Introduction
In the last two centuries, scientific enquiry has become primarily organized by means of disciplines. Disciplinary specializations have become the basic units of an increasingly differentiated scientific system. In the same period of time, however, the rise of nation-states has also created new spaces for scholarship. Different national systems have become established; different traditions of scientific enquiry have emerged. Even in the current “global” age, national spaces or contexts have remained highly influential and consequential in a variety of disciplines. Many disciplines remain characterized by relatively strong international variations (Crawford Reference Crawford1992; Stichweh Reference Stichweh1996; Heilbron Reference Heilbron2014).
In the scholarly literature, there is little doubt about the interactions between national context and the development of sociology. Even in recent years, sociology is a discipline with large international variations on a variety of dimensions: specific research interests and methodologies, ways of doing research, presenting relevant arguments, valuing empirical evidence, and so on (e.g., Abend, Petre, and Sauder Reference Abend, Petre and Sauder2013; Ollion and Abbott Reference Ollion and Abbott2016). Studies that focus on the interaction between national and disciplinary cultures remain scarce, however. Contributions to the history of sociology still tend to be centered on the most authoritative scholars (such as the so-called “founding fathers”) or the most prominent sites of knowledge production. To shed light on the dynamics of science, however, it is advisable to pay ample attention to the opportunities and obstacles which national contexts may provide for the rise and institutionalization of academic disciplines, such as sociology.
From this perspective, this paper is devoted to an analysis of the early development of sociology as an academic discipline in Belgium. I discuss how, despite a strong international orientation in the era around 1900, the prospects for sociology in Belgium became defined by national and local contexts. Whereas most proponents of the new discipline were initially found in “free-thinking” (mostly anti-clerical) networks, often tied to the Université Libre de Bruxelles, ideological tensions and rivalries led to a number of initiatives at the Catholic University of Louvain. In Louvain, Catholicism was defended against the claims of a secular, sociological approach to social “facts,” including religious facts, but some Catholics also believed that a “religious sociology” was able to support the ‘civilizing’ role of Catholicism in Belgium and its colonial territory. The ideological and institutional rivalries within and between both settings defined many of the choices made (and not made) in Belgium in the decades around 1900. This paper looks at sociology's incorporation into the Belgian academic system around the turn of the century – and the intellectual consequences thereof.
Intellectual and social spaces often breed their own research questions, but they may also block particular lines of research. While international recognition was used as a way to acquire legitimacy within the national university system, the national and local contexts long drove the development of sociology in Belgium. Ideological and institutional interests not only marked sociology's incorporation into the Belgian academic system, but they also made it difficult to gain legitimacy and capitalize on the expanding academic system. Much sociological work conducted in Brussels or Louvain remained on the margins of these universities. This paper aims at understanding the complex trajectories of sociology within Belgium; it aims at uncovering how and with what consequences the “sociological imagination” was adapted to the interests and debates within Belgium around 1900.
Sociology in Belgium provides for an interesting case-study. Not only were many Belgian students and scholars oriented towards the intellectual traditions in France and Germany (Dhont Reference Dhont2011), but Belgium – not unlike other “small” European countries, such as Switzerland and the Netherlands – also aimed at playing an important role in international scientific developments (Wils and Rasmussen Reference Wils and Rasmussen2012). While there exist a number of detailed analyses of the genesis of sociology in Belgium (esp. de Bie Reference de Bie1988; Gerard Reference Gerard1992; Crombois Reference Crombois1994; Wils Reference Wils1997), not much attention has hitherto been paid to the differentia specifica of the social and intellectual context in Belgium. I build on the existing literature, but focus my analysis particularly on the ways in which local or national controversies defined the space within which sociological networks in Belgium both emerged and disintegrated. In the next section, I start with an overview of the early forms of institutionalization of sociology in Brussels. Afterwards, I analyze the reactions to the increasing academic status of sociology in and around the Catholic University of Louvain. In the concluding section, I return to the specific national features that are key to understanding the reception and institutionalization of sociology in Belgium.
Initiatives in Brussels
In Belgium, late-nineteenth-century debates about the academic status and identity of sociology were to an important degree the result of developments in neighboring countries, especially in France, where the positivist projects of scholars such as Auguste Comte and Émile Durkheim had been able to shift sociology to the center of academic interest. In the four universities which Belgium counted at that time – two state universities (in Ghent and Liège) and two private ones (in Brussels and Louvain) – the openness towards sociology was qualified, however. Ideological tensions between these universities soon also began to shape the reception of sociology.
