ABSTRACT
This chapter suggests that the relevant distinction between the Latourian and Durkheimian sociologies of space does not hinge on the question of whether space shapes social life in certain respects, but rather on the question of which aspects of social life are so spatially shaped. The social morphological research programme needs reassembling. The elements for contemporary and coherent sociology of space do exist, but these elements are scattered over numerous texts, two centuries, and different Durkheimian scholars. The outline of the Durkheimian tradition's morphologically-based sociology of space serves to highlight the one-sidedness of Latour's critique of Durkheim for missing the spatial thingness of society. Reading Durkheim's considerations on dynamic density is hampered by the fact that the dynamic or causal effect that arises from societal densities is attributed two sociologically distinct mechanisms social conflict or emotional contagion. Compared to actor-network theory (ANT) the Durkheimian tradition allows one to grasp how space shapes the socio-emotional nature and bonds of social life.
