Textbook Sociology in Belgium A Sociological History 1St Edition Raf Vanderstraeten Ebook All Chapter PDF

Sociology in Belgium: A Sociological
History 1st Edition Raf Vanderstraeten

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/sociology-in-belgium-a-sociological-history-1st-edition
-raf-vanderstraeten/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Muslim History and Social Theory: A Global Sociology of

Modernity 1st Edition Dietrich Jung (Auth.)
https://textbookfull.com/product/muslim-history-and-social-
theory-a-global-sociology-of-modernity-1st-edition-dietrich-jung-
auth/
Consumption: A Sociological Analysis 1st Edition Alan

Warde (Auth.)
https://textbookfull.com/product/consumption-a-sociological-
analysis-1st-edition-alan-warde-auth/
The History of Sociology in Britain: New Research and

Revaluation Plamena Panayotova
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-history-of-sociology-in-
britain-new-research-and-revaluation-plamena-panayotova/
American Sociological Association Style Guide 7th

Edition American Sociological Association
https://textbookfull.com/product/american-sociological-
association-style-guide-7th-edition-american-sociological-
association/
Sociology in action a Canadian perspective Second
Edition Symbaluk
https://textbookfull.com/product/sociology-in-action-a-canadian-
perspective-second-edition-symbaluk/
Theoretical Chemistry in Belgium A Topical Collection

from Theoretical Chemistry Accounts 1st Edition Benoît
Champagne
https://textbookfull.com/product/theoretical-chemistry-in-
belgium-a-topical-collection-from-theoretical-chemistry-
accounts-1st-edition-benoit-champagne/
Ten Lessons In Introductory Sociology 2nd Edition

Kenneth A. Gould
https://textbookfull.com/product/ten-lessons-in-introductory-
sociology-2nd-edition-kenneth-a-gould/
Deviance and Social Control A Sociological Perspective

Michelle L. Inderbitzin
https://textbookfull.com/product/deviance-and-social-control-a-
sociological-perspective-michelle-l-inderbitzin/
Hooligans, Ultras, Activists: Polish Football Fandom in

Sociological Perspective 1st Edition Rados■aw
Kossakowski
https://textbookfull.com/product/hooligans-ultras-activists-
polish-football-fandom-in-sociological-perspective-1st-edition-
radoslaw-kossakowski/
SOCIOLOGY TRANSFORMED
Series Editors: John Holmwood and
Stephen Turner
SOCIOLOGY
IN BELGIUM
A Sociological History
Raf Vanderstraeten
Kaat Louckx
Sociology Transformed
Series Editors
John Holmwood
School of Sociology and Social Policy
University of Nottingham
Nottingham, UK
Stephen Turner
Department of Philosophy
University of South Florida
Tampa, FL, USA
“What has sociology been like in a small but profoundly divided nation? In
their concise analysis of the Belgian case Raf Vanderstraeten and Kaat Louckx
depict how this particular national tradition has been entangled in a changing
international environment. From its privileged relationship to France and the
Netherlands, it developed a more Anglo-American orientation, while retaining
some of its most salient ties to national institutions. This is a vivid, sociological
portrayal of its entire history, from Quetelet to the present.”
—Johan Heilbron, author of The Rise of Social Theory and French Sociology
The field of sociology has changed rapidly over the last few decades.
Sociology Transformed seeks to map these changes on a country by
country basis and to contribute to the discussion of the future of the
subject. The series is concerned not only with the traditional centres of
the discipline, but with its many variant forms across the globe.
More information about this series at

http://www.springer.com/series/14477
Raf Vanderstraeten · Kaat Louckx
Sociology in Belgium
A Sociological History
Raf Vanderstraeten Kaat Louckx
Department of Sociology Department of Sociology
Ghent University University of Chicago
Ghent, Belgium Chicago, IL, USA
Sociology Transformed
ISBN 978-1-137-55662-2 ISBN 978-1-137-55663-9 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-55663-9
Library of Congress Control Number: 2017947735
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2018

The author(s) has/have asserted their right(s) to be identified as the author(s) of this work
in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights
of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction
on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and
retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and
information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication.
Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied,
with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have
been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published
maps and institutional affiliations.
Cover illustration: © saulgranda/Getty
Printed on acid-free paper
This Palgrave Pivot imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Macmillan Publishers Ltd.
The registered company address is: The Campus, 4 Crinan Street, London, N1 9XW,
United Kingdom
Contents
1 Sociology in Belgium 1
2 Religion 23
3 Language 59
4 Publications 93
5 Epilogue 125
Index 131
v
List of Figures
Fig. 3.1 Number of French- and Dutch-speaking sociology

graduatesin Belgium, 1967–1990
(three yearly moving numbers) 82
Fig. 4.1 Growth of the number of researchers in
Flanders, 1982–2016 (1982 = 100) 101
Fig. 4.2 Average number of authors per article
(three yearly moving averages) 106
Fig. 4.3 Proportion of male authors
(three yearly moving averages) 108
Fig. 4.4 Proportion of authors from Belgium or the Netherlands 110
Fig. 4.5 Publications in SSCI-journals (absolute numbers) 113
Fig. 4.6 Barycentres for the places of publication of
books in the social sciences and humanities and
of the Flemish universities 117
vii
Prologue
Although the rise and the institutionalization of the social sciences are
closely entangled with long-term processes of nation-building and state-
formation, specific national traditions within the social sciences cannot
be understood within their specific national context only. These national
traditions are embedded within more encompassing settings; they are
challenged and made possible by cross-national transfers and the transna-
tional circulation of scholars and ideas.
This book is an attempt to internationalize a national history of soci-
ology. It aims to internationalize the history of sociology in Belgium in
two different, but interrelated ways: by considering the factors that dif-
ferentiate the history of sociology in Belgium from other national his-
tories, and by tracing more general patterns which this history owes to
transnational exchanges and developments. By exploring this complex
transnational setting, we believe that sociologists will gradually become
able to properly analyse the social structures that shape their own orien-
tations and their own work.
In order to understand the long-term trajectory of sociology in
Belgium, this book will focus on the structural conditions and their his-
torical transformation from the nineteenth until the twenty-first century.
It will make use of historical-sociological analyses to shed light on the
various ways in which complex social structures define the kinds of socio-
logical knowledge that are or are not valued in Belgium. In this sense,
this book is intended to constitute a contribution to the sociology of
ix
x Prologue
sociology. It aims to come to a better self-understanding of sociology in

Belgium and elsewhere.
This book builds upon work that has for the main part been con-
ducted during the last decade. In this period of time, we had occasion to
present our analyses in a substantial number of seminars, workshops and
conferences. We would like to thank the many friends, family and col-
leagues who made themselves available for the discussion of various top-
ics presented in the following text. Without their supportive feedback,
this book would not have been what it now is.
CHAPTER 1
Sociology in Belgium
Abstract This chapter starts with a sketch of the sociopolitical context

within which sociology developed in Belgium. Afterwards three core
aspects of the history of sociology are discussed: the rise of social sci-
ence and the social statistics of Adolphe Quetelet in the mid-nineteenth
century, the different ideological settings or pillars within which the
first sociological institutes emerged in the period around 1900, and the
expansion of the Dutch- and French-speaking scientific communities in
the period after the Second World War. The final section presents a short
discussion of the merits and the characteristics of a reflective sociological
approach, of a sociological history of sociology.
Keywords Social statistics · Adolphe Quetelet · Institut de Sociologie

Solvay · Société Belge de Sociologie
We can only acquire an understanding of sociology as it developed

in Belgium by bringing together various lines of thought. To intro-
duce the approach taken in this book, this chapter first provides a brief
sketch of the sociopolitical context within which sociology developed in
Belgium. Afterwards, we discuss three core aspects of the development
of sociology in Belgium: the rise of social science and the social statis-
tics of Adolphe Quetelet in the mid-nineteenth century, the different
ideological contexts within which the first sociological institutes emerged
in the period around 1900, and the expansion of the Dutch- and
© The Author(s) 2018 1

R. Vanderstraeten and K. Louckx, Sociology in Belgium, Sociology
Transformed, https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-55663-9_1
2 R. Vanderstraeten and K. Louckx
French-speaking scientific communities in the period after the Second

World War. The final section of this chapter presents a short discussion
of the main characteristics of the reflective sociological approach upon
which this book is based.
L’Union Fait La Force?

After a turbulent era, characterized by much political unrest within large
parts of Europe, the Kingdom of Belgium gained political independence
in 1830. Its rather complex political and legislative structure, which took
shape in recent decades, is the result of a series of tensions and conflicts,
some of which antedated the foundation of the Belgian state. Language
and religion have played a key role in Belgium’s history, in the ways in
which the new Kingdom has tried to establish itself as a ‘modern’ nation-
state and distinguish itself from its neighbours. Perhaps Rogers Brubaker
had Belgium in mind when he argued that ‘language and religion are
arguably the two most socially and politically consequential domains of
cultural difference in the modern world’ (2013, p. 2).
After the Belgian Revolution, the new Kingdom adopted the motto
L’union fait la force (unity makes strength). As historians argue, the
motto first of all referred to the unification of progressive Liberals
and conservative Catholics in opposition to the Netherlands and its
Protestant King. But different interpretations were later added: it is
now mostly said to refer to the unity of the different language com-
munities on the territory of the Belgian state, especially of the Dutch-
speaking part (called Flanders) and the French-speaking part (Wallonia).
However, the deliberate use of this motto cannot conceal the fact that
both politico-religious and linguistic differences have led to divisive
forms of conflict and diversity on Belgian territory during a period of
about two centuries.
In Europe, the collapse of Napoleonic France in 1815 brought an
end to about 25 years of nearly continuous war. The Congress of Vienna
aimed to provide long-term peace by settling critical issues arising from
the French Revolutionary Wars and the Napoleonic Wars. Its objective
was not simply to restore old boundaries and hence to confirm France’s
loss of the territories it had recently annexed; it also was to resize the
main powers so they could balance each other off and remain at peace.
In 1815, a United Kingdom of the Netherlands was formed, which
included the former Dutch Republic in the north as well as the so-called
1 SOCIOLOGY IN BELGIUM 3
Southern or Catholic Netherlands, which comprised most of present-

