Sociology at the turn of the century : on G. Simmel in comparison with F. Tönnies, M. Weber and E. Durkheim

Citation preview

Sociology at the T u r n of the Century O n G. S i m m e l in C o m p a r i s o n w i t h F. T ö n n i e s , M . W e b e r a n d E . D u r k h e i m

by Y o s h i o Atoji T r a n s l a t e d b y Y. A t o j i , K . O k a z a w a a n d T. O g a n e

à Dobunkan

P u b l i s h i n g Co., Ltd. Tokyo

in in Si Ém

I a m v e r y glad that the a uthor contributes his b o o k to stimulate the n e w interest t h e s e i m p o r t a n t t h i n k e r s , t h a t is, G e o r g mmel, Ferdinand Tönnies, M a x W e b e r and ile Durkheim. (Kurt H . Wolff)

D i e S o z i o l o g i e S i m m e l s ist h e u t e , n a c h d e n Illusionen de s abstrakten Rationalismus u n d des Neomarxismus, wieder der moderne W e g zur Soziologie. Prof. Atoji schreibt m i t diesem-B u c h eine wichtige Arbeit ü b e r die deutsche Soziologie u n d eine außerordentliche Studie über Simmel. Wir müssen ihm sehr dankbar f ü r e i n e s o g r o ß e L e i s t u n g sein. (Carlo Mongardini) Insbesondere der Text des Verfassers über S i m m e l u n d W e b e r hat mir wichtige Z u s a m ­ m e n h ä n g e erschlossen. Ich bin i m m e r w i e d e r fasziniert z u erleben, m i t w e l c h e m I n g e n i u m die japanischen Kollegen Z u s a m m e n h ä n g e der deutschen Geistes- u n d Wissenschaftsge­ schichte aufzuklären verstehen. Sein Beitrag gibt d a v o n auf h e r a u s r a g e n d e W e i s e Zeugnis! (Klaus-M. Kodalle) Insbesondere habe ich m i c h darüber gefreut, d a ß g e r a d e a u c h ein japanischer K o l ­ lege so k o m p e t e n t ü b e r die Geschichte der deutschen Soziologie Bescheid w e i ß u n d inso­ fern auch zur Vertiefung der Kenntnisse der klassischen d e u t s c h e n Soziologie in J a p a n u n d in d e r i n t e r n a t i o n a l e n G e l e h r t e n w e l t e i n e n w e r t v o l l e n B e i t r a g leistet. (Klaus Lichtblau) J e v i e n s d e lire c o u p s u r c o u p v o s é t u d e s c o n s a c r é e s à F. T ö n n i e s , S i m m e l , M a x W e b e r e t D u r k h e i m . Il n e m a n q u e p l u s q u e P a r e t o e t v o u s a u r e z p r é s e n t é l e s g é a n t s d e la s o c i o l o g i e naissante. V o t r e travail est essentiel, car c h a c u n d e c e s a u t e u r s a é l a b o r é u n c o n c e p t dif­ f é r e n t d e l a s o c i é t é , a v e c d e s t r a n s i t i o n s d e l’u n à l’a u t r e . ( U n e p a r t i e d e l a l e t t r e à l ’a u t e u r ) Uulien Freund)

Sociology at the T u r n of the C e n t u r y O n G . S i m m e l in C o m p a r i s o n w i t h F. Tönnies, M . W e b e r a n d É. D u r k h e i m

by Y o s h i o Atoji T r a n s l a t e d b y Y . Atoji, K . O k a z a w a a n d T . O g a n e

D O B U N K A N

P U B L I S H I N G

CO., L T D .

Copyright © 1984 b y Y o s h i o Atoji All rights reserved First Edition M a y 1984 ISBN4-495-51571-3 Published b y D o b u n k a n Co., Ltd. 1-41, K a n d a Jinbocho, Chiyoda-ku, T o k y o , 101 Japan. Distributed b y M a r u z e n Co., Ltd. P . O . B o x 5050, T o k y o International, 100-31 Japan.

S o c i o l o g y at the T u r n of the C e n t u r y O n

G.

S i m m e l

F. Tönnies,

M .

in C o m p a r i s o n W e b e r

a n d

É.

with D u r k h e i m

Introduction

In the period

f r o m the e n d of

the

19th century

t h a t is, a t t h e “ t u r n o f t h e c e n t u r y ” s o c i o l o g i e s

to the 20th century,

which

differ c o m p l e t e l y

f r o m the Comtian-Spencerian encyclopedic a n d synthetic sociology appear. A m o n g the authors w h o nies (1855-1936), in G e r m a n y

advocate such n e w

G e o r g S i m m e l

as well as

sociologies, F e r d i n a n d T ö n -

(1858-1918) a n d M a x

Émile D u r k h e i m

W e b e r

(1858-1917)

in

pecially g i v e n attention. In t h r e e c h a p t e r s of this b o o k the sociological theory of

S i m m e l

in c o m p a r i s o n

(1864-1920)

France

are

es­

I h a v e dealt with

with the views of the

o t h e r t h r e e sociologists. I n t h e first c h a p t e r , “ F e r d i n a n d T ö n n i e s

and

G e o r g

Simmel,”

I have

a i m e d at the elucidation of the sociological thinking of T ö n n i e s a n d the philosophical considering “ G eorg

and

sociological

the time

in w h i c h

S i m m e l and M a x

of S i m m e l

thinking of t h e y lived.

W e b e r , ”

S i m m e l A n d

as his c o n t e m p o r a r y

in the s e c o n d

chapter,

presupposing the m e t h o d i c relativism

a n d the methodic individualism of W e b e r ,

I h a v e dealt with

t h e logic o f fluid transition o f t h e t y p e s u s e d b y t h e f o r m e r a n d t h e logic o f fluid t r a n s i t i o n o f t h e ideal t y p e s b y t h e latter, “ n u m e r i c a l c alculability” b y

the former

and

“ calculability”

s o c i e t y w h i c h is c o m m o n

by

t h e latter,

t h e pluralistic v i e w of

t o both, a n d their social d i a g n o s e s a b o u t capi­

talism a n d socialism. M o r e o v e r , in t h e third chapter, “ G e o r g S i m m e l a n d Émile Durkheim,”

presupposing the m e t h o d i c relativism of S i m m e l

the m e t h o d i c rationalism of D u r k h e i m , istic o f t h e v i e w s o f b o t h , and

their

confrontations

and

I h a v e dealt with the character­

their theories a b o u t the sociology of religion with

Karl M a r x

(1818-1883).

I have

here

en­

d e a v o r e d to trace the relation b e t w e e n the sociological theories of S i m m e l a n d of D u r k h e i m ,

b e c a u s e it s e e m s

that

selves of b o t h ar e a p p a r e n t l y irrelevant.

the sociological theories t h e m ­

vi

Introduction

W h e n

I look back upon

first-year a s had

an

m y

a c a d e m i c life, it w a s i n

a h i g h school b o y in T o k y o

interest in S i m m e l .

I found

in the s u m m e r

his n a m e

in

the time of of

m y

1931 that

th e story,

The

I

Youth

{Seinen, in J a p a n e s e , 1913), w r i t t e n b y a g r e a t J a p a n e s e novelist, O g a i M o r i

(1862-1922). In his b o o k h e described S i m m e l as “a m a n the symbolical m e a n i n g d o r m a n t behind the c o m m o n dynamically the small scene.”

I t o o k interest

t h a t g r e a t l y a p p r e c i a t e d S i m m e l ’s w o r k s ,

w h o experiences

d a i l y life a n d g r a s p s

in this respect,

and

especially his w o r k s

after

about the

t h e o r y o f literary arts, p h i l o s o p h y o f c u l t u r e a n d s o c i o l o g y . M o r e o v e r , i n the spring of W e b e r

1933

I k n e w

about

the existence

and

the significance of

t h r o u g h r e a d i n g a s m a l l b o o k . D i e geistige Situation d e r Zeit (1931),

written b y the G e r m a n

existential philosopher, K a r l Jaspers.

T a k i n g this opportunity,

I studied sociology at the Faculty of Letters,

University of T o k y o f r o m

1 9 3 4 till 1 9 3 7 , a n d b e g a n t o p a y p a r t i c u l a r a t ­

tention to the sociological theories of S i m m e l a n d of W e b e r . learned

the importance of

D u r k h e i m . In this w a y logic w h i c h m o v e s

the sociological

I k n e w

from

theories of

H e r e

Tönnies

I also and

of

the comparative methods such as Tönnies'

the c o m m u n i t y

(Gemeinschaft)

through the as­

s o c i a t i o n ( G e s e l l s c h a f t ) t o t h e c o - o p e r a t i v e ( G e n o s s e n s c h a f t ) , S i m m e l ’s l o g i c of

fluid t ransition o f

ideal types

and

as they w e r e in

the types,

D u r k h e i m ’s m e t h o d

each

in a w a y

the elucidation of

little r e f e r e n c e

W e b e r ’s l o g i c o f

B y

c o n c o m i t a n t variations.

