Autour des comparaisons

Abstract

The use of comparison is frequent in humanities and social sciences studies, and in particular in the studies of history of religions and mythology. On the other hand, there is not much reflection on the reasons behind this practice. In addition, reflections on comparison tend to be made from within a discipline, ignoring a more general view. This text summarizes in the form of a long article three complementary approaches to the problem of comparison. First, it presents the genesis of the comparative method confused with the very origin of historical reflection and with an outstanding role of religious comparison. It then shows how the comparison becomes generalised in other fields of knowledge and how a dialogue between natural and human sciences takes place around the comparison since the nineteenth century, giving rise to a series of disciplines with a comparative basis in the twentieth century. Second, a typology of comparisons is presented emphasizing three different positions in relation to practice and how they are expressed with similar forms on a triple theoretical, anthropological and history of religions plane. It is also shown how the lack of methodological rigour in the use or the rejection of comparison leads to the maintenance of epistemological positions that are equivocal or poorly founded. Third, three complementary aspects of comparative practice are dealt with. The concept of “causality» and the problem of «survivals» as a form of comparative explanation with some limits not always considered. The analogy and its rules as a form of comparative thought related to reflections of philosophy and cognitive psychology and the need for an analogical reflection structurally founded. Finally, the dangers derived from the idea of «reconstruction», sometimes used in comparative studies, are pointed out, which aims to give comparative practice a reifying capacity (false or equivocal) instead of assuming it as a powerful tool of knowledge.