day Belgium and Luxembourg, but which had been annexed by France
in 1794.
Despite the objectives of the Congress of Vienna, the United
Kingdom of the Netherlands was but a short-lived kingdom. It col-
lapsed after the 1830 Belgian Revolution and secession. Various
social differences had created obstacles for the unification policies of
King William I of the Netherlands. Especially religious matters (the
Protestant North versus the Catholic South) were important in the
conflict preceding the separation of Belgium and the Netherlands,
which explains the focus on ideological unity in Belgium in the years
after the separation. Language issues also played a role in the conflict
that led to the Belgian secession. French was spoken in Wallonia and
by a large part of the bourgeoisie in Flemish cities; ‘Frenchification’
had also been intensive in the years after the annexation by France.
But Flanders was part of the Dutch-language territory in Europe
and the language policy of the Dutch King in the years after 1815
had aimed at (re-)uniting the two regions (North and South) under
a common Dutch language. After the Revolution, Belgium’s ‘found-
ing fathers’ meant to appease linguistic unrest by constitutionally
declaring ‘the use of the languages optional’.
In practice, however, French was clearly perceived as the more
prestigious language. Although the majority of the Belgian popula-
tion was Flemish-speaking, French quickly replaced Dutch in all offi-
cial domains and official functions. French was not only the language
of Enlightenment, progress and modernity; it was above all also a
symbol for the national struggle for independence from the Dutch
King. Knowledge of French subsequently also became an essential
requirement for social mobility in the new nation-state. During the
late-nineteenth and twentieth century, however, tensions between the
different linguistic communities resurfaced within Belgium. A broad
variety of administrative rearrangements gradually resulted from bitter
linguistic and socio-political conflicts. In the second half of the last
century, these conflicts gave way to the division of the Belgian state
into different political and legislative entities primarily defined on the
basis of language.
Present-day Belgium counts approximately 11 million inhabitants. It
is a federal state, consisting of four different political entities constituted
on the basis of language. In Flanders, the northern part of Belgium,
with approximately 58% of the population, the official language is Dutch,

but the variety of Dutch spoken here has also been called ‘Flemish’,
‘Flemish Dutch’, ‘Belgian Dutch’ or ‘Southern Dutch’. The French-
speaking community is located in the south and called Wallonia (with
about 32% of the population). The small German-speaking community
is situated in the east (0.6%), while the Dutch-French bilingual com-
munity of the capital of Brussels is in the centre of the country (9.5%).
The different regional governments have legislative power in present-
day Belgium; their jurisdictional frontiers, being language borders, are
defined in the Belgian Constitution. As we will see time and again, how-
ever, the creation of linguistically homogeneous administrative and polit-
ical entities also resulted in the communicative ‘isolation’ of the different
language communities.
Ideological and linguistic differences constitute important socio-
cultural cleavages within Belgium—despite its national motto. These
differences and cleavages also built and build the context within which
sociology developed and develops. As we will see in the following chap-
ters, the heterogeneous sociocultural and academic structures have
given rise to the development of different sociologies in Belgium. It is
difficult to speak of sociology in Belgium as a single unit; we will rather
analyse the ways in which sociology has been conceived and structured in
Belgium as plural. On the following pages, we will pay ample attention
to the rise of different communities of sociologists on Belgian territory.
We will analyse how the conditions within which sociological knowledge
is fabricated in Belgium influence(d) the kinds of sociological knowledge
that are or are not fabricated in Belgium.
Adolphe Quetelet
It is often said that ‘progress’ and ‘improvement’ were among the
favourite words of the modern world (e.g. Headrick 2000; Slack
2014). The eighteenth and nineteenth centuries were characterized
not only by a growing thirst for knowledge, but also by a strong faith
that more knowledge would lead to the betterment of humankind.
The scientific search for knowledge was thought to lead to controlled
progress. The very idea of a science of society (‘science sociale’) that
emerged in Europe in the late-eighteenth and early-nineteenth cen-
turies also incorporated instrumental connotations; it clearly linked
scientific ambitions with public policy. This idea of ‘social science’
carried practical and reformist connotations as a ‘rational’ guide to

public policy and social reconstruction.
Protagonists of this idea often made use of the analogy with natural
science. Many of the initiatives taken in the course of the nineteenth cen-
tury recurred to the natural sciences as a model for social analysis. In a
variety of circles, the technical and material advances that came from the
applications of the natural sciences gave rise to a corresponding expecta-
tion of the social advances that would follow the construction of a ‘posi-
tive’ science of society—expectations that were only intensified by those
natural scientists who furthered their claims to public recognition and
support by hinting at the likely benefits once the scientific method was
extended into the domain of social behaviour. Science was at the heart
of this positivist ‘ideology’ of progress (see Head 1982; Goldman 2002).
Social science, as it was first institutionalized in Belgium, embodied a
peculiar form of a science of government. It was considered legitimate
insofar as it focused on problems of government, paying particular atten-
tion to issues of social stability and moral order. The Higher Education
Act of 1835 allowed Belgian universities to organize a programme in
political and administrative sciences, but also stressed its dependence on
existing legal study programmes (Gerard 1992, pp. 1–8). A few years
later, in 1843, the Belgian Royal Academy created a class for the moral
and political sciences. As its French counterpart, the Belgian Academy
thereby built on the view that social science was a branch of an overarch-
ing ‘moral science’, which would provide indirect but useful support to
the national government and other factions of the ruling elites (Vincent
2007; Heilbron 2015, p. 211).
Outside the academic system, several ‘state servants’ also expressed
an interest in the elaboration of a science of society. Adolphe Quetelet’s
project of a ‘physique sociale’ (social physics), which was started in the
late 1830s in Belgium, offers a clear illustration of the modern belief in
the applicability of science to all fields of human endeavour. Quetelet
(1796–1874) was trained as a mathematician, but rapidly expanded
his horizon. He became a teacher of mathematics, physics and astron-
omy. He also investigated a range of demographic phenomena, such as
birth and death rates, as well as so-called ‘moral’ statistics, such as mar-
riages, suicides and crimes. His modus operandi was to assemble as many
numerical observations as he could and then look for patterns or regu-
larities and averages (‘l’homme moyen’ or the ‘average man’). With the
help of statistics, he hoped to find and understand those patterns, and
to use that understanding to predict the future and eventually control the
‘social body’ (Louckx 2014).1 He not only hoped to formulate the laws
of society comparable to the laws of physics (hence: social physics), but
also believed to be able to improve social politics on this scientific basis.
Quetelet is often identified as one of the founding fathers of empiri-
cal sociology (Headrick 2000, pp. 80–84; Donnelly 2015). However, as
important as Quetelet’s own analyses of social statistics may have been
his contributions to the establishment of a bureaucratic apparatus that
could take care of the production of these statistics. Quetelet became a
tireless promoter of data collection based on standardized methods and
definitions. He was an institution builder, who devoted much effort to
the diffusion and implementation of such standardized data collection.
Some ten years after Belgium gained independence, he organized the
Commission Centrale de Statistique, which became the central agency for
the collection and publication of administrative statistics in Belgium. In
1846, he organized the first nationwide population census, participation
in which was obligatory for all residents. After 1846, censuses followed
at regular, mostly ten-yearly intervals in Belgium; Quetelet remained
in charge of the censuses taken in 1856 and 1866. In 1853, Quetelet
also organized, hosted and presided over the first Congrès International
de Statistique, which launched the development of many methodologi-
cal standards and uniform nomenclatures. For more than two decades,
sessions of this Congress were actively attended by high-level state
servants from around the world. Indeed, ‘those who attended pushed
their governments to adopt a standard template for census making on
the Queteletian model’ (Curtis 2002, pp. 20–21). The International
Statistical Institute, which was founded in 1885, currently still presents
itself as the heir of Quetelet’s Congress.
1 In several regards, the views of Comte and Quetelet are quite similar. Remarkably, how-
ever, Comte and Quetelet, who were contemporaries, did not refer to each other’s work.
“Ils sont entièrement indépendants. Quetelet a ignoré Comte, Comte a voulu ignorer
Quetelet” (Lottin 1912, pp. 366–367). Émile Durkheim later maintained that Quetelet’s
theory felt short of explaining how “the average man” and its statistical laws could exert
any force on individuals. Quetelet’s theory rested in Durkheim’s well-known view on an
inaccurate observation, because it required social forces to act on individuals at an evenly
distributed rate. Durkheim instead recurred to collective forces to explain variations in sui-
cide rates (Durkheim 1897).
The nineteenth-century rise of administrative statistics, in Belgium

as elsewhere, underpinned a new discourse about society. This admin-
istrative statistics helped ‘imagining’ a new sort of object, which could
be both the target of scientific research and of policy interventions. It
helped identifying social problems, such as pauperism or vagrancy, and
suggesting strategies for addressing them (Louckx 2014, 2017a, b;
Louckx and Vanderstraeten 2014, 2015). Its increasing prominence also
encouraged definitions of social science in terms of its practical applica-
tions. Social physics and sociology inevitably became perceived as rem-
edy, in the medical imagery employed so often in this context, for social
pathology (see also Goldman 1987, 2002).
Quetelet’s work led to a number of other initiatives. Edouard
Ducpétiaux (1804–1868), for example, who was a member of the
Commission Centrale de Statistique, undertook family budget stud-
ies of the working class in Belgium (Ducpétiaux 1855).2 In 1862,
the Association Internationale pour le Progrès des Sciences Sociales
(International Association for the Progress of the Social Sciences) was
founded in Brussels. The Association explicitly sailed under the flag of
the social sciences; it laid claim to scientific credentials in its investiga-
tions. But it provided first and foremost a forum for liberal politicians
interested in social ‘enlightenment’ and likeminded policy-oriented rec-
ommendations. It was dissolved in 1867, but reappeared shortly in the
1890s under the name of Association Belge pour le Progrès Social (Belgian
Association for Social Progress). Even if their impact may be considered
to have been minor, the very existence of these associations provides
proof of the ‘modern’ belief in the authority of scientific knowledge
and the legitimacy of politics on the basis of facts and hard data (de
Bie 1983; Vanthemsche 1994; Goldman 2002, 2007; Van Dijck 2008,
pp. 63–65).
In the last decades of the nineteenth century, the introduction of soci-
ology in university curricula started to generate much debate in Belgium.
No doubt, this was to an important degree the result of developments
in neighbouring countries, especially France, where, building on the
positivist project of Auguste Comte, scholars as Émile Durkheim and
René Worms had been able to shift sociology to the centre of academic
2 Karl Marx used Ducpétiaux’ work as a source of information on Belgium in the 25th
chapter of the first book of Das Kapital (Marx 1867).

interest. The openness towards sociology in academic circles in Belgium

was limited, however. Often preference was here also given to the term
‘social science’, as Comte’s neologism ‘sociology’ was associated with
socialism and state interventionism. To understand the arduous intro-
duction and expansion of sociology in Belgium, some differentia specifica
of the Belgian academic and sociocultural context need to be taken into
account.
Brussels and Louvain