The rector of the University of Liège, for example, discussed the creation of a program in the social and political sciences at the start of the academic year 1884–1885. Sociology, however, could not be included in this program, as it had yet failed to fulfill any of its promises: “It [sociology] is thus far but a table of contents of which the chapters remain to be written” (Trasenster Reference Trasenster1884, 9).Footnote 1
His colleagues at the other Belgian universities shared his reservations. The inaugural address of the rector of the University of Brussels, Eugène Van der Rest, read at the start of the academic year 1888–Reference Van der Rest1889 was titled “La Sociologie.” While referring to the writings of Comte, Spencer, and Durkheim, Van der Rest also questioned the usefulness of the all-encompassing aspirations of a discipline directed at “la vie sociale toute entière” (Van der Rest Reference Van der Rest1888, 33). At the start of the next academic year, he repeated and specified his preference for a curriculum in which applied, policy-oriented forms of social science rather than sociology would prevail (Van der Rest Reference Van der Rest1889; see also Giddings Reference Giddings1891).
In and around the University of Brussels, however, socialist intellectuals such as Guillaume De Greef and Hector Denis defended at the same time the need for an explicitly positivist sociology. De Greef, especially, also acquired some international acclaim for his own contributions to sociology, which built upon statistical data (in the tradition of the Belgian homo statisticus Adolphe Quetelet), but also heavily relied on the works of Comte and Spencer. De Greef's introduction to sociology, for example, was reviewed by Durkheim, while Gabriel Tarde published an extensive review of Le transformisme social (De Greef Reference De Greef1886, Reference De Greef1895; Durkheim Reference Durkheim1886; Tarde Reference Tarde1895). He was also elected as president of René Worms’ Institut International de Sociologie for the year 1900, although, due to health problems, he eventually did not preside over the fourth congress of the Institut (Worms Reference Worms1900).
The tensions surrounding sociology were exemplary of broader ideological tensions, which led to a severe crisis at the University of Brussels (Van Rooy Reference Van Rooy1976; Noël 1988).Footnote 2 In 1894, the crisis resulted in the foundation of a dissident university, named Université Nouvelle, which was supported by a range of progressive intellectuals, both liberals and socialists. De Greef became its rector. The Université Nouvelle had an international orientation; it also intended to give ample room to sociology. Many prominent foreign (especially French) scholars were invited to teach: Gabriel Tarde, René Worms, Marcel Mauss, Maurice Halbwachs, and others lectured in Brussels in the era around 1900.Footnote 3 But the organizational and legal basis of the Université Nouvelle remained precarious. While its degrees were not officially recognized and thus without economic value in Belgium, only few Belgian students enrolled. The dissident institution counted each year around 100 students, about half of whom came from abroad (Despy-Meyer Reference Despy-Meyer1973, 8). Like other experiments in internationalism from that period, it did not outlive the First World War (Gülich Reference Gülich1992; Wils and Rasmussen Reference Wils and Rasmussen2012).
At the end of the nineteenth century, the conflicts in Brussels also initiated responses from the entrepreneur and politician Ernest Solvay. Solvay, who had made a fortune in industrial chemistry, belonged to the progressive wing of liberalism, which kept close contacts with socialist intellectuals. As a member of its academic board, he was also able to witness the conflicts at the University of Brussels first-hand. In 1894, Solvay founded the Institut des Sciences Sociales and appointed three socialist intellectuals as collaborators: Hector Denis, Guillaume De Greef, and Émile Vandervelde. Solvay himself also intended to contribute actively to his Institut (Crombois Reference Crombois1994, 24–33).
Despite initial intellectual excitement on both sides, the experiment across political divides did not last. From around 1900 onwards, Solvay began to reorganize his Institut. After having appointed Émile Waxweiler, he founded a new Institut de Sociologie Solvay. Waxweiler, who had been trained as an engineer and who had been active in liberal politics in his student years, became its director. Following some bitter exchanges, the collaboration between Solvay (and Waxweiler), on the one hand, and Denis, De Greef, and Vandervelde, on the other, also came to an end (for the written statements of both parties, see Dejongh Reference Dejongh1901; Hanssens Reference Hanssens1901).
