This four-volume set presents an unrivalled collection of the key literature in European sociology. The prestigious texts range across the European tradition from enlightenment to contemporary theory. The collection explodes the myth that the European tradition in sociology is a debate with the ghosts of Karl Marx and Max Weber, demonstrating that the tradition is far more deeply rooted and broadly based. Volume 1 is devoted to the emergence of European sociology. The contribution of classical political economy and the Enlightenment (...) is examined. Commentaries on the work of Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu, Taine, Rousseau, de Tocqueville, Comte and St. Simon are included. The volume creates a vivid and compelling picture of the origins of European sociology. Volume 2 covers the rise of the classical period in social theory. It includes commentaries on the contribution of Marx, Spencer, Dilthey, Weber, Durkheim and Simmel. An overview of the main contributions of the founding fathers is also included. Volume 3 moves on to explore the main developments in the first half of the twentieth century. The contributions of the Durkheimian Tradition, Mauss, Mannheim, Lukacs, Gramsci and British sociology are presented. The volume provides a synoptic view of the diversity and emerging complexity of European sociology. Volume 4 identifies the main developments from post-industrial theory to the present day. The volume includes commentaries on the work of Aron, Foucault, Habermas, Giddens, Bourdieu, Boudon and Gellner. Selections on structuralism, polysemy, the positivist dispute and the neo-liberal tradition widen out the picture. The collection is the benchmark work for understanding the history, contribution and dilemmas of the European tradition. Full account is taken of the reference needs of students as well as of academics. Each hardcover volume of 416 pages is bound to the highest standards. The lettering on the cover is gold embossed. The slip case for the four volumes is also embossed. The volumes are not available separately. (shrink)

L'engagement européen de Raymond Aron est méconnu. Au mieux, on entrevoit qu'il rejette dos à dos Monnet et De Gaulle, preuve de son euroscepticisme supposé.

If the specificity of liberal democracy, as a regime, is to base power on consent then political violence appears to contradict the typical self-understanding of the societies whose functioning it informs. A justification of the motives which may call for such violence thus becomes both a political and a philosophical problem when such a regime faces the necessity to resort to violent means of action. Reaching intellectual maturity during the 30’s and the 40’s, while democratic states were faltering in Europe, (...) Raymond Aron had an acute understanding of this issue. An inquiry into Aron’s publications from that period will help us identify what kind of moral and cultural foundations they need to have if they are not to collapse during wartime. These texts also shed an original light on his post-war political thought and may lead us to reconsider some dominant contemporary interpretations of his work as revolving around the Kantian–Machiavellian antinomy. When compared to either element of this antinomy, Aron’s conception of agency, its emphasis on moral obligations, virtues and moral character, starts bearing more resemblance to the political science of Aristotle than to modern social or political science. (shrink)

Raymond Aron and his Dialogues in an Age of Ideologies examines the thought and rhetoric of the most interesting thinker of the twentieth century of whom no one has heard. This book investigates Raymond Aron's conversations on politics during the Cold War with several of his more well-known interlocutors including Jean-Paul Sartre, Friedrich Hayek, and Charles de Gaulle. Through exploring these dialogues on the subjects of Marxism, freedom, and nationalism, we see the prudence of Aron's politics of understanding (...) as well as the emphasis he places on and virtue he demonstrates in public discourse. Through his dialogues, Aron shows us not only how to think politically but also how to engage in constructive public debate. He stands as a model for us to emulate in our own age of ideologies. (shrink)

This concise and penetrating analysis introduces students to the life and thought of one of the giants of twentieth-century French intellectual life. Portraying Raymond Aron as a great defender of reason, moderation, and political sobriety in an era dominated by ideological fervor and philosophical fashion, Brian Anderson demonstrates the centrality of political reason to Aron's philosophy of history, his critique of ideological thinking, his meditations on the perennial problems of peace and war, and the nature of conservative liberalism.

Cet article revient en détail sur la critique du libéralisme de Friedrich Hayek délivrée par Raymond Aron, sur une période qui court des années 1940 au début des années 1980. A partir d’une relecture croisée des principaux textes de ces deux philosophes du second xx e siècle, il cherche à montrer que leurs oppositions – sur la place laissée aux libertés économiques, sur la définition même du concept de liberté et sur la manière d’envisager la démocratie – révèlent l’existence (...) de deux voies profondément divergentes au sein du néolibéralisme contemporain : l’une qui se fonde sur un attachement primordial au marché et qui s’accompagne d’une méfiance prononcée à l’égard du régime démocratique ; l’autre qui se construit à l’inverse sur la base d’une confiance en la démocratie, conçue comme point d’aboutissement du libéralisme, et qui conduit à ne pas absolutiser le marché. Un réexamen de cette opposition peut ainsi permettre de sortir d’une vision étriquée et caricaturale du néolibéralisme, qui le réduit abusivement à une fermeture de l’espace des possibles politiques. (shrink)

Raymond Aron is widely regarded as the most important figure in the history of twentieth-century French liberalism. Yet his status within the history of liberal thought has been more often proclaimed than explained. Though he is frequently lauded as the inheritor of France's liberal tradition, Aron's formative influences were mostly non-French and often radically anti-liberal thinkers. This book explains how, why, and with what consequences he belatedly defined and aligned himself with a French liberal tradition. It also situates Aron (...) within the larger histories of Cold War liberalism and decolonization, re-evaluating his contribution to debates over totalitarianism, the end of ideology, and the Algerian War. By exposing the enduring importance of Aron's student political engagements for the development of his thought, Iain Stewart challenges the prevailing view of Aron's early intellectual trajectory as a journey from naïve socialist idealism to mature liberal realism, offering a new critical perspective on one of the twentieth century's most influential intellectuals. (shrink)

Raymond Aron is best known for his intellectual sparring with Jean-Paul Sartre and for his stature as the pre-eminent Cold War liberal in France. He is credited with establishing an aut...

Raymond Aron's vision of liberalism reflects the paradox that ideologies both fuel and restrict democratic debate. This may be related to the history of French liberalism developed by Albert Thibaudet in the inter-war period. This article considers Aron's use of Thibaudet's ideas in his wartime writings. It suggests that these represented a significant step forward from his pre-war approach to pluralism and set certain parameters for his post-war political thought. It is also suggested that Thibaudet's writings led Aron to (...) study the ideas of the nineteenth-century intellectual Ernest Renan. These contributed to his understanding of international relations. While Aron was to lose interest in Renan and Thibaudet, his wartime debt to them represents an important stage in his intellectual evolution and ties him to a distinctively French (if little known) tradition of pluralist thought. (shrink)

The current article seeks to describe the intellectual dialogue between Raymond Aron and Max Weber. A Dialogue that is marked essentially by two different stages. The first stage comes from discovery: Aron meets Weber in the 1930s and is strongly attracted by his methodological rigour as for his manner of understanding the political reality. Then, from the 1950s onward, Aron distances himself somewhat from some of Weber's central theses. Particularly, he doesn't believe that a scientist, as such, is able (...) to reach something akin to neutrality. This, however, does not prevent him from recognising in Weber's work a very solid contribution to social sciences, nor does it prevent him from picking many of his teachings. (shrink)

Si un philosophe a fondé son oeuvre sur la conscience historique, c'est bien Raymond Aron. Le rapprochement entre Aron et la post-modernité pourrait surprendre. Il en va tout autrement si l'on considère la conception historique de la post-modernité : celle-ci suit logiquement les Temps Modernes. Elle comprend alors les deux siècles de tensions idéologiques qui ont suivi 1789, jusqu'à la chute du mur de Berlin. Raymond Aron a commenté et pensé les convulsions apocalyptiques du dernier siècle post-moderne. D'où (...) l'idée de le considérer sous plusieurs angles : face au basculement du monde, la critique des idéologies (D. Steinmetz-Jenkins), la théorie des relations internationales (O. Rosenboim), son jugement sur la "tragédie algérienne" (O. Dard). Mais Aron est aussi sensible aux permanences, à ce qui ne bascule pas : c'est un penseur de la nation et des identités régionales, qui s'interroge sur sa propre judéité (G. De Ligio). La philosophie d'Aron, où l'historien est créateur et incarné, présente une analogie avec la théologie chrétienne : Pierre Manent décrit la relation d'Aron au christianisme. Enfin, Aron reste un intellectuel tout engagé dans la défense de la liberté, ce qu'explorent deux contributions : sur ce qu'il doit au libéralisme d'Edmund Burke (M. Oppermann), et sur sa recherche d'une stratégie modérée chez l'historien Hans Delbrück (J. Mouric). Encadrées par l'introduction de Fabrice Bouthillon et la conclusion de Pascal David, ces études esquissent les traits d'une pensée subtile : sceptique contre le dogmatisme des idéologies totalitaires, mais non relativiste, attachée à l'historicité, sans tomber dans le déterminisme historique. Ce volume est issu de la journée d'études du 18 novembre 2014 à l'Université de Bretagne occidentale à Brest."--Page 4 of cover. (shrink)

