This paper tests the hypothesis that certain sound–meaning patterns associated with “mother” and “breast” may reflect a very ancient codiffusion, inherited from the earliest migrations of Homo sapiens and from the centrality of the mother–infant dyad. Within a framework of “linguistic archaeology,” four phonotactic traits are examined across 2,959 languages (“mother”) and 7,322 languages (“breast”) from the Lexibank and ASJP databases: [n]/[ŋ] and [na]/[ŋa] in initial position for “mother,” and [mu] and [amu] for “breast.” Their distribution is assessed through spatial analyses (Moran’s I, binomial z-scores on 2°×2° grids, random permutations, great-circle distances). The results reveal a non-random structuring for [n]/[ŋ] and [mu], with hotspots in Africa, South Asia, Island Southeast Asia, Melanesia, and Australia, regions that align with the southern routes of early Homo sapiens dispersal. The forms [na] and [amu], more geographically restricted, appear as regional archaisms. The strong geographic co-occurrence between [n]/[na] and [mu], contrasting with the limited spread of [amu], suggests an ancient lexical core linking “mother” and “breast,” not reducible to articulatory biases alone. Without positing a single protolanguage, the study shows that linguistic areology can reveal fossil traces of an early cultural structuring around the mother–infant dyad, providing partial support for the hypothesis of an initial cultural unity disseminated during the first out-of-Africa dispersals of Homo sapiens.
This research examines the place and function of sociological knowledge in social work training, particularly through the teaching of social invariants proposed by Bernard Lahire (2023). These concepts, which can shed light on the fundamental structures of society, are studied here in terms of their reception and perceived usefulness by first-year students in the bachelor’s degree program in social work at Hénallux (Namur, Belgium). The study adopts a mixed approach: a questionnaire administered to 77 students, analyzed using descriptive statistics and correlation tests, is supplemented by eight interviews with students and two interviews with teachers, which are subjected to thematic analysis with a double coding cycle. The results highlight three major functions of invariants: (1) deciphering situations involving users, (2) a more complex understanding, and (3) capitalizing on solutions to address the vulnerabilities of the public. In addition, two specific advantages emerge from social invariants: their explanatory power as general concepts that can be used to elucidate social phenomena while promoting, through their contextual variation, a nuanced interpretation of situations encountered in social intervention, and the inter/transdisciplinary scope of invariants. While a minority of students remain skeptical of theoretical knowledge, the relational and pedagogical quality of teaching appears to be a decisive lever for appropriation. Despite some limitations mentioned, the study concludes that invariants are relevant as integrative tools, articulating sociological intelligibility, reflexivity, and professional intervention.
This article proposes to extend the study of the “hierarchical succession law” proposed by sociologist Bernard Lahire beyond the human species to include non-human primates. It argues for the need to extend the investigation of the nomological architecture defined in Structures fondamentales des sociétés humaines (Fundamental Structures of Human Societies) to other animal species and suggests the use of an “inductive taxonomy” method to identify laws and invariants applicable at different taxonomic levels (species, genus, family, order, class, phylum, and kingdom). Based on a synthesis of the literature in primatology and ethology, this contribution shows that the current state of research suggests that this law of “hierarchical succession” and adult domination are trans-species invariants that apply to all species of the Hominidae family and possibly all those of the primate order (and even mammals). Future research could further explore 1) the study of age-related dominance between juveniles on the one hand and between adults on the other; 2) the distinction between dominance based on age and dominance based on seniority (in a given territory); and 3) the differences between adult dominance and dominance based on seniority (taking into account the dominance experienced by older individuals). Finally, future work on the cultural dimensions and forms of resistance of young primates against adult dominance is also necessary.