Altogether Solvay had far-reaching scientific and social ambitions. He founded and financed two other research institutes in Brussels, one for physiology and anatomy, and one for physics and chemistry. He also gained considerable international fame with these initiatives (Bertrams et al. Reference Bertrams, Coupain and Homburg2013).Footnote 4 Solvay hoped to play a similar role with regard to the development of sociology. On a hillside in the Leopold Park of Brussels, near to his Institut de Physiologie, he constructed a somewhat eclectic art nouveau building for the new Institut de Sociologie. Both the prestigious building and its location expressed the importance Solvay accorded to sociology around the turn of the century. Sociology had to be close to the natural sciences. Sociology needed to build upon the principles of biology and physiology, but sociology also was to be treated as a “full” discipline.Footnote 5
The research program of the Institut was presented in a number of publications, most elaborately in Waxweiler's Esquisse d'une sociologie (Sketch of Sociology). Waxweiler here identified sociology with “social ethology,” a term he had borrowed from the French biologist Alfred Giard. Just as biologists study the adaptation of living organisms to their environment, sociologists had to investigate how individuals adapt to their specific environment and to each other. Sociologists had “to cling to the individual”; they had to focus on the development of the “social energy” of the individual (Waxweiler Reference Waxweiler1906, 17–40). Waxweiler also made a plea for a comparative sociology, which addressed adaptation and accommodation processes in different species, viz. animals and humans (for detailed accounts, see de Bie Reference de Bie1974; Van Langenhove Reference Van Langenhove1978; Crombois Reference Crombois1994; De Bont Reference De Bont2008, 371–398; Wils Reference Wils2011). Solvay himself distinguished between two goals, viz. “a theoretical part: understanding sociological matter from an energetic point of view and a practical part: conducting social reform from a productivist point of view.”Footnote 6 Solvay and Waxweiler shared a belief in a science-based “management” of industry and society.
To achieve these goals, the Institut created a monthly bulletin, which included a section with reports about sociologically relevant publications (Archives Sociologiques), and a bibliographical center/journal, Intermédiaire Sociologique, which aimed at the worldwide diffusion of sociological knowledge. The latter center/journal was intended to bring together researchers interested in sociology. The corresponding members were repeatedly listed in publications of the Institut. Just before the outbreak of the First World War, the list included people as diverse (and well-known) as John Dewey, Alfred L. Kroeber, Karl Lamprecht, Bronislaw Malinowski, Vilfredo Pareto, George Sarton, Joseph Schumpeter, Edward L. Thorndike, Arnold Van Gennep, and René Worms. However, neither Durkheim nor well-known Durkheimians were listed as collaborators. The “individualist” and “productivist” approach favored within the Institut was indeed very different from Durkheim's, according to which social facts and collective representations constituted basic categories for sociology (de Bie Reference de Bie1986, 194; Reference de Bie1988).
The relations with German sociology were somewhat strained, too. Waxweiler had spent some time in Berlin in 1909 and afterwards discussed the possibility of setting up three-yearly sociologically-oriented (but at the same time multidisciplinary) congresses with several members of the newly founded Deutsche Gesellschaft für Soziologie (Weber Reference Weber1994, 186–188, 243–245; Simmel Reference Simmel2008a, 708–715).Footnote 7 Plans were also made for the publication of a German version of the Archives Sociologiques, but the hoped-for collaboration did not come about (Warnotte Reference Warnotte1946, 555–560). After the outbreak of the First World War, these cont(r)acts were officially ended (Simmel Reference Simmel2008b, 413–420).
For its own workings, the Institut accorded grants to researchers who were willing to explore themes that fitted with the interests of Waxweiler and Solvay. As a result of this policy, different groups of people worked around different, relatively loosely coupled topics (Crombois Reference Crombois1994). But as many of its researchers had other disciplinary affiliations as well, such as economics, psychology, and education (“pedology”), the work conducted within the Institut was characterized by an eclectic orientation. The orientation and organization of the Institut were at odds with predominant academic currents, which were pressing at discipline formation and discipline consolidation (Abbott Reference Abbott1999).
Altogether, the disciplinary impact of this Institut Solvay was marginal. While the publications of Waxweiler and his collaborators received some positive comments from “outsiders,” such as the economist-cum-sociologist Joseph Schumpeter (Reference Schumpeter1907), reactions that questioned the value of this approach were more typical. Albion Small, the founding editor of The American Journal of Sociology, reviewed Waxweiler's Esquisse d'une sociologie as follows:
The author is mistaken in his judgment that there has been no progress in sociology, and that it is an exceptional service to the science for him to come to the rescue. There have been so many different contributions to sociology in the last dozen years that no single mind can fairly grasp their total significance. This by no means removes the fact that the science is in its infancy. The tone of Professor Waxweiler's preface, however, is needlessly patronizing toward the scholars who have contributed to the progress of sociology. The absence of caution in estimating the work of other scholars leads to the suspicion that the writer's acquaintance with the literature of his subject is limited. (Small Reference Small1906, 424)
Quite similar negative appraisals were made of Solvay's socio-economic views on “productivism” and “energetics.” Max Weber, for example, regarded Solvay's and his Institut’s amateurish efforts at sociology as entirely meaningless and little more than a parody of true scientific work (Weber Reference Weber1924, 253–255).Footnote 8
Waxweiler remained the director of the Institut until the beginning of the First World War, when all the Belgian universities closed down. He unexpectedly died following a traffic accident in London in June 1916. When the Institut was reopened after the First World War, Solvay again took up a more active role. He instigated research about “pressing” social issues, such as the nation's reconstruction after the First World War and the problem of high inflation (Piette Reference Piette and Kurgan-van Hentenryk1994). He also started with the publication of a new journal, the Revue de l'Institut de Sociologie. But his Institut would not be able to reclaim a prominent position in the expanding international field of sociology. Not only had the war impaired his fortune, but the isolation from international scientific networks during the war years also proved very difficult to overcome (Bertrams et al. Reference Bertrams, Coupain and Homburg2013). Neither for his political nor for his sociological views, Solvay would find much support in the years after the war.
