Georg Simmel

Georg Simmel , born the 1 {{er}} March 1858 in Berlin in Germany and dead the September 28th 1918 with Strasbourg, is a Philosophe and Sociologue.

In 1874, his/her father Edward Simmel dies and leaves a colossal fortune which makes his/her seven children financially independent.

Simmel was an important reference for the École of Chicago.

Simmel studies the Philosophie and the Histoire with the Université Friedrich-Wilhelm of Berlin of 1876 to 1881. In 1881 he became doctor of philosophy with his thesis “Das Wesen der Materie nach Kant' S Monadologie”. He becomes “Privatdocent” at the university of Berlin in 1885 until in 1901.

His Gertrud wife, whom he married in 1890, is itself philosophizes and written under the pseudonym of Marie-Shines Enckendorf in particular on the subjects of the religion and sexuality. Very appreciated Privatdozen of the students and many Berliner personalities, it was never recognized by the university hierarchy. It is only in 1901, that it became “Ausserordentlicher Professor”, a purely honorary title which did not enable him to take share with the life of the university community. Its works did not attract either the favors to him of his/her colleagues of the university of Berlin, but aroused the interest of the Berliner intellectual elite.

Elements of its sociology

Distinction forms/contained socialization

The sociology of Georg Simmel is characterized first of all by the particular angle of incidence which she recommends to study the food together. Simmel gives us a very precise description of what is this angle of incidence in its book Sociologie published in 1908 and republished in French with PUF in 1999. To study the company, Simmel says to us that it should be taken in its broadest meaning, i.e., “ where there is reciprocal action several individuals ” (Sociology, p.43), the important term of this definition being reciprocal. What sociology must observe, in fact the bonds exist between the individuals, which it calls socialization (translation of the German term employed by Simmel which does not return to the usual theories of socialization like social transmission. Certain authors prefer, for this reason, to employ the word " sociation" to refer to this idea). The idea of socialization always implies a reciprocal influence of the ones on the others, it would not know to have there socialization solidified once for all. Socialization is always something of dynamics.

This does not say to us yet what characterizes the manner that has the sociologist to format the reality of these reciprocal actions which he wants to observe. He says to us whereas the sociological speech is characterized by the use of the purely conceptual distinction between contents of socialization and form of socialization. Simmel defines the contents of socialization like

(...) whole that the individuals, the immediately concrete place of any historical reality, conceal like impulse, interest, goals, tendencies, states and movement psychological, being able to generate an effect on the other or to receive an effect coming from the others. | Sociology , p. 44.

The contents of socialization are thus all that makes move the individual, all the psychological impulses, physics or, which pushes it to return in interrelationship with another. These contents of sociability then will be carried out in a certain particular form. The form is what makes the contents social. Thus, Simmel will say that the contents are the matter of the socialization which is itself the form that takes the reciprocal action to which the contents give place. Let us synthesize what we have just said by a sentence of Simmel

Here elements of any being and of done everything social, inseparable in reality: on the one hand, an interest, a goal, or a reason, on the other hand a form, a mode of the reciprocal action between the individuals, by whom, or in the form of which these contents reach social reality.

This approach strongly insists on the individual, who is the “ immediately concrete place of any historical reality ”. Simmel says to us that to succeed in boring the mysteries to be it social, it is necessary to leave the study of the smallest atom of this reality: the individual. ( Sociology , p. 44)

Let us look as example if one can employ the distinction forms/contained in the case of the study of the concept “to live”. We could say first of all that there exists contents of socialization which would be the obligation to place itself, to shelter. One can easily agree that the men cannot survive without sheltering, without protecting oneself from the aggressions of the natural environment where they live (rain, cold, heat wave…).

This physical need, necessary, then will take a particular form. This particular form socializes the contents because it exists at the same time independently of the men who will implement it, but also by the men who took above and can modify it unceasingly. It is this form of reciprocal action which take the contents “to place”, which could be invited “to live”. In this direction simmelien, “to live” is something which touches with the social being and which exceeds the individual, since one can think it like a form of socialization. In this direction, a sociological study to live it would be possible.

