<論文>外的な力と内的な力 : デュルケームの集合概念の再検討を通して

Abstract

Collective force is one of the most important concept of Durkheim's theory. In his book, "The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life", Durkheim speaks of society as 'a system of active forces'. And Religion is also regraded as a system of forces. Therefore in his theory the collective force is equal to the religious force; the latter has its origins in collective effervescence. By making use of the notion of force, Durkheim presented a point of view from which we can see society in relation to religion. Collective force is so important concept, but precise examination of it will make us realize that it has undeniable contradiction. lt is regarded by Durkheim as coercive force at the same time as overflowing forces. Durkheim unites these two contradictory tendency of 'forces'; one is characterized as external force which one feels come from outside of oneself, and the other as internal force which one feels come from inside of oneself. We insist that they should be treated as different kinds of force. We reflect why Durkheim dose not distinguish these two forces. We think given degrees of intensity, different kind of force will make one go into different kind of ecstatic experience. One is the result of communion of the members of their community. The other is what is called, peak experience or the mystic religious experience; the experiences can be caused, for example, by the use of intoxicating liquors. Durkheim takes the former into account, but to the latter he only give an unclear consideration. Where does such a unclearness come from? Durkheim supposes that consciousness of human being is made up of two, collective conscience and individual conscience. Durkheim's theory based on the dualism of the human nature can explain only external force, but not internal force. External force means the way the collective conscience acts on the individual consciences. But we cannot explain internal force by his theory, for in his theory nothing except physiological desire influences intensely on the individual conscience . For the same reason his theory can solely explain the ecstasy experienced in the unity of the members of the society, but not other sort of ecstasy, because when the man who is supposed to have only two conscience transcends himself, he necessarily goes into the domain of collective conscience. We conclude that two problems concerning the concept of collective force and ecstatic experience result from the same; it is his notion of dualism of the human nature. In order to make the concept of force more exact and significant, we must construct another theorical notion of human being.