Durkheim as Master of Suspicion

In the 1960s Paul Ricoeur coined the phrase “masters of suspicion” to describe Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Sigmund Freud for their ability to reveal the hidden or repressed meanings or truths located in texts or social and psychological phenomena. Philosophers, theologians, and literary theorists have subsequently applied the term “master of suspicion,” as well as the associated term “hermeneutics of suspicion,” in manifold ways. The concept has become one of philosophy’s recognizable turns of phrase, an “iconic term” that excites imagination and interest in much the same way as Nietzsche’s ‘death of God.’ Ricoeur identifies four aspects that the masters of suspicion have in common: an engagement with religion; their contestation of the primacy of consciousness in the domain of knowledge, which implies a radical critique of the Cartesian cogito and the exposure of false consciousness; the development of a new method of demystification, or a new way to explain consciousness; the destruction of old myths, which implies simultaneously a rebuilding process towards developing a new, more true understanding of reality, a process that involves a liberation from illusion and the expansion of consciousness. Durkheim’s sociological project contains all of these elements: by showing how individuals are socially constructed, including even their ability for logical thought, his work exposes the falsity of the Cartesian cogito and the idea of the independent and autonomous ego; he develops a new sociological method which seeks to unmask the hidden social processes that determine individual thought and behavior; his sociology destroys old ways of thinking, but simultaneously actively rebuilds a new understanding of reality, and seeks to expand consciousness by highlighting how consciousness is shaped by social processes; his work on religion is an exercise in a hermeneutics of suspicion just as radical as that of the other masters of suspicion. This contribution will explain the ways in which Durkheim is truly a master of suspicion in Ricoeur’s sense, but also seeks to understand why Ricoeur did not mention Durkheim. The contribution will thus explore how Durkheim is relevant for hermeneutics, while also exploring facets of his methodology in new ways.