In the period around 1900, however, the idiosyncratic choices made in Brussels clearly affected the reactions to the rise of the new discipline in and around the Catholic University of Louvain. Although the secular and positivist connotations of sociology were often vehemently criticized, Catholics not only looked for alternatives to this “antireligious” sociology in philosophy and theology. Referring to international developments, especially those in France around Durkheim, some Catholics in Louvain could even claim to be the real defenders and practitioners of sociology in Belgium.
Defensive Reactions in Louvain
A defensive stance towards sociology long prevailed at the Catholic University of Louvain, however. If attention was accorded to sociology, the main aim often was to point out its deficiencies and blind spots. For the Catholics, sociology was focused too exclusively on observable facts. Its positivist and empiricist approach could neither answer the ultimate questions nor offer guidelines for morally responsible action. In this sense, the rise of “the so-called new sociology” – as they liked to say – was itself part and symptom of the social and moral crises of their time. Or stated somewhat differently: the general atmosphere of moral decline, which was considered to be typical of the “modern” era, provided proof of the failure of a sociological conception of morality.
At the School for Political and Social Sciences, which was set up in 1892 under the umbrella of the Faculty of Law, the negative views were clearly predominant. Despite its orientation towards the social sciences, the School did not provide much place for sociology. Its courses were in large part legal and policy-oriented, directed towards the administration of the state. The term “sociology” was avoided; preference was given to that of “social science.” In October 1896, the School's first director, Jules Van den Heuvel, stated his reservations in a letter to the rector magnificus of his university in the following words: “At present, sociology is most often but a poor philosophy hidden behind long quotes of somewhat picturesque customs and mores” (cited in Gerard Reference Gerard1992, 30).Footnote 9 Although some empirical research was supported in the School, one mainly built on the “monographic” method of family-budget studies as developed by the French Catholic social scientist Frédéric Le Play. In the spirit of Le Play, the “monographs” or case studies of the living conditions of family households had to provide for moral exemplars for Catholic families (Heilbron Reference Heilbron2015, 56–57; see also Louckx Reference Louckx2017). In this spirit, it was also argued that social policy had to be based on moral exemplars or religious ideals (e.g., Brants Reference Brants1906).
More interest in sociology developed within the Higher Institute of Philosophy. Established in 1889, this Higher Institute was explicitly devoted to the revival of the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas (as stimulated by Pope Leo XIII). For its chairman, the future archbishop and cardinal Désiré Mercier, it had to come up with new, modern answers to the “positivist” attacks on religion and philosophy. The Higher Institute was itself perceived as a modern institution, both while it admitted lay people (instead of only clerics) and used French (instead of Latin) as medium of instruction. But this internal modernization was not just thought of as an adaptation to changing social expectations; it was also believed to be necessary to counter the modernization of society (Hellemans Reference Hellemans1990; see also Vanderstraeten Reference Vanderstraeten1999). The interest in modern scientific developments was actively stimulated, while certain scientific developments might be used to defend, elaborate, and strengthen religious worldviews. In the eyes of some collaborators of the Higher Institute, “the so-called new sociology” might also be put to good use. If practiced by Catholics, its valuable parts might be incorporated into a neo-Thomist social doctrine that followed the directives set out in the encyclical Rerum novarum issued by Leo XIII in 1891.