Existence of the form

There exists however a light blur concerning the concept of form. In the introduction to the French edition of the PUF, this concept is presented only as being a methodological tool making it possible to give an account of reality, to form a representation abstracted, sociological, reality. The author of this introduction, taking again the design of Raymond Boudon, us says that the concept of form is a synonym of that of model, functioning on same logic as the standard ideal weberien. The concept of form in this design thus does not have any direction Ontologique. It does not form part to be it real social facts. There exists however another interpretation of the concept of form. If Simmel recognizes indeed that sociology, when it is expressed on the form of certain interactions can only “ pose concepts and whole of concepts in a purity and a total abstraction which appears never in the historical realization as of these contents ” (ibid, p. 176), the form of an interaction is however for him a dimension which with the contents forms totality to be it social fact. The abstraction thus consists to reach the being of social has to distinguish the form there from the contents.

Doing that, one should not lose sight of the fact, that the form is one of the components of the reality of the reciprocal action, even if the sociologist can give of it only one image which never exhausts the totality of this réalité.cette the second interpretation insists on the fact that the form in it even would have a real existence, and that it is not to confuse with the image of the form which builds the sociologist in his work which it, coming out from a work of abstraction, never exhausts all the substance of the real form of an interaction. To illustrate this second interpretation of the concept of form, let us leave the introduction, written by Simmel with its book Philosophie of the money , where he explains what for him philosophy is. This text shows indeed how Simmel proposes to work out an ontology of the social phenomena

The characteristic of philosophy compared to other sciences is that the philosophy presents presupposed which underlie it for examination. Only, even by doing that, it can be other thing only one approximation of the phenomena by the means of general concepts. However, philosophy proposes a particular image of the world which is essential “ with respect to many questions, of these questions which concern especially valorizations as well as the most general connections of the life of the spirit” ( Philosphie of the money , p 14). Let us note that for Simmel philosophy (like all sciences or any art) must be “ heard like interpretation, coloring, selective stressing of reality by the individual ” (ibid, p. 14). One sees in this sentence in what philosophy just as the sociology of Simmel can be dealt with relativist. Sociology like the Philosophy and besides all other sciences rest on the presupposed particular ones (those of philosophy being to examine these clean presupposed and to proceed by generalization of reality) and are with final only the one particular manner that individuals has to format the world and “ which never exhausts the totality of a reality ” (ibid, p. 15)

What would be then, from this point of view a “philosophy for the money”? Which “rights” philosophy has it then on objects isolated like the money. Such a philosophy would be “in on this side and with beyond” economic scene of the money.

It can on the one hand study the phenomenon of the analytical money of manner : “ to present the postulates which, in the psychic constitution, the social reports/ratios, the logical structure of realities and the values, assign to the money its direction and its practical position. ” (p. 14) It will be a question of deducing the money “from the conditions which carry its gasoline and the signifiance of its existence” (p. 14). Simmel seeks “to deploy the structure and the idea historical phenomenon of the money on the basis of the feelings of value, of the praxis towards the things, and the relations interhumaines of reciprocity seen like their presupposed ” (ibid, p. 14).

It can in addition study the phenomenon of the synthetic money of manner i.e. “through its effects on the interior universe: on the vital feeling of the individuals and the sequence of their destiny, on the culture in its general information” (p. 14). They are to substitute for the particular processes of reality connections of concepts and in addition to interpret psychic causalities which one can only interpret. It is a question of practicing “ a stepping of the principle of the money with the evolutions and valorizations of the interior life ” (p. 15).

To summarize, Simmel says to us that a philosophy of the money must comprise a phase known as analytical, far in front of the field of the economic scene of the money, which must: “ to clarify the gasoline of the money starting from the conditions and relations of the general life ” (p. 15); and a phase known as synthetic, far behind the field of the economic scene, which must “, conversely, gasoline of the general life and its modelling starting from the influence of the money ” (p. 15).