Besides,

d e e p l y c o n n e c t e d w i t h M a r x , I t o o k interest

this respect,

t o this.

of

fluid transition of t h e

b e c a u s e at

the way,

I wrote,

that time there

w a s very

first o f all, a s m a l l b o o k ,

G e o r g S i m m e l (in J a pa n e s e) , in 1959. T h e n , in 1 9 7 6 I w r o t e M a x

Webers

Sociological H o r i z o n s (in J a p a n e s e ) a n d also, t w o m o r e b o o k s , G e o r g S i m m e T s Sociological M e t h o d (in J a p a n e s e , 1 9 79 ) a n d

(in J a p a n e s e , 1981).

Georg Simmel and M a x

Weber

T h e s e three b o o k s constitute, of course, m y trilogy of

the “ sociology at the turn of the century.” I n this b o o k Japanese

three chapters

original

of

are

extracted

t h e first c h a p t e r ,

from

“ Ferdinand

t h e latter Tönnies

two. and

T h e

G eorg

S i m m e l , ” in this b o o k w a s i n c luded as t h e a p p e n d i x in m y a b o v e - m e n t i o n -

Introduction

ed

book

S i mmel

(1979).

T h e

and M a x

Japanese

W e b e r , ” and

original

of

the second

chapter,

vii

“Georg

the J a p a n e s e of the third chapter, “G e o r g

S i m m e l a n d É m i l e D u i k h e i m , ” w e r e in cl u d e d in m y b o o k written in 1981. H o w e v e r , t h e f o r m e r w a s a l r e a d y r e p o r t e d in R e v u e d e la p e ns é e d a u j o u r ­ d ’h u i ( i n J a p a n e s e , v o L 8 , n o . 1 - 2 , 1 9 8 0 ) , a n d t h e l a t t e r w a s i n t h e s a m e

m a g a z i n e (vol. 8, n o . 8, n o . 1 0 - 1 1 , 1980). O n

the o c c a s i o n of t h e publication of this b o o k I feel a d e b t of grati­

t u d e t o w a r d m a n y people. T h o u g h I d o n o t r e c o r d their n a m e s individually, I w o u l d like h e r e w i t h to offer lished

by

the

assistance

of

m y

thanks to them.

Grant-in-Aid

for

Finally,

Publication

t h i s is p u b ­ of

Scientific

R e s e a r c h Result, the Ministery of Education, Science a n d Culture.

Yoshio Atoji Tokyo, Japan

viii

Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements

T h e r e

are

m a n y

English

translations a m o n g

Tönnies, G e o r g Simmel, M a x nection

see

suggestions

W e b e r

and Émile Durkheim.

Bibliographical N o t e s of this b o o k . to m e .

Without

mentioning

translators, I w o u l d like to e x p r e s s m y T h o u g h leagues,

the w o r k s of

Ferdinand I n this c o n ­

T h e s e translations g a v e

individually

the n a m e s

of

the

thanks to t h e m

I h a v e translated s o m e parts of this b o o k into English, m y col­

M r . Kenichiro O k a z a w a of K a g o s h i m a University of E c on o m i c s

a n d Sociology

and

Mr. Takeshi O g a n e

of D o h t o University

have

been

m o s t helpful in the translation of this b o o k . I a m d e e p l y grateful to t h e m . T h e f o l l o w i n g t h r e e e s s a y s a r e r e p o r t e d i n S o c i o l o g i c a - , t h a t is, “ F e r d i n a n d Tönnies

and

G e o r g S i m m e l ”

(ibid., v o L 7 , n o . 2 , 1 9 8 3 ) ,

“G e o r g S i mmel

a n d M a x W e b e r ” (ibid., v o L 7, n o . 1, 1 9 8 2 ) a n d “ G e o r g S i m m e l a n d É m i l e D u r k h e i m ”

(ibid., v o l . 8, n o . 1, 1 9 8 3 ) .

I a m

grateful

for

the permission

w h i c h t h e editorial c o m m i t t e e of this a c a d e m i c journal h a s g r a n t e d m e to reprint these three essays in this b o o k . A n d

I s h o u l d like to e x p r e s s m y

tha n k s to M r . T o m o h i k o N a k a j i m a of D o b u n k a n Publishing Co., Ltd. Responsibility for m a i n m y

the interpretation

in this b o o k m u s t , of course,

own.

y. A

re­

Contents

ix

Contents Introduction Acknowledgements Chapter O n e : Ferdinand Tönnies and Georg Simmel

1

1.

Preface

3

2.

T h e

Sociological T h i n k i n g

3.

T h e

Philosophical

4.

Conclusion

31

Notes

41

a n d

of T ö n n i e s

10

Sociological T h i n k i n g

ofS i m m e l

Chaptep T w o : Georg Simmel and M a x Weber

21

45

1.

Preface

47

2.

M e t h o d i c

3.

Logic of Fluid Transition a n d U nderstanding of the T y p e s

60

4.

"Numerical

68

5.

T h e

6.

Conclusion

Relativism a n d

Met ho di c

Calculability” a n d

Pluralistic V i e w

Individualism

"Calculability”

of Society

a n d

Social Diagnosis

51

76 87

Notes

Chapter Three : Georg Simmel and Émile Durkheim 1.

Preface

2.

S i m m e r s M e t h o d i c Relativism a n d H is V i e w of Sociology

3.

D u r k h e i m ’s M e t h o d i c

97 99 105

Rationalism a n d

of theSociology

His

V i e w

ofReligion

of Sociology

113

4.

T h e

Problems

5.

T h e

Confrontation with

6.

Conclusion

143

N otes

152

KarlM a r x

121 132

Bibliographical N o t e s

156

I nd ex of N a m e s

157

Subject Index

160

Chapter O n e Ferdinand Tönnies and Georg Simmel

3

Ferdinand Tönnies and Georg Simmel 1. P r e f a c e (i

T h e

'/

JlI' / ’ J

alienation of m a n

temporary

is

a

p h e n o m e n o n

social situation, a n d

it is o n e

in philosophy a n d social science (1959) also b y

M a n

heim, with

w h o

b y

M a r x

received b y t h e m

birth,

Fritz P a p p e n ­

of the books

w h i c h deals

this b o o k

is

not k n o w

h o w it w a s e v a l u a t e d

Tönnies. I d o

professional sociologists

w a s

themes

T h e Alienation of M o d e r n

is o n e

T h e "subtitle o f a n d

of the important

sociologist of G e r m a n

lives in A m e r i c a n o w ,

this t h e m e .

based on

a

today.

peculiar to the c o n ­

or intellectuals

in A m e r i c a .

A s

A n

or

Interpretation

to w h a t

e x t e n t it

far as I k n o w , a r e v i e w

of

it a p p e a r e d i n T h e A m e r i c a n J o u r n a l o f S o c i o l o g y ( S e p t e m b e r , 1 9 6 0 ) a n d do

in Science

a n d

( Su mm er ,

Society

1961),

but

b e y o n d

that

I

not k n o w .

I n its p h i l o s o p h i c a l s e n s e t h e t e r m , a l i e n a t i o n , w a s first u s e d b y F i c h t e a n d H e g e l a t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e 1 9 t h c e n t u r y , a n d it w a s

incorporated

century.

M a r x

into

sociological

centered

his

theory

in

the

interpretation

of

t h e capitalist

u p o n t h e c o n c è p t of self-alienation. B u t forgotten in the period w h i c h h undred c o m e

y e a r s later,

it h a s

almost a “ catchwörd.”

T hi s

c o m e m a y

N o w , to

P a p p e n h e i m

Manuskripte

(1887). T h e “ has

refers

(1844) a n d real reason

contributed

m u c h

to K .

that era

approximately one

the fore

well b e

o f c o n t i n u i n g crisis w h i c h h a v e f o r c e d u s the p r o b l e m of h u m a n estrangement. F r o m b o o k

of

the concept b e c a m e almost

followed.

again

4 0 ’s

due

a n d

has

b e ­

to the years

to b e c o m e a w a r e of this viewpoint, in his

M a r x ’s Ö k o n o m i s c h - p h i l o s o p h i s c h e

F. T ö n n i e s ’ G e m ei ns c ha ft u n d Gesellschaft w h y to

h e

took u p

T ön n i e s ’ b o o k

the understanding

of

i s t h a t it

the relationship

4

F e r d i n a n d Tunnies a n d G e o r g S i m m e l

b et w e e n h e i m

m a n ’s a l i e n a t i o n a n d

treats this b o o k

well to note T h e

h o w

with

I have

Later

w e

but

T ön n i e s ’

sophical a n d specially

i n t h e 8 0 ’s w a s

born

Jove A m m o n e

this point.

the

1855,

scher a n d

It is i m p o r t a n t a n d

philo­

against the background

of the

It is b e c a u s e

he

wrote

a

dissertation

Consequently

p u b l i s h e d h i s first b o o k , w a s

b o r n in 1858, a n d w r o t e of Berlin,

1881) (1890).

