The work of the academic on political sociology, power, political mobilization and “classic” sociologists were internationally recognized. He died on August 14 at the age of 84.
by
Former pupil of the École normale supérieure, associated with classical letters, François Chazel quickly turned to sociology. Called by Raymond Boudon to join the Department of Sociology of the University of Bordeaux in 1966, he remained there a large part of his professional life and became the director, before winning in 1989 the Department of Sociology at the University of Paris -Sorbonne of which he was professor emeritus until his death. He was a member of the French Sociology and Sociological Year, and a time president of the French Sociology Society. Internationally recognized, he had an often well-known influence, himself being always discreet about his professional life. In addition, he was more a man of articles than books, in a French universe where the place of the book has always been considered first, in particular in sociology. He died on August 14 in Saint-Agrève, Ardèche, at the age of 84.
Born December 10, 1937 in Paris, François Chazel had a classic career for a brilliant intellectual. However, he occupied a singular place in the academic world both by his centers of interest and by his positioning in the field of sociology. Already, significantly, he was never the man of a school or any clan, which was rare in the 1970s when, at a time when the internationalization of the social sciences was still weak and the grip Decisive national fact, French sociology was dominated by the figures of Raymond Boudon, Pierre Bourdieu, Alain Touraine and Michel Crozier. He maintained courteous relationships with all, never confusing friendly relations and scientific interactions.
impressive erudition
However, this opening is not enough to explain the centrality that will be his in the discipline. This place, he owes it to an impressive erudition, but above all to his intellectual orientions and to the work he has led to develop sociology. As we could say, he had ambition for sociology, and that alone counted. He knew how to distinguish the interest of knowledge and personal and emotional involvement. We understand the influence he may have had on some of his students who, without sharing his convictions, still say today the importance of his training for the production of their own sociology. We think in particular of François Dubet, Charles-Henry Cuin or Didier Lapeyronnie. It is advisable not to forget the generations of students who have been able to appreciate the educational talent of their teacher as well as his humor.
You have 61.15% of this article to read. The continuation is reserved for subscribers.