One of the most outspoken and influential exponents of this defensive project was Simon Deploige. This priest (who succeeded Mercier as chair of the Higher Institute of Philosophy in Louvain in 1906) attracted some attention with his sharp polemics against Émile Durkheim and his “loyal lieutenant” Lucien Lévy-Bruhl (e.g., Lévy-Bruhl Reference Lévy-Bruhl1903). He particularly criticized their positivist accounts of morality and religion. Deploige rejected analyses of morality in terms of group identity and collective consciousness. Of particular concern was Durkheim's idea to compare different religions with regard to the way they fulfilled their social function – as such an approach could not but fail to underline the moral authority and supremacy of the Catholic Church. In a series of contributions, first in the form of articles in the Revue Néo-Scolastique (which was the official journal of the Higher Institute), and later in the monograph Le Conflit de la Morale et de la Sociologie, Deploige put stress on God as the foundation of morality.Footnote 10 Deploige also underlined the moral authority and supremacy of the Catholic Church. But he did not claim that all empirical analyses of social phenomena had to be given up. His view was that sociology could not replace religion and ethics, but he also argued that Catholic theology entailed rich empirical reflections on the social world. Other versions of social science were therefore imaginable from a Catholic perspective. “Sociology . . . is only a particular conception of social science. It is the disputed and disputable method of Durkheim” (Deploige Reference Deploige1911, 367).
Le Conflit de la Morale et de la Sociologie contains a detailed exposition of Durkheim's views on morality, although Deploige primarily used his book to defend the scientia moralis of St. Thomas. Time and again he presented Thomas Aquinas as a modern sociologist. Sociology did not add anything to existing scholastic theory. In his view, “St. Thomas . . . had already conceived the possibility of a discipline applied to the discovery of moral and social facts by the method of observation” (ibid., 288). “St. Thomas [was] better informed than many a contemporary sociologist” (ibid.). “When he [Durkheim] proclaims that ‘each people has its morality’ which is determined by the conditions in which it lives, he is merely expressing a thought familiar to St. Thomas” (ibid., 341). Deploige added: “The powerful attack of the sociologists not only makes no breach in the Thomistic edifice, but the latter, while remaining solid and undisturbed, is vast and hospitable enough to shelter sociology itself. Sociology is not a foe of Thomism, but an ally. It is fitting to welcome it, though with discernment; but there is no need to fear it or to despise it” (ibid., 389).
Following these lines, Deploige also explicitly questioned the originality of Durkheim's analysis. Capitalizing on the existing hostilities between French and German intellectuals, this Belgian author accused Durkheim of having borrowed the largest part of his ideas from nineteenth-century German philosophers. There was not much new to sociology, but Durkheim could be credited with having rediscovered some already well-established ideas: “Grant, if you wish, to Durkheim that he is the Columbus of sociology” (ibid., 369). His provocation was – in part – successful. Durkheim reacted by letter (the letters were reprinted – and answered – in the Revue Néo-Scolastique and in Deploige Reference Deploige1911). Durkheim later also published a short reaction in L'Année Sociologique, in which he dismissed Deploige's book as a malignant apologetic pamphlet. “This book is an apologetic pamphlet. Its goal is to discredit our ideas, by all possible means, for the greater glory of the doctrine of St. Thomas.” (E.D. [Émile Durkheim] Reference Durkheim1912, 326).Footnote 11 But Durkheim afterwards never again reacted to the accusations, although Deploige repeatedly attempted to carry on the polemics (Deploige died in 1927 while working on the fifth edition of Le Conflit de la Morale et de la Sociologie).
As close collaborator and successor of Mercier, Deploige played an important role at the Catholic University of Louvain. Several “sociologists” who would leave their mark on the early development of the new academic discipline in Belgium were graduates from the Higher Institute – and thus students of Mercier and Deploige. For Mercier and Deploige, the appointment of some of their students at the state universities of Ghent and Liège was proof of the success of the Institut Supérieur (Boudens Reference Boudens1995, 175–194). But they did not have much faith in sociology. Within appropriate limits, sociology was thought to be of use to Catholicism in the modern world. If due care was taken, the views of people such as Comte and Durkheim could be incorporated into Catholic, neo-Thomist refutations of the prevailing Marxist and liberal ideologies. But most collaborators of the Higher Institute did not actively attempt to contribute to disciplinary developments in sociology. They rather held the view that sociology needed to be much more modest, especially in light of “the excellence of Catholicism for the moralization of societies” (Defourny Reference Defourny1903, 252).Footnote 12
