Named Fellowships

With Émile Durkheim (1858-1917), the centre takes up a founding figure of the social sciences who was received with the greatest respect worldwide. Marcel Mauss, Marc Bloch, Maurice Halbwachs, Pierre Bourdieu and Bruno Latour, Mary Douglas, Talcott Parsons and Jeffrey C. Alexander all refer to Durkheim and his journal, the Année sociologique.  In view of Durkheim's belated reception in Germany, it makes sense to honour the author by establishing a corresponding fellowship, who was influenced by his studies in Germany in the 1880s, including Wilhelm Wundt. The anti-Semitic ostracism of Émile Durkheim during National Socialism, who said of himself ‘avant tout je suis fils de rabbin’, left its mark in Germany, which could be countered by naming a research centre after Durkheim for the first time.

 The Durkheim Centre aims to address the challenges of the 21st century, which manifest themselves in various crises that were first analysed by Durkheim in their breadth and interconnectedness. We encounter these crisis-like developments as the consequences of climate change, the return of war, the dramatic crisis of democracy, the inequality in the distribution f wealth and prosperity on a global scale or the crises of the ‘mind’ in times of extensive digitalisation and the advancement of artificial intelligence. 

The concept of crisis, whose origins Reinhard Koselleck locates in Rousseau, and which Durkheim reserves for the so-called ‘anomic’, i.e. insufficiently regulated, division of labour in his study on the division of labour (‘De la division du travail social’), is inscribed with an appealing character. As soon as a phenomenon is recognised as a crisis and defined as such in public, there is a call to action! What about the perception and definition of what is considered a ‘crisis’, i.e. the ‘découpage de l'objet’ as Durkheim calls it?

Are there commonalities in the dynamics of crisis development and the structural upheavals associated with it?

 With Durkheim's ‘toolbox’, which still contains the unsettling thesis of the ‘normality of crime', perhaps also of the 'crisis', it will be possible to approach these questions in a methodological and systematic way without falling into a 'Durkheimology'.

Naming a chair for African academics in the Emile Durkheim Research Unit at the University of Bonn after W.E.B. Du Bois, offers an unparalleled intellectual legacy, deeply rooted in the sociological exploration of race and inequality. His works such as The Souls of Black Folk (1903) and Black Reconstruction in America (1935) are foundational to understanding African identity, double consciousness, and the intersection of race and class in both African and global contexts. These contributions align well with Durkheim’s focus on social facts and the structural forces shaping society. Additionally, he is not only ennobled by the fact that he met Weber on his trip to America in 1904, but it is quite conceivable that Weber's constructivist understanding of “race” (constituted by a “belief in commonality”) was also shaped by Dubois, as Lawrence Scaff has pointed out. But the connection goes back even further: during his study visit to Berlin (1892-94) he had heard lectures by Max Weber and at the same time got to know the German historical school with Gustav Schmoller and Adolf Wagner, who in turn were so important for Émile Durkheim's experience of German science during his study trip.

Du Bois’ concept of double consciousness, introduced in The Souls of Black Folk, provides a profound framework for examining the psychological and cultural duality faced by Africans and the African diaspora. This is particularly relevant for studying the effects of colonialism and globalization on African identity, making Du Bois an ideal leader in the analysis of Africa’s integration into global systems. His work on race and capitalism, particularly in Black Reconstruction in America, further explores how economic structures have historically marginalized African peoples, insights crucial for understanding contemporary African socio-economic realities.

While scholars like Leopold Senghor contributed significantly to African thought, especially through his advocacy of Negritude, Du Bois’ broader focus on global racial dynamics, as explored in Dusk of Dawn (1940) and his sociological investigations in The Philadelphia Negro (1899), make his approach more interdisciplinary and expansive.

Therefore, Du Bois’ empirical rigor, theoretical innovation, and focus on the African diaspora render him the most fitting choice for the Durkheim Research Unit, where complex sociological inquiries are at the forefront

Anyone who has ever met the grand old lady can hardly escape her influence.