Opportunities for the new discipline were provided by the expanding
universities, which offered a widening range of career trajectories and a
larger degree of autonomy from governmental affairs. At the end of the
nineteenth century, however, the ‘academization’ of sociology still met
with much resistance. The rector of the University of Liège, for example,
discussed the creation of a programme in the social and political sciences
at the start of the academic year 1884/1885. However, he did not see
a place for sociology in this programme—as sociology had yet failed to
fulfil any of its promises: ‘Elle n’est guère jusqu’ici qu’une table des mat-
ières dont il reste à remplir les chapitres’ (Trasenster 1884, p. 9).3 His
colleagues shared his reservations. The inaugural address of the rector of
the University of Brussels, Eugène Van der Rest, presented at the start of
the academic year 1888/1889 was titled ‘La Sociologie’. Van der Rest
explicitly referred to the writings of Comte, Spencer and Durkheim, but
also questioned the usefulness of the all-encompassing aspirations of a
discipline directed at ‘la vie sociale toute entière’ (1888, p. 33; see also de
Bie 1985, pp. 22–33). At the start of the next academic year, he repeated
and specified his preference for a curriculum in which the applied, policy-
oriented social sciences rather than sociology would prevail (Van der Rest
1889; see also Giddings 1891).
With its programme in political and social sciences, set up in 1889,
the ‘free-thinking’ University of Brussels was the first in Belgium to pro-
vide for a social science curriculum (Wils 2005, pp. 276–277; Wils and
Rasmussen 2012, pp. 1277–1278). By and large, this interfaculty pro-
gramme aimed at supporting the development of ‘moderate’ solutions
3 “It [sociology] is thus far but a table of contents of which the chapters remain to be
written”.
to the sociopolitical problems of modern, industrializing states. Its

main architects, including Van der Rest, were close to the liberal tradi-
tion. Although a course on sociology was deliberately not included, the
programme provided a home to the socialist intellectuals Hector Denis
(1842–1913) and Guillaume De Greef (1842–1924). Both defended at
that time the need for a socialist and sociological approach of the socio-
economic system. De Greef, for example, wrote in his introduction to
sociology, originally published in 1886: ‘At the present time, the unity
of socialism and positive science is an established fact; what remains to
be done is to tighten and perfection this unity and to draw the legitimate
conclusions’ (1911, p. 229).4
Before this sociological project could really take off, however, the
University of Brussels itself went through a crisis. The immediate cause
was the cancellation by the Academic Board of the University of a pro-
jected lecture series by the French geographer and anarchist Elisée
Reclus, but more lasting ideological and political differences also played
a key role (Van Rooy 1976; Noël 1988). In 1894, the crisis resulted in
the foundation of a dissident Université Nouvelle (New University) that
was supported by a variety of socialists and progressive liberals. De Greef,
who had given up his position at the University of Brussels as a way to
protest against the ‘Reclus affair’, became its rector.
Although its departmental infrastructure was unstable, the Université
Nouvelle gave ample room to philosophy and the social sciences (Despy-
Meyer and Goffin 1976; Despy-Meyer 1994). Many foreign schol-
ars were invited to teach: apart from the brothers Élie, Élisée and Paul
Reclus, scholars such as Gabriel Tarde, René Worms, Marcel Mauss and
Maurice Halbwachs gave lectures in Brussels in the era around 1900.5
The position of the Université Nouvelle remained precarious, however.
4 “A l’heure actuelle, l’union du socialisme et de la science positive est un fait accompli; il
ne s’agit plus que de la rendre de plus en plus intime et parfaite et d’en tirer les conclusions
légitimes”. De Greef’s introduction into sociology was reviewed by Durkheim (1886); his
writings were translated into several languages. For an early assessment of his whole socio-
logical oeuvre, see also Douglas (1926).
5 Tarde, for example, provided an introductory course on sociology in 1896/1897,
while Worms gave a series of lectures on the sociological thought of Auguste Comte in
1909/1910. An overview is presented in Despy-Meyer and Goffin (1976), although it
seems probable that not all of the scheduled lectures actually took place. Overall, how-
ever, the lecture programme of the Université Nouvelle was strongly inspired by Comtean
positivism.
While its degrees were not officially recognized in Belgium, only a few
Belgian students enrolled. The dissident institution counted each year
only around 100 students, about half of which were foreigners (Despy-
Meyer 1973, p. 8). Like many other experiments in internationalism
from that period, the Université Nouvelle did not outlive the First World
War (see Pyenson and Verbruggen 2009; Van Acker 2014; Verbruggen
and Carlier 2014). It neither had much lasting impact in Belgium,
although some of its parts were in 1919 re-integrated into its ‘mother
institution’, the Université Libre de Bruxelles.
At the end of the nineteenth century, the conflicts at the Brussels
University also initiated responses from the industrial chemist and pol-
itician Ernest Solvay (1838–1922). Solvay, who had witnessed the cri-
sis at the University of Brussels as a member of its Academic Board,
belonged to the progressive wing of liberalism, which kept close con-
tacts with socialist intellectuals. He shared their belief in the capacity
of science to develop blueprints for a better and fairer organization of
the ‘social fabric’, although his own vision remained definitely liberal in
outlook. Concerned about social progress and social innovation, he put
much emphasis on the maximization of people’s ‘productive capacity’.
To elaborate his ideas scientifically, he founded in 1894 the Institut des
Sciences Sociales and appointed three collaborators who had sharply pro-
tested against the decision taken by their university in the Reclus affair:
Denis and De Greef, as well as Émile Vandervelde (1866–1938). Solvay
also contributed actively to his own research institute; in the Annales de
l’Institut des Sciences Sociales, he published repeatedly on socio-economic
and monetary questions (Crombois 1994, pp. 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
(1867–1916), Solvay also started the construction of an art nouveau
building in the Leopold Park in Brussels that was to house 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. He had also visited the USA and become impressed by the
work of Frederick Taylor on scientific management. With support from
Solvay, Waxweiler could accord grants to researchers who were willing
to explore themes that fitted the interests of Waxweiler and Solvay (see
Popelin 1986, pp. 59–67; Crombois 1995). After some bitter exchanges,
the collaboration between Solvay (and Waxweiler), on the one hand, and
Denis, De Greef and Vandervelde, on the other, came to an end (for the
official statements of both sides, see Dejongh 1901; Hanssens 1901; see
also de Bie 1983, pp. 134–140). Solvay reproached his former collabora-
tors that they had been unwilling to get rid of their ideological preju-
dices, their ‘doctrines régnantes’ (Hanssens 1901, pp. 22–23).
At the end of the nineteenth century, however, the University
of Brussels was not the only one in Belgium to introduce a social sci-
ence curriculum. In different ways, and at different places, the Catholic
University of Louvain also reacted to the late-nineteenth-century hype
surrounding sociology. In 1892, thus shortly after the ‘free-think-
ing’ University of Brussels, the Catholic University set up its School
for Political and Social Sciences. The School was closely related to the
Faculty of Law of the university. But it did not provide much place for
sociology; the School’s courses were in large part juridical and policy
oriented, directed towards the administration of the state. The theoreti-
cal ambitions of the newcomer were particularly criticized. Its director,
Jules Van den Heuvel, stated his reservations without much hesitation
in a letter, dated October 1896, to the rector magnificus of the Catholic
University: ‘At present, sociology is most often but a poor philosophy
hidden behind long quotes of picturesque customs and mores’ (cited in
Gerard 1992, p. 30).6 Some empirical research was introduced, however,
although it mainly built on the ‘monographic’ method of family-budget
studies as developed by the Catholic French social scientist Frédéric Le
Play. In the spirit of Le Play, the ‘monographs’ or case studies of the liv-
ing conditions of family households had to provide for moral exemplars
for Catholics (see Heilbron 2015, pp. 56–57). In this spirit, it was also
argued that social policy had to be based on such moral exemplars (e.g.
Brants 1906).
In the Higher Institute of Philosophy in Louvain, the social thought
of Comte and Durkheim also received some attention. The Philosophy
Institute, founded in 1889, was devoted to the revival of the philosophy
of St. Thomas Aquinas (as stimulated by Pope Leo XIII). It had the aim
to formulate a modern answer to the attacks of positivism against tra-
ditional religion and philosophy. With some support from this institute,
6 “Or la sociologie n’est le plus souvent aujourd’hui qu’une pauvre philosophie
dissimulée derrière de longues citations de coutumes et de mœurs plus ou moins

pittoresques”.
the lawyer and politician Cyrille Van Overbergh (1866–1959) founded

in December 1899 the first sociological association in Belgium, the
Société Belge de Sociologie. In order to defend and legitimize his initiative
vis-à-vis Catholic ‘philosophers’, Van Overbergh distinguished between
three types of sociology and three corresponding ‘Weltanschauungen’:
liberal, socialist and Catholic. He dismissed both the individualist (lib-
eral) and the collectivist (socialist) approach. Instead the Société Belge
de Sociologie had to further the development of Catholic sociology.
Catholicism was, in his view, both a theoretical system and a civilizational
project ‘qui s’affirme dans ses effets bienfaisants à travers dix-neuf siècles
d’histoire’ (Van Overbergh 1900, p. 179).7 On this sound basis, sociol-
ogy could be given a Catholic interpretation. In his view, it could be an
important source of inspiration for the elaboration of Catholic doctrines,
of Catholic Social Teaching. The writings of Comte and Durkheim
might even be incorporated into a Catholic, neo-Thomist criticism
of Marxist and liberal views of modern society (see Wils 2001, 2005;
Wijns 2003).
A more systematic interest in sociology emerged only gradually in
Louvain. Resistance to positivist accounts of ‘absolute truths’ remained
dominant for quite some time. But the growth of a Catholic ‘pillar’,
i.e. a network of Catholic organizations in different sectors of society
(education, health care, mass media, etc.) and for different parts of the
population (workers, farmers, women, youth, etc.), gradually led to an
increased interest in sociology. Similar expectations emerged in the sec-
ular pillars within Belgium. The ideological tensions within Belgium
left their mark on the institutionalization of sociology. The competing
Weltanschauungen dominated during the formative years of sociology
in Belgium—and much thereafter. Sociology has long remained associ-
ated with ideology, whether of secular or of Catholic orientation; this
ideologically divided landscape has heavily defined the history of sociol-
ogy within Belgium. We will deal with the structures and consequences
of these ideological tensions and cleavages in more detail in the next
chapter of this book.
7 “which shows itself in its benevolent effects throughout a history of nineteen
centuries”.
Flanders and Wallonia