Société Belge de Sociologie
On the fringes of the Higher Institute of Philosophy in Louvain, however, a few other collaborators defended a more positive stance towards sociology. It is here that the lawyer and politician Cyrille Van Overbergh, who was a part-time visiting lecturer at the Higher Institute, established at the very end of the nineteenth century, on the 19th of December, 1899, the first sociological association in Belgium, the Société Belge de Sociologie. To legitimate his initiative, Van Overbergh distinguished between three types of sociology and three corresponding Weltanschauungen: liberal, socialist, and Catholic. Not surprisingly, he dismissed both the individualist (liberal) and the collectivist (socialist) approach. The Société Belge de Sociologie had to further the development of a Catholic sociology. In his view, sociology could be given a Catholic interpretation, while Roman Catholicism was both a theoretical system and a civilizational project “which affirms itself through its benevolent effects throughout a history of nineteen centuries” (Van Overbergh Reference Van Overbergh1900, 179).Footnote 13
In its charter, the establishment of the Société was called “un acte de foi dans la sociologie,” i.e. an act of faith in sociology (Jacquart Reference Jacquart1903, 4). A fundamental openness towards the new discipline was emphasized, despite the lack of clarity about its object, method, and limitations. Next to organizing meetings and discussions, the Société started to publish two periodicals. Le Mouvement Sociologique was a bibliographical bulletin that primarily contained reviews from publications about or relevant to sociology, while the Annales de Sociologie was conceived of as a venue for the publication of original work of its members. Both journals were explicitly modelled after Durkheim's L'Année Sociologique. Several of the most active members of the Société also explicitly built upon French sociology (Comte and Durkheim in particular) to legitimize the central position of religion in sociological research, even if they questioned positivist approaches and definitions of religion. Despite substantial disagreement among its members about the possibilities of a Catholic interpretation of sociology, there was much agreement that a “sociologie religieuse,” i.e. a sociology at the service of the Catholic Church, had to be at the heart of the Société (Digneffe Reference Digneffe1986, 47–72; Wils Reference Wils1997; Gerard and Wils Reference Gerard, Wils, Voyé and Billiet1999).Footnote 14
Precautions had to be taken, however. In an article on “Catholics and sociology,” published in the first volume of the Annales de Sociologie, the Jesuit A. Vermeersch referred to the rise of the new discipline at other Belgian universities and in a number of other countries and raised two questions: “Is there a place for Catholics among the pioneers of sociology? Does this place deserve it to be taken?” (Vermeersch Reference Vermeersch1903, 33).Footnote 15 For Vermeersch, there were tensions between sociology and Catholicism. The positivist focus on facts and laws implied determinism, while human freedom was a postulate of morality and of the Catholic church. Many sociologists also seemed to uphold the view that religious skepticism could benefit their scientific work (ibid., 40). But Catholics did not need to be skeptical about science – even if truth was only to be found in eternal life. For Vermeersch, believers were in fact well-placed to do justice to the central role of religion in society, given their intimate knowledge of its absolute truths. In his view, a proper theological training was necessary to refute the positivist views of sociology. If a sociological analysis of the Church was possible, it had to be undertaken by believers, whose observations of the “facts” could be enlightened by their religious commitments and theological expertise (ibid., 48–51). Such a sociological approach could be of benefit to the Church – as it could assist in developing new instruments for its evangelical work in the secular world.
This point of view particularly surfaced in a large “descriptive sociological” project about “primitive” tribes in Africa, especially in the Congo Basin, that was supported by the Société. The project resulted in a series of ethnographic monographs, published under the direction of Cyrille Van Overbergh. The subtitle of the series – Sociologie descriptive – was directly inspired by Herbert Spencer's Descriptive Sociology. For Spencer, the volumes of his Descriptive Sociology, in which information was published about social institutions of various societies, both primitive and civilized, prepared the ground for The Principles of Sociology (Spencer 1873–Reference Spencer1881). Van Overbergh had similar ambitions: he believed that the envisaged 17 ethnographic monographs (of which 12 would appear before the First World War), would allow him to draw more general or systematic conclusions.
