Collective memory and the production of the new Bruno Péquignot The question of the possibility, or rather the com- prehension, of social processes which facilitate the emergence of something new in social life arises frequently in sociology, notably in the theoretical currents known in some quarters as “holistic”, although it would be more appropriate to describe them as simply determinist. From Marx to Durkheim to Bourdieu, determinist cur- rents have generally been characterised by anti- individualism; they do not regard the individual as the source of society or, in the case of Auguste Comte, as its constitutive atom. Moreover, they are often anti-liberal in the sense that they regard liberty not as a quality natural to human beings, but as a historical “experience” at best, the result of a process of struggle in which knowledge, and especially scientific knowledge, although other forms can be effective, plays a leading role. From this perspective, the social sci- ences certainly occupy a singular position in the body of scientific endeavour. Despite their differences and sometimes radical divergences, these theoretical currents have given rise to numerous similar questions and objec- tions. The question of the freedom of the indi- vidual, which ultimately encompasses issues of social and moral responsibility, is one example. But this question, which is often the first to emerge, is but one of many, and what interests me here is the possibility (to pose the problem in somewhat philosophical terms) and comprehension of the advent of new elements in social life. If there is such a phenomenon as social determination, it is the past, whatever we choose to call it (memory, history, tradition, or even ideology) that influences and steers our actions in the present. If such action is determined by the accumu- lation of past events, how is it possible to produce some- thing which has not already been inscribed or pro- grammed and is therefore foreseeable given our knowl- edge of this past, a factor which surely diminishes its novelty? I have examined the question of the new in the context of research into the sociology of the arts. One of the fundamental aspects of what we call “modernity” in the arts (whether its emergence dates back to the nine- teenth century, the Renaissance or, as I have argued, to the juncture of the twelfth and thir- teenth centuries) is the requirement, indeed the imperative, to constantly create something new, whereas at the beginning of the Middle Ages (in the East as well as the western world), it was firmly believed that artistic production should always follow the ancient model, and that by challenging established criteria, the new was bad or even evil. But knowing whether it is possible to produce something new has little meaning in sociology, given that its existence is approached empirically. It is therefore important to under- stand the process of its emergence and, in the course of this analysis, to identify true novelty in Bruno Péquignot is a sociologist and univer- sity professor. He is the director of U.F.R. Arts & Médias at Université Paris 3 Sorbonne Nouvelle, a member of CERLIS, UMR 8070 Paris 3 Sorbonne Nouvelle/ Paris Descartes CNRS, and a scientific coordinator at GDR International (CNRS) Œuvres Publics, Société. His research inter- ests include the sociology of arts and culture and the history and epistemology of the social sciences. He is the author of nine books and has written more than 150 arti- cles and chapters for various publications. Email: bruno.pequignot@univ-paris3.fr ISSJ 203–204 © UNESCO 2012. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DK, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.