With final thus, the money, for Simmel, is only “ the means, the material or the example necessary to present the reports/ratios which exist between on the one hand the most external phenomena, most realistic, accidental, and on the other hand the idéelles potentialities of the existence, the deepest currents of the individual life and the history. The direction and the unit are summarized with this: to trace, on the basis of the surface of the economic events, a guiding line leading to the values and the last signifiances of all that is human ” (p. 16). It is a question for Simmel “of detecting in each detail of the life the total direction of this one”. Simmel created a new vision of the material thing:

It acts to build, under the historical materialism, a stage leaving all its explanatory value to the role of the economic life among the causes of the spiritual culture, while recognizing the economic forms themselves like the result of major valorizations and dynamics of presupposed psychological, even metaphysics. What must develop, in practice cognitive according to a reciprocity without end: to each interpretation of a idéelle figure by an economic figure will bind the requirement to seize the latter in its turn by idéelles depths, of which will have again to be drawn the general economic base, and thus of following the infinite one. With this alternation, this interlacing of epistemological principles opposed in the abstract, the unit of the things, which appears inaccessible to our knowledge and yet founds its coherence, becomes for us practice as much as alive | Philosphie of the money , p. 17.

How to explain this sentence? It is not a question to have a historical, even final vision of the evolution of the human world. It acts contrary to saying that the material life is cause of the spiritual culture and that at the same time, that the form which takes the material life is the result of processes of valorization and presupposed psychological. Let us take the example of the money. As there exists materially, practically, there exists always at the same time idéellement. In other words, our knowledge of the things is practical and alive. Let us schematize: the man mentally created the money and goes created a material reality corresponding to this idéelle reality which it then will develop. The money has abstractedly a double reality, material and idéelle. The money thus has a material existence and will come, by this existence to influence the idéelle life of the men, the idéelle life changing, the men to some extent will reinvent the material money as well as the form of their practice, which in its turn will reinvent the idea underlying the practice… according to an infinite circle. The unit of the things arises in fine of the interlacing of these two epistemological principles opposed in the abstract but which by their successive and infinite interlacing constitutes the unit of the thing external. The opposition between a realistic or idealistic philosophy does not hold the road for Simmel.

It is starting from this idea that Simmel will build its work on the money, while cutting it in two parts. The first known as “analytical” deals with determining the gasoline of the money starting from the internal life of the individuals, i.e. direction which confers to him the individuals in their action; and the second, known as synthetic sticks to opposite to determine the effect of the money on the internal life of the individuals and what it calls the objective culture.

Modernity and autonomisation of the forms

It should however be conceded that the concept of form of Simmel is far from being clearer. That more especially as it enters at certain time of work in relation to another couple of concept which is that adverse the objective culture with the subjective culture. Objective culture being the whole of the culture such as it exists apart from the individuals, and the subjective culture, the share of this objective culture interiorized by the individual. This distinction enters in interaction with the concept of form because according to Simmel, certain forms, which are sometimes called, to differentiate them from the more fugacious forms, social forms, are found in the objective culture. Certain forms autonomisent and acquire thus a kind of force which enables them to determine the form implemented in a reciprocal action by the individuals who engage there. That being known as, let us not forget that if there exist objective forms able to determine the particular and concrete forms of interaction, these forms will be modified by the individuals who employ them. What leads to the existence of this infinite phenomenon of reciprocity between the world idéel and the material world which Simmel describes when he speaks about the money. We can illustrate that by some extracts.

In this first extract exit of chapter 6 of Philosophy of the money, Simmel speaks to us about three social forms which according to him were strongly autonomisées with modernity (one could even say that according to our author, the autonomisation of these three forms is the component of modernity). These three forms are that of the right, that is to say the form which takes at the modern age the forms of normation of control; money, is the modern form of the relations of exchange; and of intellectuality, forms modern relations based on a transmission of knowing. Simmel will say to us that these three forms by autonomisant individuals to become an element of the objective culture will obtain the capacity to determine forms of interaction.