The ethnographic studies relied on data provided by Belgian functionaries and missionaries. Not surprisingly, religion figured prominently among the themes covered in each study. These descriptive overviews had the ambition to provide missionaries with an instrument to conduct their evangelical work. It was repeatedly claimed that they could further the Church's cause in Africa. Following Van Overbergh, the monographs more particularly showed that a gradualist or syncretic approach, in which Catholicism would be grafted onto the local, “primitive” or “inferior” belief systems, would be more efficient than a radical approach that would first uproot these local beliefs. Notions of “acculturation” were put to the fore. Exactly in this light, descriptive sociological overviews and analyses could be of great value for the Catholic missionaries (see also Couttenier Reference Couttenier2005, 224–234; Poncelet Reference Poncelet2008, 170–175). Shortly after the death of Leopold II, Van Overbergh quoted the King's explicit support for his work and mission in the preface to the sixth volume of the series Sociologie Descriptive: “I see in your work the possibility of civilizing Africa gradually and methodically, without loss of time, taking as starting point the real situation of these brave people” (Van Overbergh Reference Van Overbergh, Vanden Plas and Van Overbergh1910, 38).Footnote 16
For the Société, the orientation towards “primitive” tribes in Africa might have been a way to avoid “jurisdictional” conflicts within the Catholic University of Louvain. It allowed for a proper niche, within which the members of the Société could legitimate their own claims to sociological expertise. Their recommendations also rivalled with those made by members of the “free-thinking” Solvay Institute.Footnote 17 Internationally, however, their “descriptive sociology” did not receive much attention. Nor did the series meet with much approval. Some volumes were briefly reviewed by Marcel Mauss in L'Année Sociologique, but Mauss primarily pointed to the simplicity of and contradictions in these volumes (M.M. Reference Mauss1909, Reference Mauss1912). At the other side of the Atlantic, Robert E. Park heavily attacked Leopold's depredations in the Congo Free State. He clearly did not believe in the civilizational projects of the Catholic Church in Congo (see Lyman Reference Lyman1992). Despite the efforts it undertook, the Société proved unable to establish stable relationships with a broader, disciplinary context.
In Louvain, support for the Société also did not have eternal life. The Société remained a relatively small “voluntary association” of Catholics with an interest in sociology. According to its own records, it counted 37 members (among them Deploige, but not Mercier) at the start of the twentieth century. Only two volumes of the Annales de Sociologie would appear (in 1903 and 1905 respectively). Le Mouvement Sociologique originally appeared as an annex to the Revue Néo-Scolastique, the official journal of the Higher Institute of Philosophy. But the cooperation with this journal already came to an end in 1906, when Mercier (who had been appointed as archbishop) was succeeded by Deploige as the chairman of the Higher Institute. For a few years (1907-1910), the journal was published independently under the title of Le Mouvement Sociologique International. In 1913, a new start was attempted when a few issues appeared under the original title Le Mouvement Sociologique. But the First World War did not allow for a revival of the association. Its most prominent members had at that time also started to pursue other (often political) careers. The Société disappeared – without having had much impact. When a second, “pluralist” Société Belge de Sociologie was founded shortly after the Second World War, most of its founding members were ignorant about the existence of a forerunner with the same name, as one of them later testified (de Bie Reference de Bie1986, 225)!
In a retrospective interview, conducted in 1945, Van Overbergh nevertheless kept underlining the sociological merits of the Société in Louvain. The Société was in his view the only place in Belgium where sociology had truly been practiced in the era around 1900. He did not include his neo-thomist colleagues at the Higher Institute, but distinguished between the approach of the Société in Louvain and that of the Institut Solvay in Brussels. In his words:
what Solvay and Waxweiler were doing was not real sociology. Waxweiler was an economist; he always worked with economists. He did some good things in this area, but it was not sociology. The contacts I had with him were excellent. We applauded each other's efforts. But only we [in Louvain] were doing real sociology. We were studying Comte, Spencer, Durkheim . . . We wanted to show that Catholics could do sociology, that they were not hindered to do so by their religion.Footnote 18 (de Bie Reference de Bie1986, 210)
On the fringes of the Higher Institute for Philosophy, however, this interest in sociology could not find much support. Without career options and without much research opportunities, the new discipline soon became marginalized. Given its lack of academic prestige, attracting ambitious or talented scholars also proved difficult. In Louvain, structural support was at that time given to a defensive project, to the propagation of a neo-thomist social doctrine, not to the development of sociology as a scientific discipline itself.
Conclusion
In the course of the last two centuries, many disciplines have become organized along national lines. Both institutionally and intellectually, they have been shaped by different national contexts. For the social sciences and sociology in particular, nation-building and national policies have often defined the spaces for scholarship. Not only could the newly emerging nations facilitate particular processes of academic institutionalization, but society, which lies at the heart of sociology's own self-definition, was often also created in the image of the nation-state (Chernilo Reference Chernilo2006; Mosbah-Natanson Reference Mosbah-Natanson2008). Despite the importance of international networks and international orientations, especially in the decades which predated the outbreak of the First World War, the early development of sociology as an academic discipline has been heavily dependent on specific characteristics of specific local and national settings.