Ü b e r sociale Dif fe re n zi er un g

t h e r e is a t i m e l a g o f t h r e e y e a r s b e t w e e n t h e y e a r s

of their births, a n d published,

it i s n o t t o o

G e m e i n ­

d e r M a t e r i e n a c h K a n t ’s P h y s i ­

o f t h e p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h e i r first b o o k s , w e r e

entitled

s p e c i m e n ” (presented at the U n i ­

W e s e n

h i s first b o o k ,

that w e

S i m m e l ’s

M o n a d o l o g i e ” (presented at the University published

and

9 0 ’s o f t h a t c e n t u r y .

a n d

dissertation entitled “ D a s

philosopher

of his contemporaries.

thinking

schaft u n d Gesellschaft (1887). S i m m e l

a

closely c o n ­

19th century,

a n d

1877)

alienation

third of the

quaestionum

versity of T üb in ge n ,

o n e

in t h e last o n e a n d

in

m a n ’s

a G e r m a n

w a s

sociological thinking

social context

mentioned

with

w h o

sociological

G e r m a n

“D e

also

Simmel,

shall elaborate o n

understand

T önnies

just n o w

is b e c a u s e t h e s e a r e n o t o n l y

Tönnies, G e o r g

it is

u se s this a p p r o a c h .

a n d P a p p e n h e i m ’s b o o k sociologist,

this reason, P a p p e n ­

o f T ö n n i e s ’ i n r e l a t i o n t o M a r x ’s , a n d

he

reason w h y

nected

society.”1 F o r

they

though

m u c h

w e r e

both

this m a y

to say

that

thirty-two

be w e

as well as

b et w e e n

w h e n

a coincidence. can

those

their b o o k s A t

a n y

rate,

find the starting point of

t h e i r s e r i e s o f w r i t i n g s i n t h e i r first b o o k s ,

a n d

of the

t h e 9 0 ’s , i s t h e p e r i o d

19th century,

in w h i c h G e r m a n

social c o n t e x t of

thinking, touch

s p e c i a l l y t h e 8 0 ’s a n d

t h e y established their o w n a n d

briefly o n

G e r m a n y

b y

doing

those so, a t

the G e r m a n

at that time

w a s

thinking. Accordingly, in the

days the

the last o n e third

w e

s a m e

m u s t time,

social t h o u g h t

understand w e

their

shall c o m e

to

of those days.

at the point of c h a n g i n g

f ro m w h a t

is c a l l e d “ t h e e r a o f B i s m a r c k ” ( 1 8 7 1 - 1 8 9 0 ) t o t h e r e i g n o f W i l l i a m I I o f t h e H o h e n z o l l e r n ( 1 8 9 0 - 1 9 1 8 ) . I n o t h e r w o r d s , t h i s p e r i o d is w h e n the G e r m a n empire, centering a r o u n d Prussia, w a s establish­ ing

a

firm footing

a n d

G e r m a n

capitalism

w a s

rapidly

turning

Ferdinand Tönnies a n d Georg S i m m e l

into

monopolism.

Catholic church

L oo k i n g a n d

b a c k

u p o n

socialism with

the

w h i c h

1 8 7 0 ’s ,

it

Bismarck,

w a s

5

the

w h o

exer­

cised g r e a t ability in f o r e i g n policies, w a s in trouble domestically. T h a t

is t o s a y ,

the G e r m a n

Catholic church

its p a r t i n t h e

struggle b e t w e e n

a n d

of G e r m a n

the p o w e r

Bismarckian group

a n d

influence country.

a n d

those

group

Engels,

Particularly socialism

as soon into

a n d

the Liebknecht M a r x

as

both

groups

the G e r m a n

B is ma rc k

(Kulturkampf)

larger in opposition to

belonging

to

the

Lassalle

under

the

w h o

f r o m

this

w e r e to

banished

have

no

themselves

a n d

Party.

is

L a b o r

the anti-Socialist

1878, in order to put d o w n

played

led labor m o v e m e n t s

c a m e

united

Socialist

introduced

C h u r c h

socialism g r e w

coïïseryatîsm,

of

State a n d

tenaciously

It

l a w

small

strength,

w e r e

organized

w e l l - k n o w n

that

(Sozialistengesetz)

s u c h socialistic p o w e r .

in

It is a l s o w e l l -

k n o w n t h a t t hi s l a w , w h i c h strictly f o r b a d e all s o r t s o f a s s o c i a t i o n s , meetings

a n d

publications of a socialistic t e n d e n c y ,

t w e l v e y e a r s , u n t i l its a b o l i t i o n i n In

spite

G e r m a n

this

strong

socialistic

larger a n d up

of

power,

oppressive rather

larger. K[e t h e n

policy

than

ability

insurance,

In order

n o t i c e d t h a t it w a s

relating

these laws,

he

took

scholars belonging to the Ver ei n

ation

for

Social

Policy),

founded

Lujo

Brentano

mentions

in

Gustav

the “Preface

Gemeinschaft

socialism),

a n d

u n d

the

w h i c h

idea

stress o n class.”

a n

w a s

the

Gesellschaft the

w h i c h

für Sozialpolitik, a i m e d school

to

as

forms

g r e w

necessary to take

hfnt

as

dis­

insurance.

f r o m

the

views

für Sozialpolitik (Associ­ the

organization

such

Schmoller. S e c o n d

as

Adolf

A s

of

Edition” (1912) keynote

of

the

W a g n e r ,

T önnies

Kathedersozialismus the

the

also of

his

(Academic the

Verein

to b r e a k the d o g m a t i s m of the M a n c h e s t e r

under

t h e flag

of “ lai^sèz faire,”

,

“ ethical motive...in favor of the

V*

weaker,

retirement a

socialists) v o n

for

class, a n d after 1 8 8 1 h e

a n d

of the

Kathedersozialisten (Academic

Bismarck,

to social i ns u r a n c e : s u c h

accident insurance,

to enforce

b y

b e c o m i n g

the policy of mel t o o k t h e l e a d in t h e s e respects. H e ver,

S i m m e l

o w i n g w a y :

a n d

W e b e r

both grasp

It m a y

(J a h r b u c h

f ü r

Thus,

both be

by said

w a s before W e b e r . types of

a t first, i n h i s t r e a t i s e : “ D i e

Geistesleben”

(Leiter),

in the g r o u p

their ideas coincide.

logical s e q u e n c e coincide in these three

das

In spite

of thinking

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e staff ( V e r w a l t u n g s s t a b )

(Verband). But,

tfu

6 5

W e b e r

a n d purely person'**1

the necessity of a leader (Führer) in the group.

hand,

;n

M a x

a n d W e b e r , the contents of their thinking nearly coincide.

Thirdly, a n d

as “ specially w o r l d l y

a n d

prophet, military hero a n d great d e m a g o g .

difference of

S i m m e l

S i m m e l

Großstädte 9,

Gehestiftung,

t h e city in

1903)

u n d

S i m m e l

tries a s o c i o - p s y c h o l o g i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e city. A c c o r d i n g him,

the psychological

basis o n

w h i c h

“ the

type

to

of metropolitan

i n d i v i d u a l i t y ” s t a n d s , is “ t h e i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n o f n e r v o u s s t i m u l a t i o n , ” a n d

this results f r o m

inner

impressions.

discriminating m a n

O n

this occasion,

creature.”

is s t i m u l a t e d

a n d

the swift a n d ceaseless c h a n g e of outer a n d

by

T h a t

is

to

the difference

the one w h i c h preceded

he

understands m a n

say,

b et w e e n

it. T h e n ,

the

as

“ a

consciousness

of

a present

impression

he says: “ W i t h each cross­

i n g o f t h e street, w i t h t h e t e m p o a n d multiplicity o f e c o n o m i c , o c c u p a t i o n a l a n d s o c i a l life, t h e m e t r o p o l i s s e t s u p a d e e p c o n t r a s t with

small

t o w n

a n d

rural

f o u n d a t i o n s o f p s y c h i c life.