All three, right, intellectuality and money are characterized by the indifference with respect to the individual characteristic; all three extract, of the concrete totality of the vital movements, a factor abstracted, general, which develops according to specific and autonomous standards, and intervenes since those in the beam of the existential interests, imposing its own determination to them. By having thus the capacity to prescribe forms and directions with contents which by nature are indifferent for them, they introduce all three, inevitably, in the totality of the life, contradictions which occupy us here. When the equality seizes the formal bases of the relations interhumaines, it becomes the means of expressing in the acutest way and most profitable the individual inequalities; by respecting the limits of the formal equality, selfishness took its party of the internal and external obstacles and has from now on, with the universal validity of these determinations, a weapon which, being used for each one, is also useful against each one. | Philosphie of the money , p. 563.

The second extract comes from a chapter of Sociology or Simmel wonders about the results of the domination of a great number of individuals on other individuals, chapter where it will have to differentiate the action from a great number “ like unit particular formation, incarnating an abstraction to some extent - economic community, State, Église (…) and in addition, that of a crowd gathered punctually ” (p. 199). This extract is interesting because it shows that this character determining of the objectified social forms (to which belongbelong the marriage, the State, the Church…) is not about the constant relationship, but is random.

the last reason of internal contradictions of this configuration can be formulated as follows: between the individual, with his situations and its need on a side, and all the infra-individual entity supra- or and the interior or external provisions that the collective structure brings with it on another side, there is no constant relationship, founded on a principle, but a variable and random relation. (…) This randomness is not a chance, if one can say, but the logical expression of incommensurability between these specifically individual situations of which it is question here, with all that they require, and the institutions and atmospheres which govern or which serve the common life and coast beside the great number. | Sociology p. 200.

These two extracts show us, and it is the point of view defended by Danilo Martuccelli, that the work of Simmel can be read like the study of the tension, characteristic of modernity, between subjective culture and objectifies, objective determinant of the action and subjective determinant, between what in the company is only company: forms and what is psychological. This tension rising according to Simmel from one from the clean features from the man:

the faculty of the man to be divided itself into parts and to feel any started from itself like component its true Me, which enters in conflict with other parts and fights for the determination of its activity - this faculty frequently puts the man, in so far as it is aware to be a social being, in a relation of opposition to the impulses and interests of sound Me which remain external with its social character: the conflict enters the company and the individual like a combat between the parts of its being. | Sociology and epistemology , 1981, pp. 137-138.

Works translated into French

German-speaking bibliography (with translation)

See too

Microsociologie

Studies on Simmel

Guy Ankerl, German Sociologists. Case studies in historical sociology and not-history . Nechâtel, In Baconnière, 1972.

includes/understands “the sociology of the form”, 73-108 pp.

Raymond Aron, Essai on the theory of the history in contemporary Germany. Philosophy criticizes history , Paris, Vrin, 1938.
David Frisby, Sociological Impressionism: In Reassessment off Georg Simmel' S Social Theory , Routledge, 1992.
Siegfried Kracauer, “Georg Simmel” in The Farmhouse Ornament , Harvard University Near, 1995.
François Leger, the thought of Georg Simmel , Kimé, 1989.
Frederic Vandenberghe, the sociology of Georg Simmel , the Discovery, 2001.
Patrick Watier, Simmel sociologist , Circé, 2003.
Hartmann, Qualities (2003): Sinn und Wert of Geldes. In DER Philosophy von Georg Simmel und Adam (von) Müller. To read on line. Berlin. ISBN 3-936749-53-1

To see on line

Texts of Simmel on the site of the Academy of Nancy-Metz (www.ac-nancy-metz.fr) :

“the problem of sociology”, Re-examined of metaphysics and Morals , 1894, (Even text in)
“On some relations of the theoretical thought with the practical interests”, Re-examined of metaphysics and Morals , 1896, (Even text in)
“How the social forms are maintained”, the sociological Year , 1896-1897 (Even text in)

“German sociology, Between tradition and modernity”, Sociological Aspects (Department of sociology, Université Laval with), February 2003, Volume 10, number 1 (www.soc.ulaval.ca)

External bonds and source

Biography of Simmel with anglophone texts and texts German-speaking (Swiss Site, socio.ch)

Random links: