We can only acquire an understanding of sociology as it developed in Belgium by bringing together various lines of thought. To introduce 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 statistics 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 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.
LâUnion 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 Belgiumâs history, in the ways in which the new Kingdom has tried to establish itself as a âmodernâ nation-state and distinguish itself from its neighbours. Perhaps Rogers Brubaker had Belgium in mind when he argued that âlanguage and religion are arguably the two most socially and politically consequential domains of cultural difference in the modern worldâ (2013, p. 2).
After the Belgian Revolution, the new Kingdom adopted the motto Lâunion 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 communities 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 Franceâs 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 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 collapsed 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; âFrenchificationâ 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, Belgiumâs âfounding fathersâ meant to appease linguistic unrest by constitutionally declaring âthe use of the languages optionalâ.
In practice, however, French was clearly perceived as the more prestigious language. Although the majority of the Belgian population was Flemish-speaking, French quickly replaced Dutch in all official 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 âFlemishâ, âFlemish Dutchâ, âBelgian Dutchâ or âSouthern Dutchâ. 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 community 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, however, the creation of linguistically homogeneous administrative and political entities also resulted in the communicative âisolationâ of the different language communities.
Ideological and linguistic differences constitute important socio-cultural cleavages within Belgiumâdespite 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 chapters, 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 âprogressâ and âimprovementâ 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 (âscience socialeâ) that emerged in Europe in the late-eighteenth and early-nineteenth centuries also incorporated instrumental connotations; it clearly linked scientific ambitions with public policy. This idea of âsocial scienceâ carried practical and reformist connotations as a ârationalâ 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 century 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 expectation of the social advances that would follow the construction of a âpositiveâ science of societyâexpectations 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 âideologyâ 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 attention 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. 1â8). 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 th...