 | ||
The Solvay Institute of Sociology [SIS; Institut de Sociologie Solvay] assumed its first “definitive form” (Solvay 1902/1906: 26) on November 16, 1902, when its founder Ernest Solvay, a wealthy Belgian chemist, industrialist, and philanthropist, inaugurated the original edifice of SIS in Parc Léopold (BS 2006). Under the guidance of its first director, Emile Waxweiler, SIS expressed a “conception of a sociology open to all of the disciplines of the human sciences: ethnology, of course, but also economics [...] and psycho-physiology, contact with which was facilitated by the proximity of the Institute of Physiology” (Vatin 1996: 486). While SIS is now part of the Université Libre de Bruxelles and known more simply as that university’s Institute of Sociology [Institut de Sociologie], the approach instigated by Solvay and Waxweiler still serves as methodological framework: a synergy between basic and applied research involving interdisciplinary studies firmly anchored in social life (IS 2007).
Contents
Institutional history
In 1894, Solvay established ISS (Gaspari 2002: 602; IS 2005). In addition, in 1897, Solvay gave to “the School of Political and Social Sciences annexed to the Université [Libre] de Bruxelles, a sum sufficient to assure its existence over three years” (Rey 1903: 196). However, in 1901, as a reflection of his views about the “close links which [...] unite sociological phenomena to the biological phenomena from which they immediately derive” (Solvay 1902/1906: 26), Solvay disbanded ISS in order to organize SIS along lines more directly and intimately attached to those of the Solvay Institute of Physiology [SIP; Institut de Physiologie Solvay] he had created in 1891 (Solvay 1902/1906: 26; Vatin 1996: 486; Gaspari 2002: 602; Ducenne 2004; IS 2005). SIS was due to become property of the Université Libre de Bruxelles twenty-five years after its creation (Rey 1903: 196); this transfer actually occurred only twenty-one years later, in 1923 (Anonymous 1960: 213).
Designed by Belgian architects Constant Bosmans and Henri Vandeveld, SIS was built on a hillside in Leopold Park not far from its sister, SIP, which latter had been designed by Jules-Jacques Van Ysendijck and completed between 1892–1894 (CRM 2000: II; Ducenne 2004; BS 2006).
From its inauguration in 1902, Émile Waxweiler, “one of Belgium’s leading thinkers” (Sarton 1917: 168), was installed as the first director of SIS. Waxweiler retained this post until his sudden and accidental death in 1916 (Sarton 1917: 168).
According to George Sarton, SIS “soon became one of the most hospitable places in Belgium: if a stranger applied for admission, nobody ever inquired into his religious or political ideas; all willing workers, big or small, were welcome. Waxweiler had taken great pains to organize this institute, to make of its library, catalogue, and collections an almost perfect instrument, to give to it that atmosphere of freedom and scholarship which is in itself an inspiration” (Sarton 1917: 168).
Sarton (1917: 168) furthermore states that the point of view guiding SIS during Waxweiler’s time was “essentially functional,” involving “the consideration of social facts, not under their formal, external, descriptive aspect, but rather under their genetic, internal, explanatory aspect.”
The ambitious course of research which SIS had embarked upon under Waxweiler’s guidance may readily be summarized by the rubrics under which his Archives Sociologiques arrayed and reviewed new works contributing either to the progress of human sociology or to its introduction (cited in Sch. 1912: 37):
In addition, thanks to Solvay’s largesse, Waxweiler’s expansive vision, and its implantation in an architectural space of its own, SIS — utilizing modern methodologies from its very beginning — was never enthralled by any particular school of thought, such as that cast by Durkheim on the bulk of Francophone sociology, and functioned as “a true ‘laboratory,’ conducting in-depth inquiries, often involving statistical instrumentation, on the conditions of urban life, labor organisation, economic development, or even the ethnography of the Belgian Congo” (Vatin 1996: 486).
Following Waxweiler’s death in 1916, SIS was run jointly by Maurice Anciaux and Georges Barnich until 1920, thence by Barnich and Georges Hostelet until 1923 (IS 2007), when the institute, in accordance with Solvay’s original plan (Rey 1903: 196), was ceded to the Université Libre de Bruxelles (Anonymous 1960: 213).
It seems that during the time Barnich and Hostelet served as directors, SIS was not immune to the eugenical movement that was inflaming minds the world over throughout the 1920s. In early October 1922, for example, The International Commission of Eugenics met in Brussels, where the commission’s chairman, Major Leonard Darwin, gave an address entitled “L’Eugénique” at SIS, as did a Professor Doctor Winner [or Wimmer] of Copenhagen, on “Mental Heredity” (Anonymous 1922: 626). On Tuesday, October 10, a meeting in the “large hall” of SIS inaugurated the institute’s “eugenics room” (Anonymous 1922: 626-627). In early 1923, apparently, this “small room” became the Belgian National Office of Eugenics (Anonymous 1923).
Following its incorporation into the Université Libre de Bruxelles, the directors of the Institute of Sociology have been eight in number: Ernest Maham (1923–1935), Georges Smets (1935–1952), Henri Janne (1952–1959), Arthur Doucy (1959–1980), Nicole Delruelle-Vosswinkel (1980–1989), Jacques Nagels (1989–1998), Alain Eraly (1998–2003), and currently, since 2003, Firouzeh Nahavandi (IS 2007).
