through larger social groupings with such developments as extensive mass communications (see
section ix). Durkheim, to explain social control, focused more on the constraining influences of values
and norms.
Durkheim maintained at some points that the elementary social unit was the horde, to which Tarde
retorted that it was the individual, or at least the household; but both men recognized that this was not
a point to be resolved a priori, but through more extended study. 22
For us today, many of these positions appear more complementary than contradictory; but such was
not always the case for Tarde and Durkheim. Nevertheless, their debates have helped clarify the
vision of subsequent sociologists.