According to Kuhn, normal science is a quiet and felicitous state of affairs where the (supposedly unique and unitarian) scientific community corresponding to a discipline believes faithfully in a unique paradigm. If this is true, sociology has never known and will probably never know this blessed state. Durkheim's sociology strongly influenced as it was by Comte's views had already little to do with Weber's, in spite of all the efforts undertaken by sociologists to discover a common inspiration in the works of the founding fathers. That sociologists have repeatedly tried to overcome this diversity detrimental to their status, using either an integration strategy (stressing the convergence between founding fathers or between paradigms) or a secession strategy (this paradigm, this founding father is the good one), is understandable. Why this lasting effort toward unity remained always mere wishful thinking is the question that I would like to raise here and deal with in a very sketchy fashion. My hunch is that there are good reasons for this multiplicity of paradigms, that it derives simply from the force des choses, and that there are also good reasons to forget the existence of this multiplicity.