life T h e

with

reference

to

the

metropolis exacts f ro m

sensory m a n ,

as

a discriminating creature, a different a m o u n t of c o nsciousness t h a n d o

the small t o w n

i m a g e

of

r h y t h m . ” 30

a n d

life

has

a

In

this

w a y

r u r a l life. H e r e slower,

character of metropolitan life

of

the

sentimental

small

t o w n ”

m o r e

S i m m e l

the

sensory

habitual

indicates

a n d

“ the

a n d

spiritual

m o r e

e ve n

intellectualiste

m e n t a l life” a s o v e r a g a i n s t “ t h e m e n t a l w h i c h

relations. T h u s ,

h e

rests

m o r e

u p o n

emotion

understands “ the mental

and

life” be-

66

G e o r g

t w e e n

S i m m e l a n d

the

A n d

small

S i m m e l

M a x

t o w n

W e b e r

a n d

metropolis

compares,

too,

the

relations b e t w e e n

politan m a n a n d the small t o w n m a n m a n

is ‘ f r e e ’ i n a

the

pettiness

Because

a n d

the

thickest

pendence that

refined sense,

w h i c h

h e m

he

c r o w d

of

the

in l a r g e circles,

of

the

big

i n d i v i d u a l . ” 31

is h i m s e l f a

city

as

Thus,

narrowness

the

circumstances,

counterpart

of

o n e

n o w h e r e

metropolitan crowd. seat of

the metropolis

international t o w n

In

is,

feels

small t o w n

s t r o n g l y in of

reveals he

the the

m a k e s

freedom lonely

i f,

lost

said that

in w a v e s

to

a

wide,

of

life

a n d

certain

as

in the

for h i m “ the

be

“ self-contained

it i s o b v i ­

under

a n d

sphere

feeling

“ the spiritual

it c a n the

inde­

thinks that “ the

the metropolis w a s

w hereas

main,

result

a n d

m an .

are the conditions

according to him,

as

T h e n ,

extends

sphere,”

in the

the

space”

this

this w a y

cosmopolitanism.”

life o f

of

m e t r o ­

in contrast to

felt m o s t

S i m m e l

d i s t a n c e ” a t first r i g h t l y v i s i b l e . A n d only

are

metropolitan m a n ,

bodily proximity a n d ously

in t h e

m u t u a l reserve a n d indifference, w h i c h

o f t h e i n t e l l e c t u a l life

the

as follows: “ T h e metropolitan

spiritualized a n d prejudices

as quite different.

“ the

inner

national of

the

or

small

self-sufficient.” M o r e ­

over, h e sees “ the m o s t significant characteristic of the m e t r o ­ p o l i s ” i n “ t h e f u n c t i o n a l e x t e n s i o n b e y o n d its p h y s i c a l b o u n d a r i e s . ” A n d

this effect reacts a g a i n

a n d

responsibility to metropolitan In Chapter

Six,

“T h e

of

a n y

pations

are

“ all t h e s e pending of

of occupations

objective f o r m

except point

m a k i n g around

w h i c h

such

Attending to these

L e b e n s ) of people

activity,

has

n o

a n d

these

w h i c h

live b y

definite c o n t e n t

people,

circulates S i m m e l

a

occu­

trading agents,

t h e a bs ol ut e entity,

activity

in

d o not have

a n d

p e o p l e , t h e e c o n o m i c life, t h e

M o n e y , their

and

notices that there are

in l a r g e cities,”

systems,

m o n e y .

Stil d e s

in m o d e r n cities, w h i c h

decisiveness of

chance. “ F o r

importance,

refers to “ uprooted

certain categories of general

teleological

s c o p e . ” 32

(Das

cities. H e

intermediate people

on

their

or

Life”

S i m m e l

general,” especially in m o d e r n large n u m b e r

weight,

life.

Style

his Philosophie des Geldes,

gives

is

with

observes

or de­ w e b

for

t h e m

the

fixed

unlimited that

here

G e o r g

arises

a

peculiar kind

is u s u a l l y

of

characterized

laborers” w h i c h

S i m m e l

“ unskilled labor” as

m e r e

physical

a n d

M a x

c o m p a r e d w o r k

of

6 7

W e b e r

with

w h a t

“ the

lowest

still r e t a i n s a s p e c i f i c c o l o r i n g .

“ A l l t h e s e i n t e r m e d i a t e p e o p l e i n l a r g e cities,” a s s u c h , a r e all l a c k i n g a p r i o r i c e r t i t u d e i n t h e c o n t e n t s o f t h e i r life, a n d s o t h e y are different f r o m

bankers.

o n l y t h e final p u r p o s e

but

such

give

can

persistently

In the

case of bankers m o n e y

is n o t

also “ the material of activity” a n d rise t o specific,

prescribed

as

directions,

particular relations of

interests, a n d traits o f a c e r t a i n p r o f e s s i o n a l

character.

former,

m o n e y

But

have

in t h e

strayed

o r affinity. A n d in general.” the

middle

ers, a n d

fro m O n

the

so the

routes to

t h e first t i m e former

In this w a y

f ro m

is t h o u g h t

S i m m e l

the a n y

of as

therefore he

such

an

unity

metropolitan

viewpoint

of a metropolitan

m a n

develops the theme. of cities.” H e the

in his

20th

as a

century

Berliner.

nichtlegitime H e r r ­

Chapter

Wirtschaft u n d

seen

Nine, “Sozi­ W e b e r

Gesellschaft

It is n e e d l e s s t o s a y t h a t t h e r e is h i s “ t y p o l o g y

seeks

for a n i ndex of logarithm w h i c h distinguishes

w e s t e r n city

Occidental

m an .

observation of types

in l a r g e cities at t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e

ologie der Herrschaft”

the time

objective

i n l a r g e cities a s

indicates three types of

great credit to s h o w

the contrary, in Subsection Seven, “ D i e

b etween

goal of

“ uprooted people

defines t h e m

schaft (Typologie der Städte)” of Part T w o ,

“ T h e

ultimate

existence b et w e e n “ the lowest laborers” a n d the b a n k ­

It d i d S i m m e l of m e n

for

the

a n d

the

non-western

city— a n d especially the m e d i e v a l

b e i n g shall b e

our only concern—

w a s

city,

as

follows.

city, w h i c h for

not only e conomi­

cally a seat of t ra de a n d crafts; politically, ( n o r m a l l y ) a fortress a n d p e r h a p s a g a r r i s o n ; administratively, a c o u r t district ; but, furthermore, a

s w o r n

V e r b r ü d e r u n g ).” 3 3 A s

the

Occidental

particularly

w e

city

for the

confraternity (eine s c h w u r g e m e i n s c h a f t l i c h e

as

see here, “a

s w o r n

W e b e r

emphasizes

c o n f r a t e r n i t y and

characteristics of M e d i t e r r a n e a n

are

distinguished fro m

Asian

the

free inhabitants of M e d i t e r r a n e a n

cal, a n i m i s t i c restraint b y

cities. T h a t

the caste, o r

especially he

seeks

cities w h i c h

i s t o s a y , it i s t r u e t h a t

cities a r e l a c k i n g in m a g i ­ restraint b y

the clan.

6 8

G e o r g S i m m e l a n d

M a x

W e b e r

In this c o n n e c t i o n W e b e r t w e e n

b y t h e caste a n d that b y t h e c l a n exist o r not. A n d h e t h e v a r i e t i e s o f cities w h i c h a p p l y t o all a g e s a n d

mentions countries

o f city. a n d

T h e

it w a s

city,

h e

princely city

city in w h i c h

western

following s h o w s

Asian a

the

index of the distinction b e ­ restraint

the index. T h e

a n d

seeks a n

for w h e t h e r

by

the oriental

cities

his understanding of the types

says,

is

“ a

fortress of

(Fürstenstadt).

the purchasing

p o w e r

A

the

prince,”

similar type

of large consumers,

is t h e such as

t h e i n h a b i t a n t s b a s e d o n rents, d e t e r m i n e s profit c h a n c e s ( E r w e r b s ­ chancen) of

fixed industrial m a n a g e r s

such c onsumers

are various, but

a n d

of merchants.

t h e r e s p e c t i v e cities are, at least,

“ c o n s u m e r c i t i e s ” ( K o n s u m e n t e n s t ä d t e ). S e c o n d l y , the

city

is

called “ a n is “ a

“ a producer

city"

Firstly,

o n

the contrary,

( P r o d u z e n t e n s t a d t ), a n d

it

is

also

i n d u s t r i a l c i t y ” ( G e w e r b e s t a d t ). T h i r d l y , l i k e w i s e t h e r e c i t y " (H ä n d l e r s t a d t ) i n c o n t r a s t w i t h t h e c o n s u m e r

merchant

c i t y . B u t , i t i s n o t W e b e r ’s i n t e n t i o n h e r e t o p r o d u c e “ t h e f u r t h e r casuistic distinctions a n d

specialization of concepts,” a n d h e

indi­

cates that “ e m p i r i c a l cities a l m o s t a l w a y s r e p r e s e n t m i x e d types.” Therefore,

they

predominant medieval

can be

e co no mi c

“ agrarian

classified o n l y in t e r m s of their respective components.

cities”

H o w e v e r ,

W e b e r

(Ackerbürgerstädte)

as

a

recognizes premise

of

“ t h e c o n s u m e r city,” “ t h e p r o d u c e r city,” o r t h e city of c o m m e r c e (Handelsstadt),

or

“ the

that the transition f r o m fluid.”

