Análisis estructura financiera de largo plazo

Saturday , November

20 , 1 937

[The College of Sociology with this inaugural session moved into the premises where it would meet, twice a month , over the course of two academic years : the back room of the Galeries du Livre, a bookstore (apparently Catholic) located at 15 rue Gay-Lussac .

Both Bataille and Caillois spoke .

First Caillois . But his intervention was not written . No trace of it has been preserved. He himself has forgotten what it was about. Nonetheless, there is a clue in the text of his successor on the "platform, " Bataille, whose actual words were, "Caillois having just given a general historical survey of sociologists ' thought. . . " But that is all .

With Bataille, the editor 's problem is the opposite because there are two manuscripts bearing the title that is on the program for that day . Lacking any certainty, I am publishing first the longer of the two, but with no assurance that it was the only one, or the first one to be read.

This lecture was rather eclectic; echoes of Nietzsche and Durkheim are to be found here, as well as echoes of a certain Be lot and of the alternative between a cmpuscular and an undulatory discourse that de Broglie 's work had recently confronted physicists with, etc . What stands out is the definition of secret soci­

eties as elective communities, which for this reason are opposed on the one hand to de facto cmnmzmities (the fact being geographical or racial) that made up the fascist regimes, but also on the other hand, to what can be called de facto ab­

sences of any colnlllllllity, that is to say, democracies . ]

73

74 0 S ACRED SOCIOLOGY

I

Caillois ' s introduction leads me to the development of some general reflections , reflections o f a metaphysical order , specifically o f a n ontological order o n the nature of society . Is society a being? Is it an organism? Or is it simply the sum of individuals? In general , questions that are so far from and also external to science proper are not

the

sort to create an atmosphere favorable to the development of accurate knowledge . Nonetheless , the question of the nature of society is inher­

ent to any social science and pmticularly to the domain that we have designated by the name of sacred sociology . It would be impossible , therefore , and futile at the same time , to try to evade thi s question .

Indeed, for us sacred sociology is not just a part of sociology as i s , for exam­

ple , religious sociology , with which it risks confusion . Sacred sociology may be considered the study not only of religious institutions but of the entire com­

munifying movement of society . Hence , it regards power and the army , among other things , as its rightful object , and it contemplates all human activities - sci­

ences , arts , and technology -insofar as they have a communifying value , in the active sense of the word , that is to say , insofar as they are the creators of uni ty . ¹ In later discussions I shall return to the precisely specific sacred character of ev­

erything in human existence that is C0/111111/IIijying . But, from the outset, I must insist that when sacred sociology i s understood in this manner, it supposes that the question of being is resolved . More accurately , it is a response to this ques­

tion . It acknowledges that in addition to the individuals who make up society, there exists an overall movement that transforms their nature . It keeps its dis­

tance , therefore , from any notion according to which social existence would only add contracts to indivi duals , 2 that is to say , precisely from the notions on which the whole present-day culture is based . It would even be surprising if it did not contradict the way most of us react mentally (or at least contradict our biases).

Having simply acknowledged thi s , and Caillois having just given a historical sur­

vey of sociological thought, I shall attempt to develop a general description so that a consistent representation of society will become possible .

1 . Society as different from the sum of the elements that compose it

A human society is in the world as a distinct, but not isolated, existence . It is dis­

tinct not only from the rest of things and beings but also from other societies : It is composed of a multitude of elements that are more or less identical to those that compose the neighboring society , but they belong exclusively to it in a suf­

ficiently stable manner . A group of human beings living on an island make up Great Britain . Yet an appreciable number of British subjects are to be found off the island . Vice versa , the island' s population includes a certain number of for­

eigners . Great Britain exists , no less for all that , in an entirely distinct fashion , excluding these foreigners and including , in addition to the islanders , the

multi-S ACRED multi-SOCIOLOGY D 75

tude of Britons scattered throughout the world. Hence , on the one hand , there are Britons and , on the other, there is Great Britain .

If we now consider an atom as present-day ideas represent it, there are on the one hand , electrons and, on the other, the atom formed by the coming together of electrons in a particular movement. 3 A molecule presents the same double as­

pect: It is both the given number of atoms that compose it (which could exist alone) and the molecule, that is to say , something that greatly differs from atoms that are entirely similar except that they are not combined into a molecular for­

mation . Some molecules are also able to form micelles that are themselves dif­

ferent from the sum of the molecules not yet brought together.

In another direction , crystals fmm extremely u nified wholes within which molecules lose their autonomy . The micelles entering into the composition of colloidal units are situated on the threshold of living matter. This latter presents a double aspect at least as clearly as does inorganic matter. Everyone knows that a cell is different from the juxtaposition of the parts composing it, which are mol­

ecules and micelles . And farther up on the scale of beings a multicellular organ­

ism cannot be regarded as a simple coexistence of cells . Hence we come back to society , which , combining organisms at the highest level , makes them into something other than their sum .

Even if the facts require some reservations , this enumeration of them encour­

ages one to generalize: The formation of a being composed of simpler beings seems a completely banal process , or even a fundamental process of everything that exists , whether or not it is inert. (For it is understood that the great astral units and the galaxies grouping them do not escape from this modality of be­

ings) . Under these circumstances , it ceases to be paradoxical to speak of society as a being . Quite the contrary , the paradox is in the difficulty we often have in becoming aware of the presence of this being . The paradox is in exclaiming iron­

ically " Tmth this side of the Pyrenees . . . " and not in recognizing-whether hostile to it or seduced by it- the existence of the country and the flag , which ef­

fectively limit the mental boundaries of all those constituting it.

2. Atom, molecule, micelle, cell, organism, society

A very general description of the composition of beings is so unfamiliar to our minds that it immediately comes up against the imprecision of vocabulary . The consistency of expression breaks down because society is presumed to be com­

posed not of organisms but of individuals . The notion of individuality can be ap­

plied just as well to inert corpuscles as to living beings; it can even be applied to societies . The word " individual " cannot be used , therefore , to designate a de­

gree on the scale of forms . On the other hand , the word " organism" is some­

times applied to the cell . Obviously , it is necessary to overcome such great in­

accuracy . Atoms , molecules , micelles and cells are well enough defined, but

76 0 SACRED SOCIOLOGY

" organism" must be reserved for groups of cells and in this sense substituted for individual . It will still be necessary to distinguish between simple organisms and linear organisms . The name " simple organism" must be reserved for animals with no symmetry , or with axial or radial symmetry , such as sponges , starfish , jellyfish . These animals together form colonies uniting connected elements , and not societies . To the extent that we still take the theory of a colonial origin of or­

ganisms into account , we can say that simple organisms , by grouping , form compound organisms . The organisms contemplated by the colonial theory are actually composed of segments that are linearly disposed from head to tail . In some instances , these segments maintain their autonomy . Worms , for example , earthworms , classified by naturalists among the oligochaetes provide the sim­

plest example of this sort of association; higher animals, insects and ve1tebrates, in their embryonic development, then in their nervous system or in their skele­

tons , retain something of the segmented character of the worms . Doubtless , sci­

ence has not settled this point: It is even currently demonstrating a smt of repug­

nance with respect to the colonial theory . But we still must hold onto the fact that society , which is the most complex structural fonn in a particular direction of the compound development of beings, is formed only on the basis of linear organisms .

3. The notion of "compound being"

Now , if I want to go back over these reflections I have just made - to get some sort of overall picture of them -I will simply state the sequence: atom, molecule , micell e , cell , simple organism, l inear organism, and society . I will add that the atom and molecule are perhaps only the most coherent constructions possible for the mind and that the distinction between simple organisms and linear organisms is much more difficult to make than the others . Subsequently , I will show why these reservations do not seem troublesome to me . All I have to do for the mo­

ment is to remark on a new vocabulary inadequacy : I actually have no word to designate in general the elements I have just enumerated . The words " whole , "

" group , " " association , " " totality , " " body , " " structure , " are far from mak­

ing obvious what characteristics distinguish formations such as atom or cell from very different formations that , for their patt, are neither easily nor clearly desig­

nated: Concretely , I have in mind something like a pile of sand or of rocks , or of a glass of water . I am Jed , therefore , to propose that we speak of a mass when it is a question of associations that do not modify the parts that form them , and of

"compound beings" when it is a question of atoms , cells , or elements of the same order.

I believe it is possible to define these " compound beings " by saying, first, that they present something more than the mass composing them, namely, a spe­

cific movement that it is possible to call "communifying movement , " at least

SACRED SOCIOLOGY 0 77

when it is a question of a linear organism or of a society ;4 and second , that they present a more or less pronounced difference in relation to a mass fmmed of el­

ements that are similar but not compounded . 4. Society is ^a compound being

With this ponderous and tedious task of fundamental terminology completed, it is possible to contemplate a first intelligent answer to the question : What is so­

ciety? It is not a mas s . It is not an organism either. Assimilating it to the organ­

ism makes no more sense than assimilating it to the molecule (as did Durkheim in some ways) . But it is a " compound being . "

The rigidity of some is positive: They link their ideas to strict identifications . That of others is negative: They limit themselves to challenging identifications . I want to give an example of such an unnuanced rigidity . It is taken from a recent publication by a French astronomer, Emile Belot , in the international journal Scientia (the exact publication date is July 1 937) .5 The comparison Belot estab­

lishes between living organisms and stars has the merit, beside s , of introducing us into a domain that I neglected just now because , in order to simplify , I de­

sciibed only one of the lines of composition of beings . After having attempted to describe the evolution characteristic of the phases of existence of a star, Belot adds that

the separate study of the origin of the stars and their evolution , of novas and the planetary system, etc . , cannot be sufficient for the cosmogonist; he must discover the comparative evolution of such diverse stars and hence arrive at the general laws of biology and biogenetics in all the beings of the Cosmos . We will specify these:

( 1 ) Dualism is at the origin of the stars , at the origin of spiral nebulas , at the origin of the planetary system through the impact of a giant star on a nebula; the dualism at the origin of living beings is called sexuality . (2) In the l atter , there is schizogenesis through cellular division and in the annelids through the division of whole beings . Among cosmic beings , through its condensation a star arrives at a Barbell form as H. Poincare and Jeans have demonstrated , in which case it divides in two like a simple cell . The planetary vortices can leave small planets (Mars , Jupiter , Saturn) in their wake - a phenomenon o f schizogenesis . The spirals o f unstable spiral nebulas divide in fractions whose mass depends on the u nit of length of the spiral . (3) In all beings fertilization and birth are abmpt phenomena (novas for the birth of the planetary rings) . (4) In sexuality , before bi1ih there is a short period of gestation in comparison with the duration of the perfected being; for planets , a few centuries of nebulous gestation before hundreds of millions of years of life . (5) Embryos live temporarily i n a milieu that is different from that in

78 0 SACRED SOCIOLOGY

which the petfected beings will live; for planets , the nebular milieu, then the sidereal void . (6) Embryos have temporary forms that are sometimes very different from those of the pelfected beings (metamorphoses from l arvae , chrysalides, etc . ) (vortices , rings for cosmic beings) . (7) It is only in the adult state that living beings are able to reproduce . For a star the adult state is reached when , through ellipsoidal condensation , its centrifugal force at the equator is near that which allows its equatmial matter to escape. (8) The Mendelian theory of heredity demonstrates that the species are due to multiple combinations of dominant characteristics in the flVo parents . The varieties of cosmic species are hence sufficient to demonstrate to us that their origin is dualist . (9) Living beings choose the food likely to accelerate their evolution through assimilation . Stars passing through a nebula assimilate the dense materials that will increase their density and repulse the materials that are unlikely to accelerate their

evolution . The major difference between living beings and cosmic beings is that the former are born small and grow whereas the latter are born gigantic and become small; this difference is due to gravity , which has only minimal effect on living beings . Hence, there exists in our universe a unity of genetic plan for all cosmic or living beings .

Although he is not one of those scientists who stick their necks out only after having very slowly eliminated any chance of enor, Emile Belot cannot be classed with the occultists who talked of " geon " and of "living earth . " Even if the passage I have just read is a simple digression , Emile Belot is representative of science . Moreover, no reason exists for denying stars the quality of " com­

pound beings , ' ' once this quality is recognized in the various fmmations that hu­

man existence encounters on the Earth . It is impossible to deny a minimum of

" unity of genetic plan" for all " compound beings . " But this minimum can be reduced to the principle that compounding adds and differentiates . It is not nec­

essary to be an astronomer or soothsayer to suppose that it is likely that the de­

velopment of science will reveal the supetficial character of most of the rigid comparisons whose disconcerting pronouncement I have just read . The negative responses that are sure to follow will be no less rigid , moreover, than these pe­

remptory assertions ; in nature itself, however, everything will remain vague, composite , and rich enough in its potential for different fmms to doom human intelligence to endless humiliation .

I have insisted on the vague character of the notion of compound being that I am attempting to introduce . This character is simultaneously vague and , when all is said and done , precise , if we oppose it to the rigidity , which in actual practice is imprecise , of the usual discussions . Actually , I used the word ' ' being ' ' on pur­

pose because it represents the vaguest , most indeterminate idea of all . Emile Belot also uses the word "being . " It is true that for my part , I defined exactly

SACRED SOCIOLOGY ^D 79

what ^I meant by " compound being , " and it seems that that frees me from the excessive vagueness attached to the word " being . " I could, therefore , pursue my approach-lingering no longer in the metaphysical bog, where it sometimes seems a serious person should go only for a good laugh. But it happens , on the one hand, that the word "being" suggests the idea of "consciousness " (con­

science)6 and, on the other hand, that at least one of those categories listed , the linear organism (if one looks at the whole picture and if one sticks to its most convincing aspect) , is characterized by consciousness . This is all that is needed to introduce an ambiguity that, frankly , I must say I have not sought to avoid. On the contrary , it has seemed to me that the extremely vague nature of human knowledge on this point is actually maintained by the expression I am proposing , and I believe that this vague nature must be explicitly maintained. I think that the most educated person is at about the same point in this regard as a peasant. In fact, the way other consciousnesses are known cannot be worked out to any ex­

tent at all by science. A horse seems to us endowed with consciousness as does an insect; it is harder to ascribe consciousness to a sponge, but since all degrees from sponge to bee exist . . . we come down to the infusorian , to the cell ! There are a certain number of people who can agree to admit that a threshold exists . Consciousness would begin with life , with the cell; it seems rather arbitrary . Why not asc1ibe a sort of consciousness to corpuscles , to inert matter? Why would the cell become conscious if the particles that compose it are not con­

scious to any extent? Truthfully , certain of the notions that will follow would en­

courage more the belief that the birth of consciousness, starting from nothing, at the threshold of life makes no sense at all . Nietzsche bestowed perception and , consequently , knowledge on inorganic matter-even to the point of insisting that only the ine11 is able to attain the truth; the organic , because it is bound up in

courage more the belief that the birth of consciousness, starting from nothing, at the threshold of life makes no sense at all . Nietzsche bestowed perception and , consequently , knowledge on inorganic matter-even to the point of insisting that only the ine11 is able to attain the truth; the organic , because it is bound up in

In document Dedicatoria. El presente trabajo académico ha sido dedicado a mi familia por el apoyo recibido para su concreción. El Autor. (página 62-66)