『社会分業論』序論

前回は初版序文をやりましたが（id:hidex7777:20051003:p1）第2版序文はとばして（これはいわば『自殺論』のあとがきのような位置づけを持つ）、序論に入りましょう。

方針は前回同様で。

社会分業論(上) (講談社学術文庫)

The Division of Labor in Society

• http://www.uqac.uquebec.ca/zone30/Classiques_des_sciences_sociales/classiques/Durkheim_emile/division_du_travail/division_travail.html
  • De la division du travail social / Émile Durkheim

INTRODUCTION. LE PROBLEME

[intr01]

• Although the division of labour is not of recent origin, it was only at the end of the last century that societies began to become aware of this law, to which up to then they had submitted almost unwittingly.

前世紀、というのは18世紀のこと。

[intr02]

• Nowadays the phenomenon has become so widespread that it catches everyone's attention. We can no longer be under any illusion about the trends in modern industry. It involves increasingly powerful mechanisms, large-scale groupings of power and capital, and consequently an extreme division of labour.

[intr03]

• Yet the division of labour is not peculiar to economic life. We can observe its increasing influence in the most diverse sectors of society. Functions, whether political, administrative or judicial, are becoming more and more specialised. The same is true in the arts and sciences. The time lies far behind us when philosophy constituted the sole science. It has become fragmented into a host of special disciplines, each having its purpose, method and ethos. 'From one half-century to another the men who have left their mark upon the sciences have become more specialized.'

段落まるごと引用しました。

[intr04]

• de Candolle noted that in the age of Leibnitz and Newton he would have had to write down:
  • two or three descriptions almost always for each scientist: for example, astronomer and physicist, or mathematician, astronomer and physicist, or alternatively, to use only such general terms as philosopher or naturalist. Even that would not have been enough. Mathematicians and naturalists were sometimes scholars or poets.

ああ、仮定法過去なのか。

• Not only is the scientist no longer immersed in different sciences at the same time, but he can no longer encompass the whole field of one science. The range of his research is limited to a finite category of problems or even to a single one of them.

[intr05]

• The recent philosophical speculations in biology have finally caused us to realise that the division of labour is a fact of a generality that the economists, who were the first to speak of it, had been incapable of suspecting. Indeed, since the work of Wolff, von Baer and Milne-Edwards we know that the law of the division of labour applies to organisms as well as to societies. It may even be stated that an organism occupies the more exalted a place in the animal hierarchy the more specialised its functions are.

分業とか適者生存とかシステムとかといった語彙は社会科学から自然科学に貸したものなのだけど、ここではorganismsの分業について述べられている。
ぼくは「有機体」とか「有機物」とかについてよくわからないのだけど（炭素がある〔主要な構成要素である〕ということはorganとなんの関係があるのだろう？化学の教科書読めば載ってる？）、ここは「有機体」などといわずに「生物」でいいような気がするのだけど……でも後から出てくる《有機的連帯》／《機械的連帯》‐区別で「有機的」って言葉を使いたいのかなあ。でも「有機／機械」って対立関係にないでそ、そもそも。笑い。
まあそんなしょーもないところにひっかかって読んでてもしょうがないけど。
生物だって機械だしねえ。

[intr06]

• our moral constitution
  • Is it our duty to seek to become a rounded, complete creature, a whole sufficient unto itself or, on the contrary, to be only a part of the whole, the organ of an organism?

[intr07]（ただし原文／英訳では8段落目）

• The time is past when the perfect man seemed to us the one who, capable of being interested in everything but attaching himself exclusively to nothing, able to savour everything and understand everything, found the means to combine and epitomise within himself the finest aspects of civilisation. Today that general culture, once so highly extolled, no longer impresses us save as a flabby, lax form of disciplines.

saveに前置詞としての意味があることを初めて知った。「?を除いて、?を別として」という意味らしい。

• In short, in one of its aspects the categorical imperative of the moral consciousness is coming to assume the following form: Equip yourself to fulfil usefully a specific function.

[intr08]

• Yet, confronted with these facts, we can cite others that contradict them. If public opinion recognises the rule of the division of labour, it is not without some anxiety and hesitation. Whilst commanding men to specialise, it has always seemingly the fear that they will do so to excess.

ところでほんとどうでもいいことだけど、この段落の最後、un antagonismeが英訳だとan antimonyと訳されているのだけど、なんで？antinomyの誤植？

[intr09]

• To end this state of indecision we shall not resort to the normal method of the moralists who, wishing to decide upon the moral worth of a precept,
  • start by laying down a general formula for morality,
  • and then measure the disputed maxim up against it.

↑このような方法はとらない、という宣言。

• Nowadays we know how little value may be attached to such summary generalisations.(10)
  • (10)In the first edition of this book, we developed at length the reasons which, in our view, prove the sterility of this method. Today we believe that we can be more brief. There are arguments that should not be indefinitely prolonged.

• Set out at the beginning of a study, before any observation of the facts,
  • their purpose is not to account for them,
  • but to enunciate the abstract principle for an ideal legislative code to be created out of nothing.

• Thus these generalisations do not summarise for us the essential characteristics which moral rules really represent in a particular society or in a determinate social type.

• They merely express the manner in which the moralist himself conceives morality.

手厳しい。

[intr10]

• The sole means of successfully evaluating objectively the division of labour is
  • first to study it in itself, in an entirely speculative fashion, investigating its utility and on what it is contingent - in short, to form for ourselves as adequate an idea of it as possible.
  • When this has been accomplished, we are in a position to compare it with other moral phenomena and perceive what relationship it entertains with them.

itはthe division of labourを指しており、themはother moral phenomenaを指している。

[intr11]

• Our study will therefore be divided into three main sections.

[intr12]

• We shall first investigate the function of the division of labour, that is, the social need to which it corresponds.

↑これがBook1(Livre1)に対応。

[intr13]

• Next, we shall determine the causes and conditions upon which it depends.

↑これがBook2(Livre2)に対応。

[intr14]

• Finally, （…） we shall aim to classify the principal abnormal forms that it assumes, in order to avoid confusing them〔abnormal forms〕 with the rest〔normal state〕.

↑これがBook3(Livre3)に対応。

• In addition, the study will be of interest because, as in biology, the pathological here will enable us to understand better the physiological.

でました病理学！生理学！

[intr15]

• To understand objectively the division of labour it is not enough to develop the substance of the conception we have of it. We should rather treat it as an objective fact, to be observed and comparisons made.

以上で序論は終わり。
（つづくかも）