But,

o f cities.” at

“ the

in the

mer ch an t

this w a y ,

social

be

he

recognizes

W e b e r

of

a n d S i m m e l

the city”

observed

w e r e

also

t h r e e is “ e n t i r e l y

attaches importance

though

psychology

c i t y , it m u s t

a n d

t h e latter to the f o r m e r

it i s c l e a r t h a t h e In

city,”

to

“ typology

having

equally

a

try

interested

that their w a y s of understanding

t h e city a r e different.

4. “ N u m e r i c a l A s

Calculability”

a n d

“ Calculability”

w e

have

already suggested, S i m m e l thought that only m o n e y

e c o n o m y

m a d e

possible

p r a c t i c a l life. N o w ,

the

w e w o u l d

ideal of

“ numerical

calculability”

in

l i k e t o e x p l a i n t h i s i n a little m o r e

G e o r g S i m m e l

detail. In his P h i l o s o p h i e d e s G e l d e s S i m m e l

a n d

M a x

69

W e b e r

regards “ the essence

o f all m o n e y " a s “ its u n c o n d i t i o n a l i n t e r c h a n g e a b i l i t y ( F u n g i b i l i t ä t ) ” ; t h a t is,

as

“ the internal

changeable s u m i n g

uniformity

that

m a k e s

each

for a n o t h e r a c c o r d i n g to quantitative

this

point,

h e

writes

at

piece

ex ­

measures.” Pre­

the b e g i n n i n g of

Chapter

Six,

“ T h e Style of Life” in his Philosophie des G e l d e s a s follows: “ T h e n u m b e r

of m e a n s

a n d

content

of o u r activity t h u s d e v e l o p in p r o p o r t i o n to intellectuality

as the subjective Since

every

emotional critical

the

length of their

representative

m e a n s

as

such

of is

the

series w h i c h

objective

completely

values in practical m a t t e r s a r e

point of action

w h o s e

for m

world

o r d e r . ” 34

indifferent,

so

tied to the ends,

attainment

radiates

n o

the

all

to the

longer

on

our

activity but o n l y o n

the receptivity of o u r souls. “ T h e r e f o r e ,

the

m o r e

w e

such

termini

have

in

practical

life,

will b e

the function

S i m m e l

notices “ the impulsiveness a n d emotional

are

seen

the

stronger

i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e i n t e l l e c t u a l . ” 35 I n t h i s w a y

in primitive people,

a n d

he

thinks

intensity” w h i c h

that

this

is

surely

c o n n e c t e d w i t h t h e s h o r t n e s s o f their teleological series. H o w e v e r , i n h i g h e r c u l t u r e s t h e c o h e s i o n o f e l e m e n t s is m a d e by

the “ vocation” (Beruf)

the

life w o r k

rather

the

end

directness

p e r v a d e s life.

primitive people

it c o n s i s t e d o f

attained T h e

of

w h i c h

a

simple

a t all, of

they

effort

to

h a d

series of

did

an

almost continuous

Especially today,

so with

obtain

portant contributing factor which, b y

n o

roundabout

lies

m o r e

b e y o n d

the

say, m o n e y

usually b e y o n d

the series creates a

be

series

can

the

w a s

a n

elements, if t h e y

few

means.

especially

i m ­

a n d

preparations

S i m m e l

is b r o u g h t a b o u t

b y

and,

moreover,

thinks

m o n e y .

that

T h a t

this is

central interest for o th e r w i s e

to u n ­

different series s o that the

the preparation

objectively quite unrelated. But, the

for

endless, the goal of the

individual.

c o m m o n ,

b e c o m e

A n d

that m o m e n t ,

r el at ed series, t h e r e b y c o n n e c t i n g t h e o n e

interests.

w a y s

m o m e n t

of

of

i n h i g h e r s i t u a t i o n s , is r e p l a c e d

of satisfaction h a v e b e c o m e

extension

cohesion relatively

food

the m o m e n t s

of

the contrary,

multi-linked series of purposes.

w h e n

horizon

O n

for a n o t h e r crux

w h i c h

m a y

o f t h e m a t t e r is t h e

7 0

G e o r g S i m m e l

general

a n d

fact that

an

omnipresent

element

means.

means,

O n

the

“ with

ship, “ a w e b

of objective

is s i m i l a r a n d

to the

Moreover,

has

processes a n d the they

objects a n d for m

ference

natural l a w This

w e

replaced

connection

since

w e b

no

measures

it d e t e r m i n e s

a n d their relation­ with

emerges

its c o n t i n u o u s

is h e l d t o g e t h e r just

by

as

every

by

the

emotional

interpretation of

a n

natural

objective intelligence,

practical world,

inasmuch

w h i c h they

of sequences to

a

appears

only

c om p l e x

so as

teleological

a r e still m e r e l y o b j e c t s o f i n t e l l i g e n c e . m e a n s of intelligence. T h e g r o w ­ the mutual

that previously terminated

in a u t o n o m o u s

of

not

relative

elements,

of

is

only

structure of m e a n s

is— f o r

ation— a

connection viewed

fro m

increasingly

of

its a b s o l u t e s i n t o r e l a t i v i t i e s . ”

since the w h o l e too,

the

of the g r o w i n g causal k n o w l e d g e

transformation causal

“ at

o f all e l e m e n t s o f life i n t o m e a n s ,

practical counterpart

“ Or,

w h i c h

since m o n e y

c o s m o s

the

our

utilize t h e s e b y

ing transformation

world,

in

a s p e c t s o f life”

view,

f r o m

connections of

emotions,

In this w a y

the

of our existence are

a n d

personal

S i m m e l ’s

b ee n

terminal points.” A n d

a n d

i t s e l f is

a n i n creasingly i n t e r c o n n e c t e d series, e x c l u d e t h e inter­

of

purposes

a n d

disappeared

has

since m o n e y

value.

to follow

accentuation

thereby

teleological n e x u s last. A n d

and

are

of things so e x p o s e d

strict c ausality.

all-pervasive m o n e y

themselves

various elements

merciless objectivity,”

of the value

cohesion

in

the contrary,

is e i t h e r t h e first o r t h e

m ea s u r e

w h i c h

really e n d s

in the all-embracing

all o b j e c t s the

is e v e r y w h e r e c o n c e i v e d a s p u r p o s e ,

that are

to m e r e

thus placed

W e b e r

m o n e y

countless things degraded

M a x

b e c o m e s

our

the

present

front,

a problem

of

the

the

“the nature

Rather, consider­ practical

intelligence.

t o p u t it m o r e p r e c i s e l y , t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e e l e m e n t s o f a c t i o n

b e c o m e

objectively

rational

relationships, a n d

emotional selves to

a n d

accentuations

subjectively calculable (berechenbar),

in so d o i n g progressively eliminate the and

decisions

the turning points of

S i m m e l considers our

as m e a n s

purpose,

a n d

of

w h i c h

only

t h e life p r o c e s s ,

p o s e s . ” 36 T h u s , a n d

or

time

emotion

b y as

attach

t h e m ­

t o its f inal p u r ­

the index of m o n e y well as

intelligence.

G e o r g S i m m e l a n d

and

he

time

notes

that

b e c o m e

In

the representative

this w a y

S i m m e l

character of a “O n e

system

spiritual

the world

individual

a n d

events

cognitive

a n d

of n u m b e r s

of

a n d

in

that

(ein g r o ß e s

tive,” a n d

the calculative nature

In

arithmetical

recognized

at re­

Rechenexempel),

the qualitative distinction mostly

n u m b e r s ” are

used

i d e a l is t o c o n c e i v e o f t h e w o r l d

are

h ug e

are

states:

c a l c u l a t i v e (r e c h ­

as

in o u r time

“ a

he

r e g u l a t i n g its i n n e r

spiritual f u n c t i o n s ” in

rationalistic

T h e n ,

functions

Z a h l e n ) . ” 37

thereby

“ the

system.

v o n

also

our

the style in o u r t i m e

(ein S y s t e m

but

in

a n d intellect h a v e “ a that

social— mostly

arithmetical p r o b l e m

to conceive

thinks

in t h e i m a g e

the

n e n d ) functions. T h e i r

h u g e

he

the m o n e t a r y

characterize

lations— b o t h

a n d

final trait”

present in c o p i n g w i t h

as a

elements of action

indicates that m o n e y

the influence of

m a y

71

Wetter

“ calculable, rational relationships.”

certain lack of character,” clarifies

M a x

of

a n d

things as a

Repeatedly,

“ the

regarded as “calcula­ is

not

p r o b l e m ”

only

a n d

indicated,

“ a

system

of

in s u c h “ spiritual functions.”

this c o n n e c t i o n S i m m e l n o t e s that “ t h e p s y c h o l o g i c a l feature

of our

time” stands

in a decisive contrast to “ the m o r e impulsive,

emotionally determined character— •— o r e a r l i e r e p o c h s , ” a n d causal

relationship

to

he

w h i c h

is o r i e n t e d t o t h e w h o l e

r e c o g n i z e s t h a t it “ s t a n d s

the

m o n e y

e c o n o m y . ”

H e

in a close

states,

“ T h e

m o n e y e c o n o m y enforces the necessity of continuous mathematical operations are

and

our daily

absorbed

reducing the

in of

by

such

penetrating

of

m o n e y

determinedness a n d

determining,

the qualitative values

life,” 38 b e c a u s e m i n e

transactions.

by

T h e

weighing,

h a d

a

to

occur

all

values

“exactness, precision a n d

d o w n

to

the

people

calculating

m u c h

greater in

gauging m o n e y evaluation has

specify

m a n y

to quantitative ones.

evaluation

limit

lives of

the

riguor in the e c o n o m i c

T h r o u g h precision

contents

taught last

a n d

of

us to deter­

farthing.

