With regard to what I have termed a “philosophy of the social”, the earlier substantive chapters on Durkheim, Marx and Weber were presented as offering two contributions to such an endeavour. Firstly, they indicated the extent to which philosophical questions about society, sociality and the social have long been an aspect of social theory, even if this has been overlooked at points. Secondly, the analyses that were developed were envisaged as an example of how it is possible to think philosophically about the social. A further important claim that I have tried to make throughout this book is that battles over the concept of the social are not over, or should not be over. We need to be involved in contesting and developing some of our most basic concepts. The final chapter will, using the work of A. N. Whitehead, attempt to trace a philosophy of the social which recognizes but goes beyond the issues and ideas that troubled Durkheim, Marx and Weber. In order to allow for this, it is worth revisiting the discussions of these three writers as whole. This will enable a cross-comparison of their work and, more importantly, will indicate the elements which are still relevant today and which could be taken up by such a philosophy.

Durkheim

In Chapter Two, I argued that the social really was a problem for Durkheim. Indeed, The Division of Labour in Society can be read as his attempt to formulate exactly what constitutes sociality. The English title of this book is perhaps misleading as it mentions society, and suggests that Durkheim is interested in how the division of labour operates within this. The French title is De la division du travail social. There is no mention of society and it seems clearer that Durkheim's main concern is what might be called the “division of social labour”. Too often, Durkheim is taken as simply providing an account of how societies “hold together”, and that he believes that this occurs in terms of some kind of cohesion.