In the early-twentieth century, Belgium had four universities: the state
universities in Ghent and Liège (which had both been founded by the
‘enlightened’ Dutch king in 1817) and the private ones in Louvain and
Brussels. The Catholic University of Louvain had been re-established
in 1834, i.e. shortly after Belgium’s independence; it had originally
been founded in 1425, but was abolished in 1797 under French rule.
The ‘free-thinking’ University of Brussels had also been established in
1834 and was expected to constitute an ideological counterpart to the
University of Louvain. As already indicated, the ideological tensions and
divisions within Belgium—especially between Brussels and Louvain—
had a strong impact on the early development of a broad range of aca-
demic disciplines, including sociology. In the course of the twentieth
century, however, linguistic tensions and divisions would increasingly
become important. For most disciplines, different scientific communities
would develop in Wallonia (Walloon or French) and in Flanders (Flemish
or Dutch).
Since 1830, the language of instruction in the Belgian universities had
been French, also in those institutions located on that part of its terri-
tory where most people spoke ‘Flemish Dutch’ (Louvain and Ghent).
Under political and public pressure, the University of Ghent adopted
in 1930 Dutch as the medium of instruction. Some years later both the
universities of Louvain and Brussels also started to offer courses taught
in Dutch (or Flemish). But teaching in French continued in Louvain
and Brussels. In fact, French programmes are generally considered to
have been predominant at both universities until the 1950s or 1960s
(e.g. Verhoeven 1982).
The predominant position of French reflected broader socio-eco-
nomic divergences. Social status in the entire nation-state has long
largely depended on knowledge of the French language, as Belgium was
dominated by an industrialized and powerful Walloon part and a mainly
French-speaking nobility and bourgeoisie in the Flemish part of the
country. However, the structure of the university system also contributed
to the perpetuation of the dominance of French over the majority, i.e.
the Dutch- or Flemish-speaking part of the Belgian population.
No doubt, the linguistic conflicts were intensified by the expansion of
the university system. As a consequence of the increased attendance at
the level of secondary education and the expansion of the student finance
system for higher education, the total number of university students

had started to increase at an unprecedented rate in the period after the
Second World War. However, the expansion of the Catholic University
of Louvain, which was situated in the midst of Flemish territory, brought
with it the expansion of Francophone presence on Flemish territory. This
development triggered bitter resistance in Flanders—both inside and
outside Leuven (Louvain is the French and Leuven the Dutch name of
the same city). It led in the late-1960s to the so-called Louvain ques-
tion, which brought about the fall of the Belgian government and trig-
gered a series of constitutional reforms that transformed Belgium into a
federal state based on internal language borders. The ‘Louvain question’
also led to the division of the Catholic University into two autonomous
entities, a Dutch-speaking one in Leuven and a French-speaking one
for which a new site was developed in Wallonia (Louvain-la-Neuve, i.e.
the ‘new Louvain’). To avoid new ideological conflicts, the University
of Brussels was at that time also divided into independent French and
Flemish institutions.
The division of the universities of Leuven and Brussels in 1968 was
made possible by University Expansion Acts, which allowed for the
expansion of the existing universities, as well as the creation of new
ones. The university system expanded rapidly afterwards. By the 1970s,
new universities had emerged in Antwerp, Hasselt, Brussels, Mons
and Namur, while the University of Leuven was also allowed to estab-
lish a new site in Kortrijk. As the split of the universities of Louvain and
Brussels signifies, this expansion process took place within a new political
context, within which Belgium had been divided into different language
regions, and within which the political responsibility for education was
being relegated to the regional level. In the latter part of the twentieth
century, the linguistic divisions became more prominent than the ideo-
logical ones within Belgium.
This process of expansion accompanied by linguistic partitioning
also marked the development of sociology within Belgium. The differ-
ent universities tried to outbalance each other. Collaboration at the
national level was troublesome. The first Belgian sociological association
was the aforementioned French-speaking and Catholic Société Belge de
Sociologie. It was set up in 1899 and counted 37 members at the start
of the twentieth century. But it disappeared before the First World War
when its key members became involved in other activities and contexts.
It probably did not have much impact beyond its own Catholic network.
Throughout Belgium, sociology did not fare well institutionally in the

interwar era. When a second Société Belge de Sociologie was established
shortly after the Second World War, its founding members even seem to
have been unaware of the existence of a forerunner with the same name,
as one of them later publicly testified (de Bie 1986, p. 225).8
Although the second Société was (again) a French-speaking schol-
arly association, its ideological and geographical scope was broader.
Sociologists of all four Belgian universities were involved. The main
stimulus for the establishment of the new association came from the
Social Sciences Department of UNESCO—and the funding it could dis-
tribute to national research associations and consortia (de Bie 1986, pp.
227–230). However, the interuniversity collaboration among sociolo-
gists did not last long. Ideological and linguistic differences reappeared
soon. A rivalling organization of Flemish sociologists was founded in
1962 (Organisatie voor Vlaamse Sociologen). In 1975, the Société created
a French- and Dutch-speaking division: the Association des Sociologues
Belges de Langue Française (ASBLF), on the one hand, and the Vlaamse
Vereniging voor Sociologie (VVS), on the other. Although the Société was
now meant to function as an umbrella organization at the national level
that could also take care of the link with international organizations, it
disappeared only a few years later.
Since the late 1970s, there no longer exists a national forum for soci-
ology within Belgium. There is neither a national association, nor a
national journal for sociology.9 Regular national conferences are no
longer organized, although particular ‘social challenges’ or ‘social prob-
lems’ are occasionally still used/constructed to bring together social
scientists from different parts of Belgium. In Flanders and Wallonia, soci-
ology and many other scholarly disciplines have developed in different
8 De Bie later examined the first Société Belge de Sociologie in more historical detail, espe-
cially focusing on the internal conflicts that led to its abolition. He was critical in his own
way. In his view, Cyrille Van Overbergh, the most active member of this association, was
not a real sociologist (de Bie 1988; see also Wijns 2003).
9 In this regard, Belgium is different from some other small and linguistically het-
erogeneous countries, such as Switzerland. For sociology, there does exist a multilingual
national Swiss journal of sociology: Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Soziologie / Revue Suisse de
Sociologie / Swiss Journal of Sociology, which publishes work written in German, French or
English. While we do not want to overstate the ‘unifying’ relevance of this journal for the
Swiss community of sociologists, it is evident that the absence of national communication
platforms hinders the organization of scholarly interaction at the national level.
directions. As we will see in more detail in the third and fourth chapters
of this book, different kinds of international research networks have also
become institutionalized in both linguistic communities: while French-
speaking researchers in Belgium are generally well connected with research-
ers in other French-speaking parts of the world (France, Québec), Flemish
researchers primarily orient themselves to researchers in the Netherlands,
Scandinavia and the Anglo-Saxon world (see Vanderstraeten 2010).
The linguistic divisions have become dominant in Belgium in the sec-
ond half of the last century. For most fields of study, including sociology,
there are distinct Dutch- and French-speaking communities of specialists
in Belgium. At the same time, the ideological tensions did not disappear
on both sides of the language border. Although seven universities now
offer sociology programmes in Belgium, no national research community
emerged. Both the linguistic and ideological divisions have led to a parti-
tioning of the academic system in a broad variety of scholarly disciplines.
The image of sociology in Belgium, which currently imposes itself most
forcefully, is one of a ‘provincialized’ sociology. We will trace this devel-
opment in more detail in the following chapters.
Outline of the Book

While the history of science and technology in Belgium has received
systematic attention in recent decades (e.g. Halleux et al. 2001), reflec-
tions on the history of sociology in Belgium remain scarce. Moreover,
several of the available contributions have been written for specific com-
memorative purposes, such as jubilees of particular institutes. Some have
also been written by ‘protagonists’, who look back at their own life and
career within the academia or describe the situation they have become
familiar with (e.g. Van Goethem 1947; De Jonghe 1976; Vilrokx 1977;
Dumon 1981; Voyé and Dobbelaere 1994; Coenen-Huther 2002,
2006). While these contributions are often of interest in their own right,
none of them provides a systematic sociological reflection on the history
of sociology or the social sciences within Belgium. This might also be
said about a recent compilation of biographical articles on ‘forgotten’
sociologists and anthropologists in the French-speaking part of Belgium
(published in a 2014 issue of the journal Anamnèse).
Hitherto only the ‘birth’ or ‘genesis’ of sociology in Belgium has been
described and analysed in considerable detail. Throughout a long schol-
arly career, which lasted from the 1940s until the 1980s, the sociologist
Pierre de Bie wrote extensively about the ‘early years’, albeit in an essen-
tialist vein. Despite the erudition visible in his work, his focus was on the
writings of the ‘hommes de valeur’ (men of value) in Belgian sociology
(de Bie 1986, p. 193). His main intention was to distinguish between
what was worth calling ‘sociology’ and what was not. He distinguished
between ‘le mot’ and ‘la chose’: ‘on peut trouver la chose sans le mot,
mais fréquemment aussi le mot sans la chose’ (de Bie 1985, p. 4).10
His history of the early years of Belgian sociology lacks attention to the
social and cultural conditions within which sociology could develop and
(re-)define itself. By contrast, the cultural historian Kaat Wils has in more
recent years paid more attention to the intellectual context within which
sociology ‘took off’ in Belgium. Her excellent research particularly
focuses on the influence of Comte’s positivism on Belgian sociologists in
the period around 1900 (esp. Wils 2005). Some related themes, such as
the influence of Darwinism on the ‘birth’ of sociology, have recently also
been explored by historians (De Bont 2008; see also Deferme 2007).
But work that covers the history of sociology in Belgium throughout the
twentieth century does not exist. This book intends to fill this lacuna. It
intends to offer a sociological account of the history of sociology in this
small and heterogeneous country from the nineteenth until the early-
twenty-first century.
To make sense of the development of sociology in Belgium, we
hereafter first consider in more detail the factors that differentiated the
history of sociology in Belgium from other national histories. The sec-
ond chapter is devoted to an analysis of the relation between religion
(Catholicism) and sociology. Special attention is paid to the conflicts
between clerical and anticlerical points of view, to the ways in which
social science and sociology became acceptable in Catholic circles, and
to the development of a distinct form of sociology of religion at the
Catholic universities in Leuven and Louvain-la-Neuve. The third chapter
focuses afterwards on the rise of linguistic diversity within Belgium. It
discusses, more particularly, the rise of Flemish or Dutch as a ‘legitimate’
language. As the language border was constitutionally established in the
early 1960s, the post-war expansion of the university system and of sev-
eral scientific disciplines, including sociology, took place in a regionalized
10 “One can find the thing without the word, but frequently also the word without the
thing”.
context. Different communities of Dutch- and French-speaking sociolo-