This short article is an introduction to a collection of essays written to mark the 20th anniversary of the death of Raymond Aron in 1983. Having briefly examined the recent controversy associated with the publication of Daniel Lindenberg's Le Rappel à l'ordre, it discusses the development of political thinking in France over the last 20 years and the place occupied by the revival of interest in liberalism. It concludes by suggesting that the dominance sometimes attributed to liberalism in contemporary (...) France might be misplaced, citing in particular the manner in which the radical left has been able to transform itself and maintain the rhetoric of anti-capitalism. It cites recent opposition to the war in Iraq as an example of patterns of ideological continuity. To that extent, Aron might well have again found himself in the minority. (shrink)

À mesure que le temps passe, la pertinence des démarches et des analyses de Raymond Aron se confirme au lieu de s'estomper. Parce qu'il a été le commentateur inlassable des événements, parce que ses livres ont souvent répondu à des situations bien différentes de la nôtre, on a pu penser que son oeuvre, à l'exception bien sûr des grands ouvrages théoriques, perdrait de son actualité en raison de l'éloignement des circonstances qui lui avaient donné naissance. C'est le contraire qui (...) se produit. C'est de nous et donc à nous qu'Aron parle encore. À travers la forme politique propre à l'Europe, la journée d'études du 7 juin 2011, dont est issu cet ouvrage, s'était proposée de dégager la science politique que Raymond Aron nous lègue pour mieux comprendre la condition humaine et la situation présente des pays européens. (shrink)

Karl R. Popper e Raymond Aron foram dois dos mais destacados pensadores do século XX, notadamente a partir da segunda guerra mundial. Sendo o primeiro um destacado epistemólogo e filósofo político e o segundo um filósofo social e político, entre suas mais diversas obras encontramos um denominador comum, a crítica epistemológica das ciências humanas. O presente trabalho tem por objetivo investigar os possíveis pontos de contato entre os dois filósofos, bem como suas divergências. Como metodologia de estudo, nos centraremos (...) nos textos produzidos pelos autores que tenham como tema principal a epistemologia das ciências humanas. Notadamente, encontraremos em ambos uma crítica ao historicismo como fundamento das humanidades. Palavras-chave: Karl Popper, Raymond Aron, Historicismo. (shrink)

RESUMEN El presente artículo intenta elucidar la naturaleza del proyecto político aroniano, recurriendo a su modo de clasificar los regímenes políticos. La tesis central que sub-yace es que, para estos efectos, conviene comprender a Aron más desde Aristóteles que desde Kant, pues en su pensamiento hay una aproximación que intenta utilizar las claves presentes en la Política para comprender el mundo moderno. ABSTRACT The present article elucidates the nature of the Aronian political project, recurring to its mode of classifying the (...) political regimes. The central thesis that underlies is that, for these effects, it is more convenient to understand Aaron from Aristotle than from Kant, because in his thought there is an approach that tries to use the keys present in Politics to understand the modern world. (shrink)

After a short introduction, this article contains the text of a previously unpublished interview with Raymond Aron in which he discusses what he takes to be the significance and continuing importance, if any, of the French Revolution. In the course of the interview Aron discusses different interpretations of the Revolution. The interview took place in February 1983.