Thus,

relationships of

life” n a t u r a l l y a f f e c t o t h e r a s p e c t s o f life, a s w e l l a s , r u n p a r a l l e l t o the extension of the m o n e t a r y benefit of “the

a

ideal of

superior

system, tho ug h not exactly for the

s t y l e o f life.

numerical

calculability

Therefore, has b ee n

w e

can

m a d e

say

possible

that in

7 2

G e o r g

S i m m e l

a n d

M a x

W e b e r

p r a c t i c a l life o n l y t h r o u g h Moreover,

S i m m e l

the

m o n e y

recognizes “ the

lations erected a b o v e

e c o n o m y . ” superstructure of m o n e y

the qualitative reality,”

a n d

he

re­

notes that

it d e t e r m i n e s m u c h m o r e r a d i c a l l y t h e i n n e r i m a g e o f r e a l i t y “ a c c o r d i n g t o its f o r m s . ” “ T h e c a l c u l a t i n g c h a r a c t e r ( d a s r e c h n e ­ rische W e s e n ) of m o n e y i m b u e s the relationship of the eleme nt s o f life w i t h a p r e c i s i o n , a r e l i a b i l i t y i n t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f p a r i t y a n d

disparity,

an

unambiguousness

in a g r e e m e n t s

a n d

arrange­

m e n t s in t h e s a m e w a y a s t h e g e n e r a l u s e of p o c k e t w a t c h e s h a s b r o u g h t a b o u t a s i m i l a r e f f e c t i n d a i l y life.” 39 I n t h i s w a y S i m m e l indicates that “ the mathematical regularity use

character of m o n e y ” has brought

i n t o t h e life a t t i t u d e s o f p e o p l e a n d , e s p e c i a l l y , t h a t t h e

of pocket

watches

abstract values by clocks” provides a rangements

a n d

has

spread. A n d

like the d e t e r m i n a t i o n

of

m o n e y ,

“ the determination of abstract time

by

s c h e m e

for the

measurements.

m os t S u c h

detailed a

c o n t e n t s o f life i n t o life itself, i m p a r t s a n “ transparency as

regards

a n d

calculability” to

their practical

a n d

a n d

scheme,

the contents of Intellektualität)

these forms m a y

t h e m

w h i c h

intellectuality controls m o d e r n

cance

w h i c h

O n

the o n e touches

gives to m o d e r n

hand,

in

frequently

Rechenhaftigkeit). A t gische

s o m e

at least,

Thus,

his

in

of the energy

by

life.” T h e r e f o r e ,

t h e signifi­

u n d

Gesellschaft

“ the calculability”

first, i n P a r t O n e ,

Grundkategorien

des

by

the

life, is s t a t e d c l e a r l y h e r e .

Wirtschaft

o n

“ the

e m b o d i e d

“ the calculating intellectuality” a c c o m p a n i e d

spread of watches also

life,

external m a n a g e m e n t .

derive from

the

otherwise unattainable

calculating intellectuality ( r e c h n e n d e again

definite a r ­

receiving

C hapter T w o ,

Wirtschaftens,”

W e b e r

(Berechenbarkeit,

he

“ Soziolo­

r e g a r d s “f o r m a l

rationality [ f o r m a l e Rationalität) of a n e c o n o m i c action (ein W i r t ­ schaften)” w h i c h

as

“ the extent

w h i c h

quantitative

is t e c h n i c a l l y p o s s i b l e a n d

In this case, a n a l ’”

of

according

(R e c h n u n g )

is a c t u a l l y a p p l i e d b y it.”

e c o n o m i c action will b e called “f o r m a l l y ‘ration­ to

the degree

is e s s e n t i a l t o e v e r y

expressed

w h i c h

calculation

in w h i c h

the provision

rational e c o n o m y ,

for

needs,

is c a p a b l e o f b e i n g

i n n u m e r i c a l , “ c a l c u l a b l e ” ( r e c h e n h a f t ) t e r m s , a n d is s o

G e o r g S i m m e l a n d

expressed. sense

T hi s concept

that expression

is

thus

in m o n e y

o f this f o r m a l calculability rationality”

“ material

w h i c h h o w

f o r m

yields

of

with goods

is

groups

shaped

cally oriented social action u n d e r

by

s o m e

at least O n

Rationalität)

given

73

W e b e r

in

the

“ the highest degree

(Rechenhaftigkeit).”

(m a t e r i a l e

the provisioning delimited)

“ unambiguous,”

M a x

is

the contrary, “ the degree (no

to

of

persons

matter

the

nature of e c o n o m i ­

criterion (past, p r e s e n t o r

p o t e n t i a l ) o f a p p r e c i a t i v e p o s t u l a t e s (w e r t e n d e P o s t u l a t e ) , r e g a r d l e s s of

the nature

of

these

ends."

It

goes

without

saying

that

this

m a t e r i a l r a t i o n a l i t y i s v e r y “ a m b i g u o u s . ” 40 Secondly,

in the “ Introduction” of his G e s a m m e l t e

Aufsätze zur

Religionssoziologie, W e b e r touches o n “ the calculability” ( B e r e c h e n ­

barkeit) in m o d e r n

capitalism. W h a t

h e calls “ capit al i sm peculiar

t o t h e m o d e r n O c c i d e n t ” b e c o m e s u civil c ap i t a l i s m o f m a n a g e m e n t (ib ü r g e r l i c h e r

Bc/rfe&skapitalismus)

of free labor." T h i s intensively

b y

with

its

is p r e s c r i b e d f r o m

“ the

development

r a t i o n a l i t y is n o w a d a y s

rational

organization

the beginning clearly a n d

of

possibility.”

technical

essentially restricted b y

Its

“ the calculability

o f t h e f o u n d a t i o n o f t e c h n i c a l l y d e c i s i v e f a c t o r s , t h a t is, o f p r e c i s e calculation (Kalkulation).”

T h a t

is

to say,

it

is r e a l l y

restricted

b y the peculiarity of w e s t e r n science, especially the natural sciences based o n m a t h e m a t i c s a n d exact a n d rational experiment. the other hand, the dev el op m en t of these sciences a n d of technology resting u p o n talistic

interests

separable m o d e r n

relation

of

b e t w e e n

in the s a m e

is

still

science

as

true. well

T h e as

close a n d

technology

capi­ in­ and

part, W e b e r

refers t o “ calculability” in

a n d a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . T h a t is t o s a y , m o d e r n r a t i o n a l c a p i t a l i s m m a n a g e m e n t

has

technical m e a n s tration

such l a w

A n d

in his

nee d

of labor

according

used in

the s a m e

stimulated decisively b y

c a p i t a l i s m i s h e r e e m p h a s i z e d . 41

Moreover, l a w

a n d

them, w a s

O n the

a n d

Part One, Wirtschaft

to

the

of

not

only

but

also

“calculable l a w

formal

rules,”

administration

for

Chapter Three,

“ Die

u n d

he

Gesellschaft

calculable a n d

only

e c o n o m i c T y p e n notes

(berechenbar) a n d

adminis­

the

Occident

m a n a g e m e n t . 42 der

that

Herrschaft,” the n ee d

for

7 4

G e o r g

S i m m e l

a n d

“ calculability a n d

a n d

M a x

W e b e r

reliability in t h e

functioning of the legal o r d e r

t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s y s t e m ” is a vital o n e

i s m . ” '13 B e t w e e n of l a w ”

w a s

the two,

required

in “ rational capital­

“ calculable function b y

b y

“ the

the rational rules

general administration of

m a r k e t

association (Mar^/gesellschaft).” Especially to the p ersons interest­ ed

in

the

marketing

of

systematization of law,

commodities

rationality

preconditions

understood

for

the

to signify o n e

e co no mi c

particularly for the continuative m a n a g e m e n t

style

w h i c h

other hand, “ the administration” w a y

he

the legal

need

produced

characterizes

the

well as administration B y

the way,

schaft

“ the

“ safety

of capitalistic

transaction.”

historically

connection

a n d

of

m a n a g e ­ O n

the

rigid, intensive, a n d c a l c u l a b l e

for constant,

w a s

the

of the m o s t

continuative

ment,

requires

a n d

t h a t is, “ i n c r e a s i n g t h e c a l c u l a b i l i t y o f t h e

function of judgment,” are important

the

by

capitalism.

b et w e e n

In this

calculable

law

as

capitalism.

it i s w e l l - k n o w n t h a t i n h i s W i r t s c h a f t u n d G e s e l l ­

W e b e r

treated

technically

bureaucracy

purest

type of

(Bürokratie).