 It is her groundbreaking work that has earned her extraordinary recognition throughout the world and not only among ethnologists: 1963 The Lele of the Kasai; Oxford University Press, London. 1966 Purity and Danger. An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Tabo; Routledge & Kegan Paul, London 1970 Natural Symbols. Explorations in Cosmology; 1973: revised edition; Barrie & Rockliff/Cresset Press, London 1978 The World of Goods. Towards an Anthropology of Consumption; with Baron Isherwood; Basic Books, New York 1980 Evans-Prichar; Fontana Modern Master, Glasgow 1982 Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technological and Environmental Danger; with Aaron Wildavsk; University of California Press, London 1986 How Institutions Think; Syracuse University Press, New York 1993 In the Wilderness: Doctrine of Defilement in the Book of Number; Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield. She worked in the spirit of Evans-Pritchard, but also in the name of Émile Durkheim, whom she admired. I can personally confirm this, because I honored her with what I considered to be one of my best Durkheim portraits on the occasion of a visit to Bonn University and, as her husband assured me, she seems to have held it in special honor... Geographically, it covers the ethnic groups she studies in Africa and elsewhere, and the scope of her topics is of particular interest to the Émile Durkheim Research Unit: the use of rituals for the understanding of the human condition, the role of symbolic representations and the inherent power of symbols, as well as the relationship to “nature” as it is developed and practiced in religions... „Risk“ and „danger“ are basic concepts of a theory of crisis, in the development of which her creative spirit will be fruitful.

Anyone who has ever been to India will have noticed the numerous Ambedkar statues as an expression of reverence for the scientist who made such an important contribution to the genesis of the Indian constitution. As a member of the Mahar, a population group traditionally counted among the Dalits, Ambedkar fought against social discrimination through the system of categorisation in Hindu society, which left its mark on India's eternal constitution, whose precious scrolls are preserved in helium. In 1922, Ambedkar was enrolled at the University of Bonn as the son of a general, even though his father was probably only a simple officer. But this position was a prerequisite for him to grow out of the group of ‘untouchables’. His last academic contribution, on ‘Marx and Buddha’, was the source of inspiration for a sculptural work by Alexander Polzin, which was unveiled in 2013 at the Käte Hamburger Kolleg in the presence of the Indian Consul General, now at the Durkheim Research Centre.

The naming of an Ambedkar Fellowship at the Émile Durkheim Research Centre honours an important scientist and activist who sought to break the shackles of caste society in order to work for a fairer world as a lawyer, jurist and economist. By establishing the Ambedkar Fellowship, we hope to benefit from the fruitfulness of research perspectives developed in India in particular, which are associated with the names Upendra Baxi, Homi Bhabha and Dipesh Chakrabarty.

Much like America became the sociological paradigm for the New World—from Tocqueville to Weber and Baudrillard—and India the pilgrimage site for 'Legal Pluralism' and 'Hybridity,' Japan has gained paramount significance for understanding the relationship between tradition and modernity. This is reflected in the works of Ruth Benedict, Robert N. Bellah, and Chie Nakane. Nakane succeeded in identifying the particular features of Japanese society, such as the ie (household) system, while at the same time making a significant contribution to the foundations of anthropology and sociology with her research into universally vertical societal structures. She did not so much theorize feminist concerns as practice them: she became the first female assistant and eventually a professor at the University of Tokyo. Her research in India and Japan was highly regarded by academic communities as well as the broader public. She was awarded the Order of Culture and the Medal of Honour with Purple Ribbon. After her passing at the age of 94, there was talk of a condolence letter from the Emperor, but her family declined it, in line with the much-praised modesty of Chie Nakane.

Today, it seems she is not well known in Japan anymore, as my friend Masahiro Noguchi from Tokyo writes to me. The naming of a fellowship in her honor pays tribute to a great scholar who stood for the ideals of objectivity and clarity of thought—something anyone who has delved into her writings will have absorbed. With her focus on topics like love, kinship, and family, she also seems to me to be closely aligned with the tradition of Durkheimian sociology and the Année sociologique, which, incidentally, contains numerous reviews of society and law in Japan.