De l'Europe de Locarno dans les-années vingt, a la crise des euromissiles dans l'Europe dos années quatre-vingt, l'idée européenne, celle de l'unité politique de l'Europe, a été l'objet de la pensée de Raymond Aron, en ses diverses qualités de philosophe, éditorialiste et sociologue. Parti de l'idéal d'une République européenne des Lettres, Raymond Aron a consacré sa vie à défendre la liberté politique. Pendant la guerre, dans La France Libre, il a combattu la propagande hitlérienne qui usurpait le mythe (...) politique de l'Europe. Il a ensuite lui-même utilisé ce mythe pour renforcer la cohésion de I'Occident pendant la guerre froide. Selon lui, l'idée européenne est raisonnable, mais, écrit-il, c'est "une idée d'intellectuels". Il rappelait que l'Europe n'a jamais existé qu'en tant que nations : "On ne crée pas les patries sur commande." La vision aronienne de l'Europe n'était ni celle de Jean Monnet, ni celle du général de Gaulle. Ainsi Raymond Aron a-t-il pu se présenter comme un "grognard" du mouvement européen, ce qu'il fut dans les deux sens du mot : comme vétéran incontestable de l'entreprise, et critique opiniâtre de celle-ci. Citoyen français et intellectuel européen, Raymond Aron s'est efforcé d'être un éducateur de la cité, à l'échelle de la nation comme du continent. Comme elle traite de notre condition politique, sa pensée concerne, aujourd'hui plus que jamais, tous ceux qui se sentent citoyens en Europe. (shrink)

Cet ouvrage constitue une introduction à la pensée politique de Raymond Aron (1905-1983). Après être revenu sur l'itinéraire intellectuel et politique complexe de celui qui se définissait comme un " spectateur engagé ", il présente et analyse ses contributions à différents champs du savoir : la sociologie des sociétés modernes, la théorie des régimes politiques, la philosophie politique, l'étude des relations internationales et la philosophie de l'histoire. Ce livre a pour ambition de faciliter l'accès d'une nouvelle génération de lecteurs (...) à la pensée de ce " classique méconnu ". Il repose sur une relecture qui se veut distanciée et sereine de l'ensemble de l'œuvre, et sur la prise en compte des acquis récents de la recherche française et internationale. Ce faisant, il vise aussi à dresser un panorama des différentes interprétations se déployant actuellement au sein des études aroniennes. (shrink)

This edited collection of essays brings to light the rare virtues and uncommon merits of Raymond Aron, the main figure of French twentieth-century liberalism. The Companion to Raymond Aron is an essential supplement to Aron's autobiography Mémoires (1984) and main works, exploring the substance of his political, sociological, and philosophical thought.

Raymond Aron was a student of Léon Brunschvicg, a representative of French historical epistemology. This article explores Aron’s relation to this tradition through three claims. First of all, it contests that Raymond Aron’s philosophy of history constituted a complete break with this tradition. Secondly, resituating Aron in this tradition is valuable, because it highlights how Aron’s own philosophy of history is to be understood as a normative project, seen as an alternative to that of Brunschvicg. Finally, Aron’s philosophy (...) can still hold valuable lessons for present-day historical epistemology and history and philosophy of science in general. (shrink)

Philosophy of the Social Sciences, Ahead of Print.

This article reviews the influence of Edmund Husserl's phenomenology on Raymond Aron's philosophy of history. In trying to create an original synthesis of Husserl's phenomenology and Max Weber's neo-Kantianism, Aron fashioned a dialectical logic that ultimately proved to be unstable. This tension accounts for the ambiguity and inconsistencies in some areas of Aron's thinking.

Raymond Aron (1905–1983) assumed many guises over a long and fruitful career: journalist, polemicist, philosopher of history, counselor to political leaders and officials, theorist of nuclear deterrence and international relations. He was also France’s most notable sociologist. While Aron had especially close ties with Britain, a result of his days in active exile there during the Second World War, he was widely appreciated in the United States too. His book Main Currents in Sociological Thought was hailed a masterpiece; more (...) generally, Aron’s books were extensively reviewed in the American Journal of Sociology, the American Sociological Review (in earlier days, it hosted a review section), Contemporary Sociology, and Social Forces. And he was admired and cited by sociologists of the stature of Daniel Bell, Edward Shils, and David Riesman. Yet despite appearing well poised to become a major force in international sociology, analogous to his younger collaborator, Pierre Bourdieu, Aron has almost vanished from the sociological landscape. This article explains why, offering in the process some observations on the conditions—conceptual and motivational—of reputational longevity in sociological theory and showing how Aron failed to meet them. Special attention is devoted to a confusing equivocation in Aron’s description of sociology and to the cultural basis of his ambivalence toward the discipline. (shrink)