In Les structures fondamentales des sociétés humaines, Bernard Lahire shows that two biological constraints– sexual procreation and prolonged altriciality–permanently shape human social organisations. They generate relationships of dependence and domination, complemented by social invariants (kinship, division of labour, age hierarchies, cultural transmission) that structure all societies while leaving room for significant cultural variation. For prehistory, this framework provides an essential tool: in the face of incomplete data, it enables us to narrow down our hypotheses and anchor our analyses in the continuities of life. The book also sheds light on the structural origins of male domination, without denying the ability of human societies to modulate or overcome its effects. By offering a “map” of social invariants, Lahire provides major theoretical support for prehistoric research.
Bernard Lahire’s book, Les Structures fondamentales des sociétés humaines (2023), is a magnificent plea for transdisciplinarity, an approach that I find absolutely essential to enable all sciences to continue to advance our understanding of the universe around us. That being said, I would like to share a few thoughts that came to mind while reading this magnificent work, in relation to my own approach to synthesis in the field of biology. The first thought I would like to address here is in support of the transdisciplinary approach adopted by Bernard Lahire. Next, I offer two thoughts on the importance of general interdisciplinary laws. My fourth thought follows on from the previous ones and concerns the necessity of developing a common vocabulary to promote synthesis between disciplines. Finally, I make the connection with an important topic in the humanities: the origin of inequalities, a subject that Bernard Lahire naturally addresses in his book. My ultimate goal is to remind readers how closely biology and the humanities are linked, in that they both deal with the understanding of living things, which leads them to share many concepts and principles.
Bernard Lahire’s thinking is extremely motivating because it allows us to connect the social with the living, to identify “lines of force” and “laws” that permit the creation of a scientific language that transcends mere descriptions and protects us from general discourses too disconnected from reality. Is it possible to make a considerable leap forward in time and apply these ideas to periods without written records, about which we know practically nothing? This is a new path to explore, and we present here the first, undoubtedly still clumsy, strokes of the pruning knife.
This article explores the ambivalent social functions of laughter through an interdisciplinary approach combining sociology, ethology, anthropology, developmental psychology, and, to some extent, gender studies and technology. It analyzes the evolutionary, normative, critical, and cultural dimensions of human laughter. It thus shows that laughter constitutes a fundamental social practice – at once a vector of inclusion and sanction, and potentially of subversion and relational creativity.
In his book Structures fondamentales des sociétés humaines (Fundamental Structures of Human Societies), Bernard Lahire returns to the original purpose of social sciences: discovering the laws that govern human societies. However, while the founders of social sciences sought above all to identify laws specific to a given type of society, Bernard Lahire prefers to focus on universally valid laws. This article examines the possibility of articulating these two research perspectives. It attempts to understand how the laws of internal evolution within societies relate to the general laws of evolution identified by Bernard Lahire. To this end, it compares the work of Bernard Lahire with that of Alain Testart, one of the most recent authors to have provided the most serious avenues for identifying laws specific to given societies. This dialogue shows that one of the keys to understanding the problem lies in the junction between the law of cumulative objectification (general law) and the laws of concentration of rights over men (which are specific to different types of society).
This article builds on Bernard Lahire’s recent call to refound the social sciences within a unified framework that incorporates the life sciences. This unification is approached from the standpoint of anthropology, defined as a general science of the human species and necessarily grounded in the natural sciences that elucidate the biological, cognitive, and social emergence of Homo sapiens.Drawing on the physics of complex systems, the argument emphasizes that life, as an open system, counteracts entropy by developing complex structures capable of processing information for self-organization—of which human societies constitute the most sophisticated expression to date. The systematic articulation of three levels of reality—matter-energy, information, and reflexivity—demonstrates that human uniqueness stems less from an ontological rupture than from an extreme amplification of the informational capacities inherent in living systems, culminating in scientific reflexivity.Anthropology thus emerges as a pivotal discipline, capable of linking the study of complex social systems with a naturalistic understanding of life, and of providing a conceptual framework for analyzing the interdependencies between the biosphere and the anthroposphere.Bernard Lahire’s proposed “social science of life” gains additional conceptual grounding when viewed through this broader lens: the unification of the social and natural sciences is not merely a programmatic ambition but an existential necessity arising from humanity’s position within the matter-energy-information continuum.