As has been seen, early support for sociology in Belgium was a product of particular socio-historical circumstances. It was a response to its favorable reception in neighboring countries, especially in France, but it was also highly marked by changing structures and controversies in Belgium itself. Even international interests varied in Belgium according to ideological and institutional positions. These controversies allowed influential sponsors, such as Ernest Solvay, to have a significant impact on the institutionalization and intellectual orientation of the new discipline. The ideological rivalries also led to strong differences between the types of sociology propagated in Brussels and Louvain. Sociology remained close to ideology, whether of secular or of Catholic orientation; the Weltanschauungen long dominated the space within which the social sciences could develop. The local controversies did, however, also limit the academic prestige of and prospects for sociology in Belgium.Footnote 19
For the new discipline, these ties made it difficult to gain legitimacy as an autonomous and theory-driven analysis of social phenomena. In order to gain support, Belgian sociologists had to direct their work to specific publics, with their specific expectations. Only “useful” knowledge provided for some kind of fit between their interests and the ideologically-defined interests of their publics. These ties also limited the possibilities for collaboration with peers, both nationally and internationally.
The local or national controversies have long continued to define the space in which sociology could develop. In the decades after the First World War, when the Belgian academic system was gradually restored, sociology did not fare well. Some institutional successes were achieved in the 1930s, when the expansion of the university system provided new opportunities for a broad variety of disciplines. But the small sociology centers, which were established at the state universities of Ghent and Liège, became part of the Faculty of Law of these universities. This setting limited once again the directions in which sociology could develop; the other commitments in the Faculty of Law heavily affected the character of the work that could be undertaken (e.g., Clémens Reference Clémens1935; Haesaert Reference Haesaert1956). At the state universities of Ghent and Liège, sociology was relegated to an ancillary role.
The situation was not very different in Brussels and Louvain. In Brussels, the Institut de Sociologie Solvay survived the death of its founder and sponsor. After attempts to bequeath it to the League of Nations had failed, the Institut was incorporated into the Université Libre de Bruxelles in the early 1920s (Crombois Reference Crombois1994, 119). Some links with the international sociological community survived.Footnote 20 Under the direction of non-sociologists, such as the physician Georges Barnich and the jurist Ernest Mahaim, however, the work conducted in the Institut continued to be characterized by a high degree of heterogeneity and eclecticism. In the same era, the philosophers and theologians in Louvain did not again invest in sociology. The School for Political and Social Sciences continued to exist in Louvain, but its support for sociology remained minimal (see Leemans Reference Leemans1938, 45; Gerard Reference Gerard1992, 52). Both in Brussels and Louvain, reclaiming academic relevance proved difficult for sociologists. Despite some (historical) visibility, the discipline did not again acquire much recognition. In the Belgian academic system, it remained too closely associated with the competing Weltanschauungen.
In the decades after the Second World War, increasing secularization allowed for more freedom and more forms of collaboration. The expansion of the university system also improved the prospects for sociology. Against this background, a new Société Belge de Sociologie was established in 1950. Its ideological and geographical scope was broader than that of the first Catholic Société; sociologists of all universities – Brussels and Louvain, Ghent and Liège – were involved. Tellingly, however, the main impulse for the re-establishment of this association came from UNESCO and its Social Sciences Department. As part of a wider program to develop the social sciences and promote its own policy aims, UNESCO was responsible for initiating the establishment of several internationally-oriented disciplinary associations, including the International Sociological Association. It also provided funding for national disciplinary associations and research consortia, including the Société Belge de Sociologie (de Bie Reference de Bie1986, 227–230). One of the most tangible and seemingly paradoxical results of the postwar international associations may indeed have been that they stimulated the (re-)establishment of national sociological societies (Heilbron Reference Heilbron2014).Footnote 21 International initiatives of this kind may also allow for stronger identifications with specific disciplinary frames of reference.
In the period around 1900, Belgium aimed at playing an important role in international scientific developments; initial support for the institutionalization of the social sciences took place within this intellectual climate. It also benefited from the rivalries between neighboring countries, especially France and Germany. Its international ambitions were also possible, because “little Belgium” was perceived to be less threatening than its neighbors. Already in the years before the outbreak of the First World War, however, it became clear that its specific efforts to contribute to the articulation of the new discipline did not meet with much approval. After the First World War, when international openness gave way to a much stronger nationalism, Belgian scholars could not again aim at playing an important international role. At that time, the many local tensions and rivalries further hindered the development of a specific national sociological tradition within Belgium.
Acknowledgments
The research upon which this article builds was first reported in the second chapter of Sociology in Belgium (Vanderstraeten and Louckx Reference Vanderstraeten and Louckx2018). Whereas this book sketches lines of continuity and change for the social sciences from the mid-nineteenth until the early-twenty-first century, the present paper deals with the different contexts of the formation of the discipline in Belgium in the early-twentieth century. I would like to thank Kaat Louckx, Hartmann Tyrell, Andrew Abbott, and the editors of Science in Context for their generous feedback on earlier versions of the present paper.