Notes et Mémoires
Along with the documents relating to the establishment of SIS, Solvay presented an essay, Note sur des formules d’introduction à l’énergétique physio- et psycho-sociologique (in-8°, 55 pages; Bruxelles, Lamertin), which sketched an introduction to the “physio-sociological and psycho-sociological energetics” that SIS, with Waxweiler at the helm, was entailed conjointly to explore with SIP (Rey 1903; Solvay 1902/1906; IS 2007). Four years later, Solvay reissued this essay as the first fascicule of the Institute's in-4° series of publications, Notes et Mémoires [Notes and Monographs] (Solvay 1902/1906).
Abel Rey’s 1903 review of this essay, though lauding the remarkable ends to which Solvay put his fortune — an example he wished others in France as well as in Belgium would follow — was highly critical:
One would be tempted to continue approving him without reserve in regards his scientific conceptions, if their foundation was, as he says, the application to the social sciences of the fruitful and proven methods of physical chemistry and biology, since everyone believes that this entails the methods of minute observation and experimental comparison which have provided these sciences with their bases and their inductions. Unfortunately, it is not so, and from the start M. Solvay would formulate a deductive sociological method, analogous to that of mathematical physics, or of chemical mechanics, and still without analogue in the field of biology, unless it be in the singular concepions of the author (Rey 1903: 196).
We believe, in effect, that psycho-sociological phenomena are of such a complexity that they resist any effort of analysis in [Solvay’s] sense. And if ever we succeed in reducing them to elements so simple as to treat them in a wholly mechanical fashion, which is perhaps possible, though in a distant future, the relevant laws will be formulated without a doubt in a much more complicated way, and will arrive at results completely different from the simplistic results we have just examined [in Solvay’s essay]. May we express a wish? That is, that the Solvay Institute employ its resources and the work of its students in a patient and minute observation of social phenomena. May it do good historical work, make good use of the comparative method; may it collect documents and may it critique them; may it engage itself in serious statistical enquiries, leaving aside a premature generalisation, and an illusory assimilation of the social sciences with the physical-chemical sciences. Mathematical systematisation will come, when it is able, much later, without doubt very much later (Rey 1903: 199-199).
It seems that SIS did indeed take Rey’s wish to heart, and follow his advice.
Études sociales
In addition to the large-format Notes et Mémoires begun in 1906, SIS had earlier (1904) begun publication of two smaller series, Études sociales [Social Studies] in-8° and Actualités sociales [Social Current Events] in-16° (Solvay 1902/1906: frontispiece).
In 1906, the list of publications in the Social Studies series comprised:
- Les syndicats industriels en Belgique, par G. De Leener, 2e édition, revue et augmentée, 1904.
- De l’esprit du gouvernement démocratique: Essai de science politique, par A. Prins, 1906.
- Les concessions et les régies communales en Belgique, par E. Brees, 1906.
Actualités sociales
The object of this in-16° series was to make available, in language accessible to the layman, works pertaining to the growth of human productivity. By February 1906, the following works had been published in this series (Solvay 1902/1906: frontispiece):
- Principes d’orientation sociale, résumé des études de M. Ernest Solvay sur le Productivisme et le Comptabilisme, 2e édition, 1904.
- Que faut-il faire de nos industries à domicile? par M. Ansiaux, 1904.
- Le charbon dans le nord de la Belgique. Le point de vue technique, G. De Leener. Le point de vue juridique, L. Wodon. Le point de vue économique et social, par E. Waxweiler, 1904.
- Le procès du libre-échange en Angleterre, par D. Crick, 1904.
- Entraînement et fatigue au point de vue militaire, par J. Joteyko, 1905.
- L’augmentation du rendement de la machine humaine, par L. Querton, 1905.
- Assurance et assistance mutuelles au point de vue médical, par le même, 1905.
- Les sociétés anonymes : abus et remèdes, par T. Théate, 1905.
- La lutte contre la dégénérescence en Angleterre, par M. Boulenger et N. Ensch, 1905.
Bulletin Mensuel and Archives sociologiques
In January 1910, Waxweiler, as editor the institute’s Bulletin Mensuel [Monthly Bulletin] (Anonymous 1911: 552), began overseeing reviews of the works he was acquiring for the institute’s Archives sociologiques [Sociological Archives], which had been started in order “to apply the new sociological point of view introduced by him [in Waxweiler 1906] to as many topics as possible, in order to test it, to fix a new orientation, and also to render the new way of thinking more subtle and fruitful” (Sarton 1917: 168). The institute’s Bulletin Mensuel was “in the strictest sense a scientific periodical, being devoted to the review of all articles and books which contribute in any way to the explanation of the phenomena of the social life, whether they are published under the titles of biology, physiology, psychology, or those of the several social sciences, history, law, political economy, science of religions, ethnography and sociology” (Anonymous 1911: 552). The first, more substantial half of the Bulletin published extensive critical reviews and discussions of recent additions — whether books or articles — to the Archives, while the second half consisted simply of lists of works and shorter reviews (Anonymous 1911: 552; Sch. 1912: 37).
For instance, the first part of the February 1911 issue of the Bulletin contained the following articles (Tenney 1911: 348):
While the issue published in April of the same year contained the following critical reviews and discussions (Anonymous 1911: 553):