Such a reversal has two series of noteworthy consequences: as long as the functional point of view continued to carry more weight than the normative point of view (as long as it was not on the basis of the norm and the interior the human sciences of the activity determining that norm that the attempt was made to understand how a function was performed), it was of course necessary, de facto, to share the normal functions with the non normal; thus a pathological psychology was accepted side by side with normal psychology, but forming as it were an inverted image of it (hence the importance of the Jacksonian notion of disintegration in Ribot or Janet); in the same way, a pathology of societies (Durkheim), of irrational and quasi morbid forms of belief (L vy Bruhl, Blondel) was also accepted; similarly, as long as the point of view of conﬂict carried more weight than that of the rule, it was supposed that certain conﬂicts could not be overcome, that individuals and societies ran the risk of destroying themselves by them; finally, as long as the point of view of signification carried more weight than that of system, a division was made between significant and non significant: it was accepted that there was meaning in certaindomains of human behaviour or certain regions of the social area, but not in others.