T o

legal domin at i on . ”

h i m

In a

it

is

word,

it

is t h e f o r m o f d o m i n a t i o n , i n w h i c h “ p r e c i s i o n , s p e e d , u n a m b i g u i t y , k n o w l e d g e

of

ordination,

reduction

personal

t h e files,

c o s t s ” 44

continuity,

of

are

friction

m e a n s

to dispose

of m a n . cy.

according

to

by

unity,

e c o n o m y public

of

strict

sub­

material

servants.

a n d

T h e

“ o b ­

p u b l i c s e r v a n t s is r e q u i r e d . T h i s “ the calculable

rules,”

regardless

It is n e e d l e s s t o s a y t h a t t h i s a p p l i e s t o m o d e r n b u r e a u c r a ­

But,

in

addition

to

(Patrimonialbürokratie). pointment

this T h e

there

is

patrimonial

essential of

the

bureaucracy

former

is

“the a p ­

b y c o n t r a c t , ” t h a t is, “ f r e e s e l e c t i o n . ” I n t h e l a t t e r c a s e

inconvenient

p ublic s e r v a n t s (slaves, retainers)

jective

competence,

within

the

the

a n d

performed

jective” (sachlich) disposition b y

discretion,

according

to

the

formal

function

with

bureaucratic

o b ­ w a y

h i e r a r c h i c s y s t e m . A b o v e all, “ c a l c u l a b i l i t y ” a p p l i e s t o

f o r m e r case.

According developed power,”

o n a n d

to

W e b e r ,

the it w a s

Oikos, seen

patrimonialism that

is,

o n

(Patrimonialismus)

“ differentiated

in a ncient E g y p t ,

Russia,

w a s

patriarchal

China,

medi-

G e o r g S i m m e l a n d

eval Europe,

etc. A c c o r d i n g l y , i n p u r e p a t r i m o n i a l i s m

a r b i t r a r i n e s s is w i d e , a n d of

an

is

“ the

formation but,

in this c o n n e c t i o n

authoritative position.

there

t h e field o f

t h e r e is n o

of

such

75

W e b e r

stability

patrimonialism

(Unberechenbarkeit).

Indeed,

the

o f c o m m e r c i a l c a p i t a l is p o s s i b l e a l s o i n p a t r i m o n i a l i s m , can

“ incalculability.”

bureaucracy m o d e r n

In the case

incalculability”

big c o m m e r c e

with

M a x

there

m a k e O n

is

c o m p r o m i s e

the contrary,

“ calculability.”

comparatively

in the case

A n d

the

of

easily m o d e r n

rational

rules

of

bureaucratic administration offer “ calculability indispensa­

ble to

the development

of

capitalism”

to

W h e n

capitalism b e c o m e s

the typical f o r m

the

organization

of

labor

a n d

is b a s e d

o n

“ the possibility of secure calculation.”

the

m o r e

is

it

w h i c h

capital-intensive

of

this.

has and,

industrial

m a n a g e m e n t , the goal

of

especially,

it s i g n i f i e s

large

selling, A n d

yet,

the m o r e

fixed

c a p i t a l r e a c h e s s a t u r a t i o n , t h e m o r e it i s t h e s a m e . T h e n i n d u s t r i a l capitalism should of the

be

able to expect the continuity a n d objectivity

function in l a w

order, a n d

the

rational “ principally calcu­

lable” character in the disco ve r y of l a w a n d Thus,

W e b e r

cracy but W e

“ numerical plied.

N o w ,

follows.

It

“ numerical early w o r k : m a d e

recognizes “ calculability” not o n l y in m o d e r n b u r e a u ­

also in m o d e r n

have

in the administration.

taken

u p

capitalism as

cases

calculability” a n d as w e is

clear

h av e that

well as

to w h i c h

in m o d e r n

the concepts

of

S i m m e l ’s

o f W e b e r ’s “ c a l c u l a b i l i t y ” w e r e

c o m p a r e d S i m m é l

both, m a d e

w e use

can of

s u m m a r i z e the

concept

c a l c u l a b i l i t y ” v e r y e a r l y s i n c e it w a s d e v e l o p e d P h i l o s o p h i e d e s G e l d e s . It is n e e d l e s s t o s a y

u s e of this c o n c e p t

law.

in c o n n e c t i o n

with m o n e y

a p ­ as of

in his that h e

e c o n o m y a n d

p r a c t i c a l life. O n t h e c o n t r a r y , W e b e r i n h i s l a t e r y e a r s a d m i t s t h a t “ c a l c u l a b i l i t y ” is c l o s e l y c o n n e c t e d w i t h l a w a n d a d m i n i s ­ t r a t i o n , b u t a b o v e all, w i t h m o d e r n b u r e a u c r a c y

as well as m o d e r n

c a p i t a l i s m . It is c l e a r t h a t t h e c o n c e p t s o f “ n u m e r i c a l c a l c u l a b i l i t y ” a n d

“ calculability” u s e d

of the

b y

both coincide fundamentally

contextual differences in w h i c h

they

are

used.

in spite

7 ö

G e n r g S i m m e l

5. T h e Both M a r x

a n d

V i e w

S i m m e l

W e b e r

a n d

the

o w n

Probleme

T h a t

of

a n d

regarded

the

their

methodic

Social

early

days.

relativism,

h e

w h o

considers

of qualitatively different k i n d s of

history

against

Simmel,

criticizes

(2nd

Geschichtsphilosophie

Diagnosis

confrontation

his psychologistic, relativistic

der

is t o s a y ,

o f Society

thesis since

position

materialism fro m D i e

W e b e r

Pluralistic

as their

takes

M a x

historical

viewpoints

ed., as

w h o in his

revised,

“a n

1905).

interweaving

event-sequences” contends

that

f o r h i s t o r i c a l m a t e r i a l i s m all s t a t e s a n d

events are

e co no mi c

criticizes

that

eco no mi c

general”

a n d

the

to that of S i m m e l ,

a n d

it i s s e e n

events

events.”

are

“ the

In other

symbols

words,

of

he

history

in

“ functions of inde­

p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e . 45 W e b e r

adopts a

similar v i e w

in

T w o ,

typically h u n g e n

Part

der

Chapter

Gemeinschaften

allgemeinen”

in

his

T w o ,

“ Wirtschaftliche

(Wirtschaft

u n d

Bezie­

Gesellschaft) It

Wirtschaft u n d Gesellschaft.

begins

im with

this s e n t e n c e : “ M o s t c o m m u n a l relationships ( V e r g e m e i n s c h a f t u n g ) have ties

something

to d o

(Gemeinschaften)

termined

are

that

extremely

widely. “ A b o v e mination

with e c o n o m y . ” T h a t are

rare,”

economically

a l l , it l a c k s t h e c l e a r n e s s o f t h e e c o n o m i c

deter­

action (Gemeinschaftshandeln) b y economic

to

istic c o n c e p t i o n

h i s t o r y . ” 46

of

but the degree

d e ­

varies

of c o m m u n a l

s h o w s

s o m e h o w

of this c a s e

m o m e n t s — contrary W e b e r

not

is t o s a y , “ c o m m u n i ­

the assumption It

is

of

the

clear

so-called

that

in

this

material­ sentence

his critical attitude t o w a r d t h e materialistic c o n c e p ­

tion of history. L o o k i n g at

it f r o m

his point of view,

“even

the

f o r m a t i o n in w h i c h the e c o n o m y a n d social structures are ‘function a l l y * r e l a t e d ” is “ a b i a s e d v i e w , w h i c h

can

historical generalization,”

if it i s u n d e r s t o o d

interdependence,

the

“ laws of in a

given

causes.

because

their o w n , ”

a n d

case, a l w a y s

forms

even

of

apart

n o t b e justified a s a n as

an

c o m m u n a l fro m

be codetermined

by

u n a m b i g u o u s action

this fact,

follow

they m a y ,

other than economic

G e o r g

S u c h

a

vie w

of W e b e r in his

M a x

77

W e b e r

c o i n c i d e s c l e a r l y w i t h S i m m e l ’s c r i t i c i s m

of historical materialism. already seen

S i m m e l a n d

D i e

In this c o n n e c t i o n Probleme

der

S i m m e l ’s o p i n i o n

and

Geschichtsphilosophie,

t h e r e f o r e i s t h e f o r e r u n n e r o f W e b e r ’s o p i n i o n .

is

Accordingly,

w e

c a n s a y that b o t h d e p e n d o n t h e pluralistic v i e w o f society. N o w , w e w o u l d l i k e t o t o u c h o n t h i s v i e w w h i c h is c o m m o n to

both.