gists emerged in the latter part of the twentieth century. The third chap-
ter sketches the linguistic pluralization of sociology within Belgium.
The second and third chapters outline the sociocultural setting which
shaped the history of sociology in Belgium; they allow us to get a bet-
ter sense of the peculiarities of the Belgian tradition. But they do not
build on the idea that national traditions need to be understood within
their national context only. They rather take the critiques of ‘methodo-
logical nationalism’ into account. The focus on the differentia specifica
of Belgium, on the specific conditions under which sociological networks
could emerge, disintegrate and become re-established in Belgium, makes
it possible to combine the study of a national tradition with a broader
transnational perspective. The fourth chapter likewise aims to combine
a national with a transnational perspective. This chapter is dedicated to
an analysis of the changing network structures which characterize the
scientific communities of Dutch- and French-speaking sociologists in
Belgium. It is, more particularly, devoted to a detailed analysis of the his-
tory of the publication practices within these scientific communities. The
analyses focus, among others, on the institutionalization of publication
imperatives (‘publish or perish’!). They include the different academic
contexts in Belgium in our account of the production of sociological
work.11
In short: this study is, first, intended to document and clarify develop-
ments and historical patterns that are hitherto little known. It analyses
how specific sociocultural and academic contexts, within which sociol-
ogy’s disciplinary trajectory in Belgium took shape, help to account for
the intellectual strategies and the kinds of knowledge that have been
pursued. It sheds light on the rise of different research communities in
Belgium and the growing divergences between them, and also shows
how social science has been instrumental in constructing (our predomi-
nant view of) the social cleavages within Belgium. On the basis of a spe-
cific case study, the following chapters deal with several crucial aspects
11 It is fair to mention that this English presentation of sociology in Belgium has also
forced us to make some selections. It has, most of all, excluded the use of approaches, such
as discourse analyses of sociology handbooks, which would require lengthy quotations of
French or Dutch source materials. Altogether, however, we believe that the different chap-
ters of this book provide for a broad and balanced overview of the history of sociology in
the different, relatively isolated networks in Belgium.
of this complex interaction process. But this book also pursues a broader
aim. Its second ambition is to suggest some modifications to the way in
which the history of sociology should be conceived of. By exploring new
ways to write the history of sociology (in Belgium), this book also aims
to enhance the sociological imagination.
References
Brants, V. (1906). La part de la méthode de Le Play dans les études sociales en
Belgique. La Réforme Sociale, 6, 636–652.
Brubaker, R. (2013). Language, religion and the politics of difference. Nations
and Nationalism, 19(1), 1–20.
Coenen-Huther, J. (2002). Entre cultures et structures. Essai d’autobiographie
sociologique. Revue Européenne des Sciences Sociales, 40, 5–39.
Coenen-Huther, J. (2006). Eugène Dupréel, philosophe, sociologue et moral-
iste. Revue Européenne des Sciences Sociales, 44, 97–118.
Crombois, J.-F. (1994). L’univers de la sociologie en Belgique de 1900 à 1940.
Brussels: Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles.
Crombois, J.-F. (1995). Bibliographie, sociologie et coopération internationale.
De l’Institut International de Bibliographie à l’Institut de Sociologie Solvay.
In A. Despy-Meyer (Ed.), Cent ans de l’Office International de Bibliographie
(pp. 215–238). Mons: Editions Mundanéum.
Curtis, B. (2002). The politics of population: State formation, statistics, and the
census of Canada, 1840–1875. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
de Bie, P. (1983). Les débuts de la sociologie en Belgique. I: La fondation du
premier institut de sociologie Solvay. Recherches Sociologiques, 14(2), 109–140.
de Bie, P. (1985). Les débuts de la sociologie en Belgique. II: La préparation:
Pionniers et préoccupations au XIXe siècle. Recherches Sociologiques, 16(1),
3–37.
de Bie, P. (1986). Les débuts de la sociologie en Belgique. III: Les sociétés bel-
ges de sociologie et le centre interuniversitaire. Recherches Sociologiques, 17(2),
193–230.
de Bie, P. (1988). Naissance et premiers développements de la sociologie en
Belgique. Louvain-la-Neuve: Ciaco.
De Bont, R. (2008). Darwins kleinkinderen. De evolutietheorie in België
1864–1945. Nijmegen: Vantilt.
De Greef, G. (1911). Introduction à la sociologie. Brussels: Mayolez.
De Jonghe, E. (1976). Het onderwijs der politieke en sociale wetenschappen te
Leuven 1892–1976. Politica, 26(2), 102–128.
Deferme, J. (2007). Uit de ketens van de vrijheid: Het debat over de sociale politiek
in België 1886–1914. Leuven: Universitaire Pers Leuven.
Dejongh, C. (1901). Note pour MM. De Greef, Denis et Vandervelde. Brussels:

s.n.
Despy-Meyer, A. (1973). Inventaire des archives de l’Université Nouvelle de
Bruxelles, 1894–1919. Brussels: Association des Archivistes et Bibliothécaires
de Belgique.
Despy-Meyer, A. (1994). Un laboratoire d’idées: l’Université Nouvelle de
Bruxelles (1894–1919). In G. Kurgan-van Hentenryk (Ed.), Laboratoires
et réseaux de diffusion des idées en Belgique (XIXe-XXe siècles) (pp. 51–54).
Brussels: Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles.
Despy-Meyer, A., & Goffin, P. (1976). Liber Memorialis de l’Institut des Hautes
Études de Belgique fondé en 1894. Brussels: Université Libre de Bruxelles.
Donnelly, K. (2015). Progression to the mean: Adolphe Quetelet, social physics and
the average men of science, 1796–1874. London: Pickering & Chatto.
Douglas, D. W. (1926). The social purpose in the sociology of DeGreef.
American Journal of Sociology, 31(4), 433–454.
Ducpétiaux, E. (1855). Budgets économiques des classes ouvrières en Belgique.
Brussels: Hayez.
Dumon, W. (1981). Sociologie in België. In L. Rademaker (Ed.), Sociologische
grondbegrippen I (pp. 166–198). Utrecht: Spectrum.
Durkheim, E. (1886). Review of “Guillaume de Greef, Introduction à la sociolo-
gie”. Revue Philosophique, 22, 658–663.
Durkheim, E. (1897). Le suicide. Paris: Félix Alcan.
Gerard, E. (1992). Sociale wetenschappen aan de Katholieke Universiteit te
Leuven, 1892–1992. Leuven: Politica Cahier.
Giddings, F. H. (1891). Sociology as a university study. Political Science
Quarterly, 6(4), 635–655.
Goldman, L. (1987). A peculiarity of the English? The Social Science Association
and the absence of sociology in nineteenth-century Britain. Past & Present,
114, 133–171.
Goldman, L. (2002). Science, reform, and politics in Victorian Britain: The Social
Science Association 1857–1886. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goldman, L. (2007). Foundations of British sociology 1880–1930: Contexts
and biographies. The Sociological Review, 55(3), 431–440.
Halleux, R., Vanpaemel, G., Vandersmissen, J., & Despy-Meyer, A. (Eds.).
(2001). Geschiedenis van de wetenschappen in België, 1815–2000. Brussels:
Dexia.
Hanssens, E. (1901). Note pour M. Solvay. Brussels: s.n.
Head, B. (1982). The origins of ‘la science sociale’ in France, 1770–1800.
Australian Journal of French Studies, 19(2), 115–132.
Headrick, D. R. (2000). When information came of age. Technologies of knowledge
in the age of reason and revolution, 1700–1850. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
much alike; and the boy who has not energy enough to set his face
resolutely against the early discouragements of any particular
calling, will, in all probability, be successful in no other. It is, however,
so great an advantage to have a young person’s own feelings, and
his point of honour heartily engaged in the cause in which he has
embarked, that, if circumstances render such a thing at all expedient,
or not quite unreasonable, the choice of a profession may often be
conceded with advantage. But such free choice ought to be
afterwards burdened, with a positive interdict against change. In the
case of a sea life, this appears to be quite indispensable; for the
contrast is so striking, in most cases, between the comforts of home
and the discomforts of a ship—to say nothing of rough fare, hard
work, sea-sickness, and strict discipline—that, if an opening be
constantly presented for escape, few youngsters will have resolution
enough to bear up against those trials to which they must be
exposed, and which they ought to hold themselves prepared to meet
with cheerfulness.
Perhaps the naval profession owes a good deal of its peculiar
character to these very disadvantages, as they are called; and
though we may often regret to see young men, of good abilities,
dropping out of the navy, who, if they had only cast on the right tack,
might have done the service and themselves much honour—yet
there is no denying that their more vigorous-minded and sterner-
framed companions, whom they leave afloat, are, upon the whole,
better fitted to make useful public servants.
In many other professions, it is possible to calculate, beforehand,
with more or less precision, the degree and kind of work which a
young man is likely to be called upon to perform; but there is peculiar
difficulty in coming to any just conclusion upon these points, even in
a vague way, in the life of a sailor. His range of duties includes the
whole world,—he may be lost in the wilderness of a three-decker, or
be wedged into a cock-boat;—he may be fried in Jamaica, or frozen
in Spitzbergen;—he may be cruising, or be in action during six days
of the week, in the midst of a fleet, and flounder in solitude on the
seventh; or he may waste his years in peaceful idleness, the most
fatal to subordination, or be employed on the home station, and hear
from his friends every day, or he may be fifteen months, as I have
been, at a time, without getting a letter or seeing a newspaper. He
may have an easy-going commander, which is a very great evil; or
his captain may be one of those tight hands, who, to use the slang of
the cock-pit, keeps every one on board ‘under the fear of the Lord
and a broomstick.’ In short, a man may go to sea for twenty years,
and find no two men, and hardly two days alike. All this, which is
delightful to some minds, and productive in them of every kind of
resource, is utterly distracting, and very often ruinous, to others.
Weak frames generally sink under its severity; and weak minds
become confused with its complication, and the intensity of its action.
But, on the other hand, the variety of its objects is so boundless, that
if a young man have only strength of body, to endure the wear and
tear of watching and other inevitable fatigues; and have also strength
of character enough to persevere, in the certainty of openings
occurring, sooner or later, by which his talents or his industry may
find profitable employment,—there can be little doubt that the
profession of a sailor might be made suitable to most of those who,
on entering it, are positively cut off from retreat.
Supposing that this ticklish question, of the choice of a profession,
has been conceded to a boy, there remains the still more perplexing
problem—what is the fittest method of training him beforehand, so
that he may enter his new life with best effect? The difficulty arises, I
suspect, from two causes, one of which applies to education
generally, the other to the particular case of a lad intended for the
navy. Most people seem to think, and very naturally, that the object
of a school is to teach knowledge which shall afterwards be
practically available in the business of life; and they cannot well
understand what is the use of teaching Latin and Greek, which
appear to be so little applicable to real work. Much of this difficulty
vanishes, however, if it be considered that the chief purpose of
education is to discipline the mind, and to train up the character, so
that it may be found equal to any task, no matter how unlooked-for it
may be. In such a view, the Classics are as good, and probably
better than any other.
If the principles, the faculties, and the feelings of a boy be duly
cultivated at school, he may be expected to enter the world in as fit a
state to profit by the opportunities in his path, as his nature will allow
of; nor does it, perhaps, much matter by what artificial machinery this
degree of perfection in mental culture has been attained. All that
seems essentially of importance is, that the endowments given him
by nature, should have been so well exercised, that when brought to
bear on the real, manly business of life, they may act with effect. If
the process of education has been well managed, its utility will
probably not be the least sensibly felt, in cases where the pursuits to
be followed in earnest are dissimilar to those, by means of which the
boy’s faculties were originally developed at school.
In the instance of young men intended for the navy, I think this rule
applies with particular force. The early age of thirteen, at which they
must of necessity go on board ship, renders it almost impossible that
they can have acquired any great stock of what is usually called
knowledge. But, by proper management, they may, previous to that
age, have secured a very large stock of that particular description of
information which will be of most use to them in the outset of life; and
their growing minds may have been fitted, by a good system of
school discipline, to submit with cheerfulness, as well as advantage,
to that singular mixture of constraint and freedom, which forms the
most striking feature of a sea life. If this be true, it is perhaps of no
great consequence whether the ground-work of such an education
be the ancient classics, the mathematics, or modern languages: for
the real object to be arrived at, viz. mental training, may, by proper
management, be equally well attained by any of these methods.
No two boys, perhaps, out of a dozen, intended for the sea, may
require the same training; but still there is no reason why the whole
number should not be equally well fitted, by previous education, to
advance themselves in the service, according to their respective
talents, though some of them, at starting, may be altogether ignorant
of those subjects, generally supposed to be of the most
indispensable utility at sea.
Antecedent, therefore, to the age of thirteen, after which a boy
ought never to commence his naval career, it appears to matter
extremely little what he learns, provided his mind be kept fully
occupied. It will be better, no doubt, if a boy’s taste happen to lie in
that direction, that his occupations at school have as direct a
reference as possible to his future pursuits. If, for instance, he have
a turn for mathematics, or for modern languages, he ought certainly
to be indulged in his fancy. But the essential objects to be attended
to, at this stage of his education, lie a great deal further from the
surface, and consequently make much less show. The formation of
character, upon the solid basis of religion, and a due cultivation of
manners, especially of those branches which relate to temper and
self-denial, are quite within the range of education antecedent to the
age of thirteen. If, then, a boy be only well grounded in his principles,
and if he be taught to think and feel and act like a gentleman, before
he is turned adrift on the wide ocean, and he have also acquired
habits of industry and obedience, together with the ordinary
elements of knowledge—reading, writing, and so on—it matters little,
as I conceive, whether he has acquired much information besides—
for all else that is wanting will follow in good time.
The consideration of what system of instruction should be pursued
afterwards, at the naval college, or on board ship, is a totally different
affair, and deserves to be treated by itself.
CHAPTER II.
FIRST GOING AFLOAT.
I know not what other persons may have felt on these occasions; but
I must own, that, in spite of all my enthusiasm, when the actual time
came for fairly leaving friends and home, and plunging quite alone
and irrevocably into a new life, I felt a degree of anxiety, and distrust
of myself, which, as these feelings were quite strange, I scarcely
knew how to manage. I had been allowed to choose my own
profession, it is true, and was always eager to be off; yet I almost
wished, when the actual moment arrived, that I had not been taken
at my word. For the first time in my life, I knew what was meant by
the word responsibility, and all the shame of failure stared me in the
face. When at school, nine-tenths of my thoughts had always
rambled abroad, to those unknown regions, upon which my
imagination loved to feast, day and night. Still, I can well remember,
my heart sunk within me, and I felt pretty much as if I were on the
verge of death, when the carriage that was to convey me away,
drove up to the door. I still believed that there was, even on this
earth, a new and a much better world before me; but when I tasked
my judgment, to say upon what grounds this belief rested, the
answer was so meagre, that I began to dread I had done a mighty
foolish thing in setting out to seek for it.
“What a scrape I shall be in,” I said to myself, “if the gloomy
representations of these sad fellows the poets be true pictures of life!
What if this existence of ours be but a scene of gradually-increasing
misery! How shall I be able to get on at all, if a sea life be not more
enjoyable than that of the High School of Edinburgh? and what kind
of figure shall I cut, when driven back, by sheer distress, to petition
my father to take me home again, to eat the bitter bread of idleness,
or to seek for some other profession, wherein all the rubs and tugs
may prove just as bad as those of the sea, and possibly not very
much better than those of school?”
I took good care, however, to let none of these unworthy doubts
and alarms find any expression in word or in look; and, with a heart
almost bursting, I took leave of the holyday scenes of the country I
had loved so well, and which, to my young fancy, appeared the most
beautiful spot on earth,—a judgment which, as I before observed, a
tolerably extensive acquaintance with the rest of the world has only
tended to confirm. Of course, I had a regular interview and leave-
taking with my capital friends the fishermen, whom I had long held to
be the best-informed persons of my acquaintance, merely because
they knew most about ropes and ship matters generally. I cannot say
that these worthy mariners stood the test of after-communication,
quite so well as the romantic coast-scenery near which they resided.
I remember, on returning from my first voyage, going down to the
beach, in my uniform jacket, and in no very modest spirit, to shew off
my superior nautical attainments to these poor fellows, who had
been sticking fast to their rocks during the interval, much after the
fashion of their own shell-fish. Their reception, of course, was highly
flattering; but their confined views of the profession, and scanty
knowledge of many of its details, made me look back with wonder to
the time when I had hailed them as first-rate masters in the noble art
of seamanship.
On the 16th of May, 1802, I left home; and next day my father said
to me, “Now you are fairly afloat in the world, you must begin to write
a journal;” and, suiting the action to the word, he put a blank book
into one hand, and a pen into the other, with a hint for me to proceed
at once to business. The following is a fair specimen of the result,
which I certainly little imagined was ever destined to attain the
honour of being printed:—
“May 17.—Journey to London.—Left Dunglass. Breakfasted at the
Press Inn, and changed horses. Got to Belford; changed horses.
Alnwick—dined there, and got to Morpeth, where we slept. Up early;
breakfasted at Newcastle. Stopped at Durham. Walked forward till
the chaise should overtake us; got into the chaise. Stopped to give
the horses some drink. Saw two deep draw-wells. Observed some
coal-carts at Newcastle coal-pits. The wheels are so constructed,
that they run down-hill upon things in the road, which are made for
the purpose. The horse follows the cart, to draw it up the hill, after it
has emptied the load.”
The rest of the journal is pretty much in the same style—a record
of insignificant facts which lead to nothing, useless as
memorandums at the time, and of course not more useful at the
distance of eight-and-twenty years. I would give a good deal, at this
moment, to possess, instead of these trashy notices, some traces,
no matter how faint, of what was actually passing in my mind upon
the occasion of this journey. The resolutions we make at such a
period, together with the doubts and fears which distract us, may
have a certain amount of value, if then jotted down in good faith; but
if these fleeting thoughts be once allowed to pass without record,
they necessarily lose most of their force. There is always, indeed,
something interesting, and often much that is useful, in tracing the
connexion between sentiment and action, especially in the
elementary stages of life, when the foundations of character are laid.
But the capacity of drawing such inferences belongs to a very
different period of life; and hence it arises, that early journals are
generally so flat and profitless, unless they be written in a spirit
which few people think of till too late.
I shall have so many better opportunities than the present of
speaking on the copious subject of journal-writing, that I shall merely
remark, in passing, for the consideration of my young readers, that
what most people wish to find recorded there, is not so much a dry
statement of facts, however important these may be, as some
account of the writer’s opinions and his feelings upon the occasion.
These, it may be observed, are like the lights and shades and
colours of a painting, which, while they contribute fully as much to
the accuracy of a representation as the correctness of the mere
outline, impress the mind of the spectator with a still more vivid
image of the object intended to be described.
I ought to have mentioned before, that the object of this journey
was to ship me off to sea; and it was arranged that I should join the
flag-ship of Sir Andrew Mitchell, then fitting in the River for the
Halifax station. We, of course, set out for London, as the grand focus
from which every thing in the English world radiates. But I find
nothing in the memorandums of that period worthy of being
extracted, nor do I recollect any incident which excited me strongly,
except the operation of rigging myself out for the first time in
midshipman’s uniform. There was something uncommonly pleasing,
I remember, in the glitter of the dirk and its apparatus; and also in the
smart air, as well as new cut of the dress; but the chief satisfaction
arose from the direct evidence this change of garb afforded that
there was no joke in the matter, but that the real business of life was
actually about to begin. Accordingly, in a tolerable flutter of spirits, I
made my first appearance on the deck of one of his Majesty’s ships.
The meagre journal of that day is as follows:—
“Went to Deptford after breakfast in a hackney-coach—when we
got there, we got out of the coach, walked down the street, and met
the captain of the Leander. Went with him to the clerk of the
cheque’s office, and had my name put in some book or other. Went
with him to his lodgings, where he gave us a list of some things I was
to get. Got a boat and went on board the Leander for the first time.
Came home on a stage-coach—got a boat at London bridge—went
up in it to the Adelphi—got out and went to the hotel.”
In most other professions, the transition from the old to the new
mode of life is more or less gradual; but in that of the sea, it is so
totally abrupt, and without intervening preparation, that a boy must
be either very much of a philosopher, or very much of a goose, not to
feel, at first, well nigh overwhelmed with the change of
circumstances. The luxuries and the kindnesses of home are
suddenly exchanged for the coarse fare of a ship, and the rough
intercourse of total strangers. The solicitude with which he has been
watched heretofore, let the domestic discipline have been ever so
strict, is tenderness itself, compared to the utter indifference,
approaching to dislike, with which a youngster, or ‘squeaker,’ as he is
well called, is received on board. Even if he possess any
acquaintances amongst his own class, they have few consolations in
their power; and, generally speaking, are rather disposed to laugh at
the home-sick melancholy of a new comer, than to cheer him up,
when his little heart is almost breaking.
It so happened that I knew no one on board the ship, excepting
two middies similarly circumstanced with myself. I was introduced
also to a very gruff, elderly, service-soured master’s mate, to whose
care, against his own wishes, I had been consigned by a mutual
friend, a captain with whom he had formerly served. Our own
excellent commanding officer had a thousand other things to look
after, far more pressing than the griefs and cares of a dozen of boys
under his charge.
I felt bewildered and subdued, by the utter solitude of my situation,
as my father shook me by the hand, and quitted the ship. I well
recollect the feeling of despair when I looked round me, and was
made conscious of my utter insignificance. “Shall I ever be able,”
thought I, “to fill any respectable part in this vast scene? What am I
to do? How shall I begin? Whom can I consult?” I could furnish no
satisfactory answer to these queries; and though I had not the least
idea of shrinking from what I had undertaken, yet, I confess, I was
not far from repenting that I had been so decided about the matter.
There is a vehement delight, no doubt, in novelty—but we may
have too much of it at once; and certainly, if my advice were asked
as to this point, in the case of another, I should recommend that a
boy be gradually introduced to his future home; and, if possible,
placed under the auspices of some one older than himself, and who,
from having a real interest in him, might soften the needless rigours
of this formidable change. I had no such preparation; and was
without one friend or even acquaintance on board, who cared a
straw for me. I was also very little for my age, spoke broad Scotch,
and was, withal, rather testy in my disposition. The cock-pit, it is true,
is a pretty good place to work the bad humours out of a crotchety
young fellow, and to bring him to his due bearings; but I think I have
seen a good many tenderer plants than I was, crushed down under
the severity of this merciless discipline. Perhaps it is all for the best;
because youngsters who cannot, or will not stand this rough rubbing,
are just as well out of the way, both for themselves and the public.
There is one practice, however, which, as I invariably followed it
myself, I know to be in every boy’s power, and I venture strongly to
recommend it to others in the same situation; nor is it very likely that
many will be exposed to greater trials, in a small way, than I was at
first. The maxim is, always, in writing home, to put the best face
upon matters, and never, if possible, to betray any inevitable
unhappiness. Such a practice is doubly useful—for it contributes
essentially to produce that character of cheerfulness in reality, which
is partly assumed at the moment of writing, in order to save our
friends from distress on our account. It would be wrong, indeed, to
say, in writing home, that we are very happy, when in truth we are
very much the reverse; but, without stating any falsehood, or giving
into any subterfuge—which is still worse—those particular things
may very fairly be dwelt upon which are agreeable, almost to the
exclusion of those which are otherwise. We should learn, in short, to
see and to describe the cheerful things; and, both in our practice and
in description, leave the unpleasant ones to take care of themselves.
For example, I remember, as well as if the incidents had occurred
yesterday, most of the details which are stated in the following letter,
written only the day after I was left to my fate—amongst strangers—
in the unknown world of a man-of-war. I certainly was far from happy,
and might easily have made my friends wretched by selecting chiefly
what was disagreeable. I took a different course.
“H. M. Ship Leander, June 12, 1802,