The concept of the reversive effect of evolution, introduced by Patrick Tort into Darwinian studies in 1983, has profoundly unsettled a great many received ideas about Darwin and about his understanding of the civilizing process. In The Descent of Man (1871), Darwin explains with the utmost clarity that, in acting powerfully upon social instincts and rational capacities, natural selection selects civilization—an outcome that stands in opposition to the (now archaic) eliminatory dynamic of natural selection by seeking to transform the human environment into an aid to survival.
Ce numéro, structuré autour d'une introduction écrite par les coordinateurs du numéro, de cinq articles interdisciplinaires et de deux entretiens, propose une analyse riche et essentielle portant sur l'interdisciplinarité entre les sciences sociales et les sciences naturelles et la manière dont cette interdisciplinarité fait « face à la question écologique ».
Cet ouvrage propose des approches riches et nuancées de la médiation interculturelle et linguistique. Il met en lumière le rôle fondamental des médiateurs dans notre monde de plus en plus divers et connecté.
The Way We Live Now : tel est le sous-titre original de l’exposition Civilization qui a donné lieu à ce catalogue. L’objectif poursuivi est de rendre visibles les travers majeurs de notre civilisation et notamment l’incapacité de l’humanité à « appuyer sur le frein ».
Dans cet ouvrage, Vladimir Crețulescu s’attelle à étudier une des questions centrales du champ des études aroumaines, en rapport avec l’identité nationale des Aroumains.
À la fois réaction à une sur-spécialisation des sciences humaines et sociales en général, et réponse à un désir du public, les grandes fresques de l'histoire humaine se sont multipliées ces dernières décennies. La parution en 2021 du livre « Au commencement, était… » de David Graeber et David Wengrow est venue s'ajouter à ces productions en prétendant déconstruire les grands récits existants et proposer une approche radicalement neuve des origines de nos sociétés.
It is a truism that colonialism had a terrible impact on African indigenous languages. In Cameroon, where more than 250 of languages are spoken, the situation is more complex, as the country was shared between French and British colonial powers. The system of governing implemented during the colonial era was different from one region to the other: whereas the British opted for an “Indirect rule” under which indigenous people were encouraged to govern themselves, while following to the letter the instructions given by British authorities, the French system was stricter, promoting assimilation. Under such conditions, personal as well as collective attachment to indigenous languages was significantly diminished especially in the Francophone part of the country. After independence was proclaimed in 1960, the two Cameroons reunified in 1961, having English and French as their official languages. However, even more than half a century later, the colonial wraith remains. Two surveys were carried out (2019 and 2020) among both young Anglophone and Francophone Cameroonians, on language use and language attitude. They reveal a clear dichotomy that reflects the colonial pattern. As a matter of fact, the surveys show a much greater attachment to indigenous languages among the Anglophones, which is evident in the vigorous upholding of indigenous languages in the family circle, whereas they are alarmingly giving way to the French language in Francophone homes. The results of the surveys are discussed in the light of the Social Identity Theory.
This article consists of a comparative analysis of social science production on the Indo-Pacific as an object of study, specifically in the field of International Relations (IR), between two countries: the United States and China, central players in this region. The aim is therefore to identify and define the main thematic orientations in the American and Chinese national academies over the last fifteen years, with scientific production on the Indo-Pacific understood as a political narrative. Thus, by using data from academic work in these two countries, focusing on IR articles, the aim is to highlight the scientific frame of reference of the “national traditions”. At the end of this article, it appears that the distinctions between these 'traditions' remain blurred, with different approaches running through them. The relationship between the scientific community and the political world can vary considerably depending on the contexts studied. However, while there are fundamental differences in the way researchers analyse cross-cutting challenges in the Indo-Pacific, a comparison of the scientific literature and expertise produced in universities in the United States and China sheds relevant light on the mutual influences of national academies of social sciences, specifically in International Relations.
