1

GEORG SIMMEL

2

Georg Simmel (1858-1918) Born in 1858 in Berlin, son of successful

businessman who died when GS was an infant

Historical context: Berlin at the time was a crossroads of Europe, of western civilization even, a cosmopolitan center

GS was the quintessential Berlin intellectual - tied into intellectual circles, café culture

Marginalized from academic life, due to eclectic nature of work and institutional anti-semitism, as Simmel was Jewish GS was unable to secure a professorship until

the end of his life, at (mediocre) Strasbourg GS’s marginalized position led to

appreciation of social position and its importance in society

3

Intellectual influences & core ideas Simmel’s sociology went against two prominent currents of

European thought: Historicsm and Organicism

Historicism emphasizes fundamental differences b/w natural and social worlds natural sciences seen as the proper domain of Objectivity social sciences, if science at all, require interpretive methods,

Subjectivity Organicism sees natural & social realities as continuous and

models social processes on biological processes employs organic metaphors, sees world as one chain of being from

more simple natural phenomena to the most complex social patterns archetypal figures: Durkheim, Spencer, Comte

Simmel rejected historicism b/c it precluded scientific and generalizing approach to social life and rejected organicism for its reification of social facts, its vision of life as a thing

4

Society GS defined society as a “number of individuals connected by

interaction….It is not a ‘substance,’ nothing concrete, but an event: It is the function of receiving and affecting the fate and development of one individual by another”

“Society is merely the name for a number of individuals connected by interaction”

Society and the individuals that compose it constitute an interdependent duality – the existence of one presupposes the other One’s individuality is created out of a synthesis of two seemingly

contradictory forces: one is simultaneously an autonomous human being with a unique disposition and history, and a product of society

GS prefers term “sociation,” with its processual tone, over “society” “Society” is a reification, “sociation” is not Sociation emphasizes Relation and Process Insofar as we speak of Society, we do so only in shorthand…

5

Sociology Sociology’s goal is description and analysis of particular forms

of interaction and their crystallization in group characteristics Proper subject matter for sociology is the formal aspects of social

life, not the particular content Content refers to the drives, purposes, interests, or inclinations that

individuals have for interacting with one another Such motivations, in themselves, are not social but rather are isolated

psychological or biological impulses Actions in concert with others to fulfill drives or realize interests are social

a geometry of social life: specifying regularities in diverse content Emphasizes social interaction at the individual & small group

level Microsociology of Simmel much different from “grand theory” of the

classical writers, especially Marx and Durkheim

6

Sociology: against reification

Reification simply means “thingification,” making something that is a process or a concept, something abstract, into a thing, e.g.

1) Relationship: when two people become romantically involved, they have a ‘relationship,’ it becomes a thing, tangible force – but really it’s a process of relating

2) Nation: we assume there’s some “essence,” “Americanness,” but it’s really a way of relating

America, Americans, are constructed through interaction What America ‘is’ isn’t an unchanging substance, but an ongoing

process3) Organization: we treat it as a thing rather than a process, a set

of relations among people4) Other things that might be reified: class, race, gender

gender is more tricky b/c there seems to be some kind of biological component, so there might be some “thingness,” some “essence,” to gender

7

Sociology: against categories

“Sociology asks what happens to men and by what rules do they behave not insofar as they form groups and are determined by their group existence in their totalities but insofar as they form groups and are determined by the group existence because of interaction” Usual tendency is to reduce people to categorical

memberships: e.g., I am women, I’m white, a sociologist… It’s not the individual attributes that are of interest, it’s

how they’re instanciated (come into being) through action The concepts are only realized via interaction

Categorical identities do not determine action, they only exist through action/interaction

8

The individual in modern society Society and the individuals that compose it constitute

an interdependent duality, the existence of one presupposing the other duality: being twofold; dichotomy; a classification into two

opposed parts or subclasses Urban societies allow individuals to cultivate unique

talents and interests but also leads to a tragic “leveling” of the human spirit Weber observed a similar tendency in bureaucracies

Tragedy of culture: objective culture - the ideas and products of human creativity - comes to dominate individual will and self-development or subjective culture

9

Toward a formal sociology Diverse social phenomena – content & contexts - can be

understood in terms of formal similarities Analyze all different kings in terms of kingship Analyze kings and presidents in terms of leadership

Forms of interaction among members of different groups (varied content) are importantly shaped by the structural similarities of those groups

Focus on formal characteristics of social processes allows GS to preserve historicist emphasis on uniqueness of different moments, events and places, while nonetheless seeing underlying uniformities In other words seeing a structural similarity b/w kingship &

presidency is not same as saying all kings and presidents are the same…it allows you to abstract some dimension without losing the content

10

Quantitative features of social life

GS divides the social world into 3 basic forms: Solitary individual Dyad (two persons)

each individual can present themselves to the other in a way that maintains their identity

either party can end the relationship by withdrawing from it

Triad (3 or more people) enables strategies that lead to competition, alliances,

or mediation often develops a group structure independent of the

individuals in it, whereas this is less likely in the dyad

11

Social types Simmel constructed a gallery of social types to complement

inventory of social forms Fine-grained descriptions of such diverse types as "the mediator,"

"the poor," "the adventurer," "the man in the middle," and "the renegade"

Each social type is cast by the specifiable reactions and expectations of others

Types form through relations: people assign the ‘other’ a particular position and expect him/her to behave in specific ways

Types’ characteristics are seen as attributes of the social structure based on social position rather than categorical memberships

determined by individual attributes each social type is transposable to wide array of settings

12

“Sociability” (1910) sociability: the “play-form of association,”

driven by, "amicability, breeding, cordiality and attractiveness of all kinds" interacting with others for the sake of the

connection itself Sociable conversations have no significance or

ulterior motive, talking is an end in itself for pure pleasure of association not that all serious topics must be avoided, but point is

that sociability finds its justification, its place, and its purpose only in the functional play of conversation as such

13

Resolving the solitariness of the individual

Every play or artistic activity has a common element: “a feeling for, or a satisfaction in associating with others, resolving the solitariness of the individual into togetherness, union with others” Depends on “good form,” interaction of the elements

through which a unity is made “Since sociability in its pure form has no ulterior

end, no content, and no result outside itself, it is oriented completely about personalities.” (297) “But personalities must not emphasize themselves too

individually…or with too much abandon and aggressiveness”

14

The “superficial” nature of sociability

To the extent that it’s a form of interaction free of the tensions of “real” life, sociability establishes an “artificial” world, a world without friction or conflict

“Inasmuch as sociability is the abstraction of association – an abstraction of the character of art or of play – it demands the purest, most engaging kind of interaction – that among equals….It is game in which one ‘acts’ as though all were equal.” (294)

15

Coquetry Coquetry or flirtation: a kind of sociability or

erotic play in which an actor continuously alternates between denial and consent Idea is to lead the other on “without letting

matters come to a decision, to rebuff him without making him lose all hope”

“Coquetry is the teasing or even ironic play with which eroticism has distilled the pure essence of its interaction out from its substantive or individual content” It’s not individual behavior, it’s interaction