Cock Pit.
“DEAR FATHER,
“After you left us, I went down into the mess-room; it is a
place about twenty feet long, with a table in the middle of
it, and wooden seats upon which we sit. When I came
down there were a great many cups and saucers upon the
table. A man came in, and poured hot water into the tea-
pot. There are about fourteen of us mess at the same
time. We were very merry in this dark hole, where we had
only two candles.
“We come down here, and sit when we like; and at other
times go upon deck. At about ten o’clock we had supper
upon bread and cheese, and a kind of pudding which we
liked very much. Some time after this I went to a
hammock, which was not my own, as mine was not ready,
there not being enough of clues at it, but I will have it to-
night. I got in at last. It was very queer to find myself
swinging about in this uncouth manner, for there was only
about a foot of space between my face and the roof—so,
of course, I broke my head a great many times on the
different posts in the cock-pit, where all the midshipmen
sleep. After having got in, you may be sure I did not sleep
very well, when all the people were making such a noise,
going to bed in the dark, and the ship in such confusion. I
fell asleep at last, but was always disturbed by the
quarter-master coming down to awake the midshipmen
who were to be on guard during the night. He comes up to
their bed-sides and calls them; so I, not being accustomed
to it, was always awaked, too. I had some sleep, however,
but, early in the morning, was again roused up by the men
beginning to work.
“There is a large hole which comes down from the
decks, all the way through to the hold, where they let
down the casks. The foot of the hammock that I slept in
was just at the hole, so I saw the casks all coming down
close by me. I got up at half-past seven, and went into the
birth (our mess-room), and we were all waiting for
breakfast till eight, when the man who serves and brings
in the dishes for the mess came down in a terrible
passion, saying, that as he was boiling the kettle at the
stove, the master-at-arms had thrown water upon the fire
and put it out. All this was because the powder was
coming on board. So we had to want our breakfast for
once. But we had a piece of bread and butter; and as we
were eating it, the master-at-arms came down, and said
that our candles were to be taken away: so we had to eat
our dry meal in the dark.
“I then went upon deck, and walked about, looking at
the Indiamen coming up the river, till eleven, when I and
one of my companions went and asked the lieutenant if he
would let us go on shore in the jolly-boat, as it was going
at any rate. We intended to take a walk in some of the
fields. We got leave, and some more of the midshipmen
went with us. There are about six men row the boat, and
we sit any where we like. Got on shore, and ran about the
park you were mentioning when in the boat. Then came
back to an inn, where we had some rolls and butter and
coffee, to make up for the loss of our breakfast in the
morning. We then took a walk to the church at Dartford,
where we lounged about till we were tired—then came
back through the fields to the boat, which we got into, and
made the ship.”
Professional eyes will detect a curious mixture of ignorance and

knowledge in the above production, in which, if the nautical terms—
such as ‘hole’ for hatchway—be not too severely criticised, the
information may pass pretty well for twenty-four hours’ experience.
In a letter written a few days afterwards, from the Nore, I find some
touches of the same kind.
“On Sunday, about three o’clock in the morning, I was awakened
by a great noise of the boatswain’s mates and the captain bawling
for all hands up to unfurl the sails. As I thought I could not sleep
much more, I got up in the dark and went upon deck. All the men
were hauling the anchor in: they were a good while about it. As soon
as the anchor was got in, all the men ran up the masts like so many
cats, and went out on the yard-arms and untied the sails. In a little
while all the sails were set, and we scudded down the river, very
quick. Got to the Nore about twelve o’clock, where we now lie for
three or four days.”
In another letter, of the same date, after giving an account of the
“confounded noise made by the men, and the boatswain’s mates
ordering the anchor to be drawn up”—and describing, more correctly
than in the above extract, that the sailors “ran up the shrouds,” I
proceed to plume myself, rather prematurely, upon being already a
voyager.
“About twelve o’clock we made the Nore—the first time I have
been in open sea!” I half suspect that the motion of the ship, which,
even at that stage of our progress, began, as I well remember, to
overturn the serenity of my stomach, may have led me to conclude
we were at sea. In the same epistle, in spite of the open ocean, there
occur the following sentences:—
“I like my station very much indeed. Have some very agreeable
messmates, and the schoolmaster is a very pleasant man, who has
travelled a great deal. We have not begun our school yet, as we are
all in confusion, but shall, as soon as we have tripped our anchor for
Halifax.”
The next letter was written from Spithead, and is characteristic
enough.
“H. M. S. Leander, Spithead, June 18.

“I am much better pleased with my situation than I
suspected I would at my first coming on board. We have in
our mess four Scotchmen, six Englishmen, and two Irish,
so that we make a very pleasant company down in the
cock-pit. We dine at twelve, and breakfast at eight in the
morning. At breakfast we get tea and sea cake: at dinner
we have either beef, pork, or pudding. But when we come
into a harbour or near one, there are always numbers of
boats come out with all sorts of vegetables and fresh
meat, which are not left long in the boat—for the people all
run, and buy up the soft bread, and fresh provisions.
“About nine o’clock on the 17th, we anchored in the
Downs—the famous Downs—but, instead of seeing a
large fleet of great ships thundering out a salute to us on
our entrance, there was not one but a Dane and a Swede;
so we had to moor ship in the now solitary Downs. All the
hills along the coast are chalk. I should have liked to have
gone on shore at Dover to get you a piece of the rock, but
could not, as the ship was sailing as we passed it.
“We saw the coast of France, but were not near enough
to see any thing that was going on in the French
territories.
“We midshipmen are upon watch every night for four
hours together; we do nothing but walk the quarter-deck, if
the ship is not sailing. There is always half the crew upon
deck when the ship is sailing, and we and the lieutenants
order them to do so and so about the ropes and sails. All
the men’s hammocks are brought upon deck, and laid in
places at the side for the purpose, both to give room for
the men to work under the decks, and to give them air. All
the decks are washed and well scrubbed every morning,
which is very right, as they are often dirtied.
“There is a sort of cylinder of sail-cloth, about two feet in
diameter, which is hung above the deck, and is continued
down through the decks to the cock-pit. The wind gets in
at the top, and so runs down and airs the cock-pit, which
is a very pleasant thing, down here, at the bottom of the
ship.
“This morning, about eight o’clock, we arrived at
Spithead, and saw the celebrated Portsmouth, but I did
not go ashore the first day, as so many others were going;
but I intend to go as soon as I get leave. As we were
coming along we saw the Isle of Wight; it is very pretty
indeed, viewed from the ship, whatever it might be were
we on it. I saw some pretty places there, with plenty of
wood round them. The sun was fast setting on the water in
the opposite horizon, which had a fine effect, and cast a
light upon the island, which I cannot describe to you, as it
is such a rich country, and contains so many objects—it is
too pretty to describe. There are some ships at Spithead,
both large and small. In my next letter, if I go to
Portsmouth, I will give you an account of all the harbour
and docks, &c. &c. We remain here for ten days, I
believe.”
These extracts, though of course sufficiently boyish, help to shew

what may be made out of the most common-place details, when all
things are totally new both to the writer and the reader. It is on this
account I give a place to these juvenile lucubrations; for it is not
about the particular incidents that we care, in such cases, so much
as the state of feeling and genuine opinions of a young person,
exposed, for the first time, to the actual contact of the world. It would
be unreasonable to expect such ideas to be expressed in so many
words; but they may be picked up, in some degree, by the very
terms used in describing the most ordinary transactions.
The following letter shews how little difficulty people find in
expressing themselves when well charged with their topic. On
reading it over at the distance of nearly thirty years, I cannot help
remarking how different, and yet how much alike, the same person
may be at various periods of his life—how much changed in thought
—in sentiment—in action! It is curious also to discover, how
independent the man at one stage of life is of the same man at
another stage—though, after all, they may possibly be more nearly
allied in character, at bottom, than any two other persons who could
be placed in comparison. At the same time, under the circumstances
described in this letter, I really do not see that I should act differently
at this hour.
“Portsmouth, June 19.

“We were very near all being destroyed, and blown up,
last night, by an alarming fire on board. As I was standing
making my hammock, last night about ten o’clock, near
two others making theirs, we were alarmed by seeing a
large burst of sparks come from one corner of the cock-pit.
Without going to see what was the matter, I ran into our
birth, or place where we mess, and got hold of all the pots
of beer which the midshipmen were going to drink. I
returned with these, and threw them on the fire, while
others ran for water.
“When I came back, I saw the purser’s steward covered
with fire, and rubbing it off him as fast as he could, with a
pile of burning sheets and blankets lying at his feet. One
of us ran up to the quarter-deck, and seizing the fire-
buckets that were nearest, filled them, and brought them
down. We also got some of the men out of their
hammocks, but took good care not to awaken any of the
rest, for fear of bustle and confusion.
“The sentry, as soon as he discovered the smell, went
down to the captain and lieutenants, who immediately
came to the cock-pit, and whispered out ‘Silence!’ They
then got more buckets of water, and quenched the flames,
which, as they thought, were only in the purser’s steward’s
cabin. But one of the men opened the door of the
steward’s store-room, and saw a great deal of fire lying on
the floor. Water, of course, was applied, and it also was
quenched; the store-room was then well flooded.
“The captain ordered the purser’s steward to be put in
irons directly, as well as his boy, who had stuck the light
up in the cabin. The captain next went with the master-at-
arms into the powder magazine, which was close to the
purser’s steward’s cabin, and found the bulkhead or
partition half-burnt through by the fire in the cabin!
“All this mischief was occasioned by sticking a naked
light upon the beam above the cabin, from whence it had
fallen down and set fire to the sheets. The steward, in
trying to smother it with more, had set fire to the whole
bundle, which he then flung in a mass into the store-room.
There was a watch kept all night near the spot. Nobody
has been hurt.
“I am very sorry for the purser’s steward, for he was a
very good-natured and obliging man, and much liked by all
of us. He gave us plums, &c. when we asked them from
him. He is broke, I fear. I will give you the issue in my next
letter.”
This incident served, in a small way, to bring me into notice; for the
very next day, to my great satisfaction, I was ordered by the first
lieutenant to go in the jolly-boat, which was manned alongside, with
some message to a ship which he named, lying near us at Spithead.
I hesitated; and upon his asking me why I did not ‘be off,’ I replied
that I did not know which was the ship in question. “Oh,” said he,
looking over the gangway hammocks, “that ship with the top-gallant-
masts struck.”
Now, I had not the remotest idea what the term ‘top-gallant-mast
struck’ might mean; but as the officer seemed impatient, I hurried
down the side. The bow-man shoved the boat off, and away we
rowed, making a very zig-zag course; for, though I had the tiller in my
hand, I knew very imperfectly how to use it. The strokesman of the
boat at last laid his oar across, touched his hat, and said, “Which
ship are we going to, sir?”
I answered, in the words of the first lieutenant, “the one with the
top-gallant-masts struck.”
“Oh, sir,” exclaimed the fellow, smiling, “we have past her some
time—there she lies,” pointing astern.
Round we pulled—and I was much inclined to ask the man to
steer the boat; for, although my old associates, the fishermen on the
coast of Scotland, had edified me a little on this matter, I found it
quite a different affair to take a boat alongside a man-of-war at
Spithead, in a tide’s way, from what it had been to run a cobble on
the beach. Accordingly, I first ran the jolly-boat stem on, and, in
trying to remedy this lubberly blunder, gave orders which had the
effect of bringing the boat head and stern—which is about as wrong
in seamanship, as it would be in a horseman to put his right foot into
the stirrup in mounting, which, of course, would bring him with his
face to the tail.
Nevertheless, I crawled up the side, gave my message, and
returned to report the answer. The only salutation I received from the
first lieutenant was in the following words—uttered in a sharp, angry
tone:—
“Where the deuce have you been, youngster, all this time? and
what possessed you to go cruising about amongst the whole fleet at
such a rate?”
“I hope I shall learn to do better, sir,” I stammered out.
“There is much room for improvement, I am sure,” he cried.
I was made painfully sensible, by the tartness of this reproach, that
there was no very extraordinary degree of professional sagacity in
what I had recently done about the fire near the magazine. I had
been taking some credit to myself for not bawling out ‘fire! fire!’ and
especially for having thought of the pots of beer—but this brilliant
piece of service seemed now all forgotten!
Officers, and other persons in authority, should therefore be
careful how they strike young folks with their tongues; for, although
the wounds made do not shew upon the skin like those caused by
steel or lead, they often sink deeper into the feelings, and frequently
remain rankling there much longer than was intended, or than is
useful.
Of course, I was excessively mortified; but the justice of the
officer’s censure was so obvious, and the ridicule of the seamen in
the boat, even subdued as it was, so fair, that I soon saw I had
nothing to do but to set about learning to steer forthwith, and to lose
no time in finding out what ‘striking top-gallant-masts’ could possibly
mean.
CHAPTER III.
SPECIMENS OF COCK-PIT DISCIPLINE.
I skip over many other anecdotes at Portsmouth, in order to get fairly

out to sea; for I never felt completely disengaged from the thraldom
of school, and fully adrift on the wide world of independent life, till we
had left the white cliffs of old England many leagues astern. The
following brief despatch was penned just before starting; and I can
remember the mixture of exultation, and undefined dread of
something that was to come which I experienced, while I was writing
it:—
“H. M. S. Leander, Spithead, July 11, 1802.
“Yesterday the captain received his sailing orders, and

we have now got up a Blue Peter at the fore-top, which is
a signal for immediate sailing. We are just going to
unmoor ship, and shall sail for Halifax immediately. So,
farewell to England!”
Off we set, accordingly; and it may be interesting, and perhaps

useful, for youngsters in similar circumstances, to know, that all the
pleasurable anticipations came to pass sooner than any of those
which were gloomy in their promise. Yet it is curious, that, since
those days, when I was first launched upon blue water, I have very
rarely set out upon a voyage without experiencing many misgivings,
often amounting almost to a wish that some accidental incident might
arise to check the expedition altogether. This is the more strange, as
I have seldom, if ever, failed to find the reality more delightful than
was expected, the difficulties more easily overcome, and the harvest
of amusement and instruction more fertile, than any previous reading
or conversation, had led me to suppose the jog-trot course of a
professional life could possibly afford.
I don’t deny that I had sometimes a plaguy tough job of it to keep
my spirits up to this mark; and though I never quite lost heart, I was
often very low in the scale of resolution. So much so, that, on looking
back to those times, I fear I can discover moments when, had good
opportunities offered, I might perhaps have been tempted to cut and
run. Fortunately for me, however, there never was the least choice
left between perseverance and poverty; and I had been long taught
to consider, that the bread of idleness, however supplied, was the
most degrading food a gentleman could eat. It is true I was not then
so strongly convinced as I am now, that many of the essential
advantages of the primogeniture law, lie on the side of the younger
sons, yet I always felt, that it was my duty, as well as my interest, to
illustrate, practically, the truth of this seeming paradox.
The first damper to this magnanimous resolution, of making myself
useful in the world, was caused by a speech of our excellent captain,
who, calling all the youngsters into his cabin, a few days after we
were out of sight of land, addressed us in the following words:—
“Now, younkers, I have sent for you all, to tell you that you are not
of the smallest use on board the ship; in fact, if any thing, you are
rather in the way: but since you are here, I have no objection to your
learning your business, if you have a mind to do so. You shall,
therefore, have your choice, either to keep watch or not, exactly as
you please; only, recollect this,—if any of you decide to do your duty
in the way proposed, you shall be made to perform it in earnest. So,
mind what you are about, and give me an answer to-morrow
morning. Now, little fellows, be off with you!”
Out of about a dozen, I think there was only one other besides
myself who decided upon keeping watch. Most of this party had
been a cruise or two at sea before, and knew that pacing up and
down the deck for four hours in the night, over and above the tasks
of the day, was no joke; and they rather chuckled at the prospect of
being let off so easily. For my part, I was so grievously annoyed at
the contemptuous official assurance of being of no use, that I never

Textbook Sociology in Belgium A Sociological History 1St Edition Raf Vanderstraeten Ebook All Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Textbook Sociology in Belgium A Sociological History 1St Edition Raf Vanderstraeten Ebook All Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sociology in Belgium: A Sociological

History 1st Edition Raf Vanderstraeten

Muslim History and Social Theory: A Global Sociology of

Consumption: A Sociological Analysis 1st Edition Alan

The History of Sociology in Britain: New Research and

American Sociological Association Style Guide 7th

Theoretical Chemistry in Belgium A Topical Collection

Ten Lessons In Introductory Sociology 2nd Edition

Deviance and Social Control A Sociological Perspective

Hooligans, Ultras, Activists: Polish Football Fandom in

More information about this series at

Library of Congress Control Number: 2017947735

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2018

Cover illustration: © saulgranda/Getty

Printed on acid-free paper

This Palgrave Pivot imprint is published by Springer Nature

Fig. 3.1 Number of French- and Dutch-speaking sociology

sociology. It aims to come to a better self-understanding of sociology in

Abstract This chapter starts with a sketch of the sociopolitical context

Keywords Social statistics · Adolphe Quetelet · Institut de Sociologie

We can only acquire an understanding of sociology as it developed

© The Author(s) 2018 1

French-speaking scientific communities in the period after the Second

L’Union Fait La Force?

Southern or Catholic Netherlands, which comprised most of present-

with approximately 58% of the population, the official language is Dutch,

carried practical and reformist connotations as a ‘rational’ guide to

The nineteenth-century rise of administrative statistics, in Belgium

chapter of the first book of Das Kapital (Marx 1867).

interest. The openness towards sociology in academic circles in Belgium

Brussels and Louvain

to the sociopolitical problems of modern, industrializing states. Its

4 “A l’heure actuelle, l’union du socialisme et de la science positive est un fait accompli; il

6 “Or la sociologie n’est le plus souvent aujourd’hui qu’une pauvre philosophie

dissimulée derrière de longues citations de coutumes et de mœurs plus ou moins

the lawyer and politician Cyrille Van Overbergh (1866–1959) founded

7 “which shows itself in its benevolent effects throughout a history of nineteen

Flanders and Wallonia

system for higher education, the total number of university students

Throughout Belgium, sociology did not fare well institutionally in the

Outline of the Book

context. Different communities of Dutch- and French-speaking sociolo-

Dejongh, C. (1901). Note pour MM. De Greef, Denis et Vandervelde. Brussels:

“H. M. Ship Leander, June 12, 1802,

Professional eyes will detect a curious mixture of ignorance and

“H. M. S. Leander, Spithead, June 18.

These extracts, though of course sufficiently boyish, help to shew

“Portsmouth, June 19.

I skip over many other anecdotes at Portsmouth, in order to get fairly

“H. M. S. Leander, Spithead, July 11, 1802.

“Yesterday the captain received his sailing orders, and

Off we set, accordingly; and it may be interesting, and perhaps

You might also like

Fig. 3.1 Number of French- and Dutch-speaking sociology