In

methodic city”

his

Philosophie

relativism,

S i m m e l

e co no mi c

structure

the

des

h a d

(1900),

Geldes

understood

a n d

the

depending

on

“ in infinite r e c i p r o ­

ideal

structure,

a n d

five

y e a r s later i n his D i e P r o b l e m e d e r G e s c h i c h t s p h i l o s o p h i e ( 2 n d ed., revised) h e

recognized

“a

meritorious n ee d of

historical material­

i s m , ” b u t h e criticized t h e fact that historical m a t e r i a l i s m c o n f u s e s the

heuristic principle (heuristisches Prinzip) w i t h

principle (konstitutives Prinzip). connection with W e b e r . A t

the conclusion

u n d

der

))Geist«

of

des

his

Thi s

treatise:

m a y “ Die

Kapitalismus,”

I,

H

the

also

constitutive

be

noticed

protestantische (A r c h i v

f ü r

in

Ethik Sozial­

wissenschaft u n d Sozialpolitik, vol. 20-21, 1905) W e b e r also t h i n k s t h a t it i s e r r o n e o u s t o s u b s t i t u t e a o n e s i d e d “ m a t e r i a l i s t i c ” i n t e r ­

p r e ta ti o n o f c ul tu re a n d h is to ry for a o n e - s i d e d spiritualistic c a u s a l interpretation, but ever, h e of a n

he

says

that “ both a r e equally possible." H o w ­

s e e s t h a t b o t h , if t h e y d o

investigation,” but as “ the

not

serve as “ the preparation

conclusion,”

accomplish

equally

little i n t h e i n t e r e s t o f h i s t o r i c a l t r u t h . T h e r e f o r e h e c r i t i c i z e s t h e materialistic conception of history, but not

support

t h e spiritualistic c o n c e p t i o n o f

if t h e “ p r e p a r a t i o n

of an

w e

corresponds

can

very

say

that

interesting

to

here that

historical m a t e r i a l i s m B y m e a n ?

the

w ay ,

T h e s e

w h a t

the both

or the

are mainly

of course, c o n c e r n e d

with

history.

does

I n this case,

a n d

of

the opinions of

both

hav e

opinion

the

to

the “ conclusion” of the

“ constitutive principle”

also

do

time he

investigation” of W e b e r corresponds

the “ heuristic principle” of S i m m e l , former

at the s a m e

s a m e

coincide.

materialistic conception

social dia gn os e s of

t h e latter,

S i m m e l

concerning of history. a n d

W e b e r

about capitalism a n d socialism a n d their pluralistic v i e w s

of

It is

society.

are, T o

7 8

G e o r g

S i m m e l a n d

take u p

W e b e r

their diagnoses

S i m m e l ’s . w h i c h

M a x

In

his

a b o u t capitalism,

Philosophie

des

Geldes,

let

u s first

he

notes

is “ t h e s e p a r a t i o n o f t h e l a b o r e r f r o m des

Arbeiters

M a r x

a n d

yet about “ the division of labor”

he

says,

“ In

t h a t it

organize a n d

is

the

seinem

Arbeitsmittel)

function of

allocate the m e a n s

the

his m e a n s

{ T r e n n u n g does

v o n

deal

with

process of labor”

in

the w a y

(Arbeitsteilung)

t h e capitalist to acquire,

of labor, these m e a n s

v e r y different objectivity for t h e laborer t h a n

for h i m

acquire a w h o

w o r k s

w i t h h i s o w n m a t e r i a l a n d h i s o w n t o o l s . ” 4 7 T h e n S i m m e l ’s “ capitalistic differentiation” (kapitalistische Differenzierung) signifies “ a

fundamental

separation

conditions of

labor.”

there w a s

psychological

N o w ,

n o

of

A n d

the

w h e n

subjective

both

reason

s i n c e l a b o r itself a n d

a n d

w e r e

for a

in

the

objective

the s a m e

separation.

its d i r e c t o b j e c t “ b e l o n g t o d i f f e r e n t

persons,” the objective character of these objects m u s t b e sized especially

for

the

further emphasized themselves

l a b o r e r ’s c o n s c i o u s n e s s .

“ all t h e m o r e

so as labor

A n d a n d

e m p h a ­

it m u s t

the materials

their present polarity

its c o n t i n u i t y

a n d

counterpart

all t h e m o r e

are

found

in

noticeable.” t h e fact that,

“ in addition to the m e a n s

o f l a b o r , l a b o r itself is s e p a r a t e d

the

is

“ the significance

indicated in the s t a t e m e n t

that labor p o w e r

modity.”

in

laborer.”

F o r

T h a t

is

this to

say,

the m e a n s

this case,

of

the

has b e c o m e

the laborer

of labor, but also f r o m

H o w e v e r ,

in a n o t h e r place in his Philo so p hi e des G e l d e s

ownership

misery,

w o u l d

of

w h i c h

in a

is

completely

v a t i o n . ” 48

In other w o r d s

ration

the

of

personal

considered

laborer

different

it c a n

from

his

be

said

m e a n s

c o m ­ only

t h e l a b o r itself. S i m m e l

his m e a n s of labor,

the focal sense

point of appear

that in this of

a

is n o t

f ro m

states that “ the separation of the laborer f r o m

from

p h e n o m e n o n

estranged

the

be

f o r m yet a n o t h e r unity a n d therefore really their close

proximity m a k e s A n d

hands,

labor”

social

as a “ the

signifies

sal­ sepa­ “ the

differentiation of the laborer as a p e r s o n f r o m the purely

objective conditions in w h i c h

the techniques of production placed

h i m . ” Moreover,

according to Simmel,

w h e r e

the

laborer w o r k s

with

G eo r g

his o w n

M a x

79

W e b e r

materials, his labor r e m a i n s within the sphere of his o w n

personality,

a n d

rated f ro m

him.

only b y But,

of another person his labor

for a

m ar ke t

the

is

n o

possibility

price a n d

m o m e n t

i s it s e p a ­ for utilizing

thus

separates

it l e a v e s its s o u r c e .

himself

T h e

fact

shares the s a m e character, m o d e of evaluation a n d

fate of d e v e l o p m e n t w i t h b e c o m e

there

finished products

the laborer places his labor at the disposal

fro m

that labor n o w

selling the

w h e r e

his l a b o r in this w a y , from

S i m m e l a n d

all c o m m o d i t i e s

signifies that l a b o r h a s

s o m e t h i n g objectively separate f r o m the laborer. A n d

this

i s a l s o “ s o m e t h i n g t h a t h e n o t o n l y n o l o n g e r is, b u t a l s o n o l o n g e r has.” F o r

as

soon

a s h i s p o t e n t i a l q u a n t i t y o f l a b o r is t r a n s p o s e d

i n t o a c t u a l l a b o r , o n l y its m o n e y e q u i v a l e n t b e l o n g s t o h i m w h e r e ­ as his potential or, m o r e Thus, also

for S i m m e l ,

only o n e

“ Finally, p o w e r

side

the of

l a b o r itself b e l o n g s t o s o m e o n e

fact that labor b e c o m e s a

far-reaching

in their products.

t h e capitalist e r a

character,

with

its

else

objective organization of labor. process

the result of this fate o f the

is s h o w n

labor in m o u s

quantity of

accurately, to a n

is a n o w n

m e a n s

T h e

of

of labor a n d

of

a

is

differentiation.

fact that

object with laws

a c o m m o d i t y

labor

the product of

decidedly autono­

mot io n

a n d

a

character

a l i e n t o t h e p r o d u c i n g s u b j e c t , is m o s t f o r c e f u l l y i l l u s t r a t e d w h e r e t h e l a b o r e r is c o m p e l l e d have

it.” 49

Thus,

to b uy

S i m m e l

his o w n

emphasizes

capitalist e r a

is “ a l i e n ” t o h i s p r o d u c t

estrangement

of

cated

the laborer

here. T h i s

s h o w s

(3 vols., 1 8 6 7 - 1 8 9 4 ) b y “ a

general

s c h e m e

wage-laborer,” w or k i n g

that S i m m e l Karl

h e

fro m

M a r x .

the

of labor.

w h i c h also

w i s h e s to

laborer T h e

is w e l l - r e a d Moreover,

recognizes

the m e a n s

that

if h e

his products of

of development

a n d

person

f r o m

product

he

in

situation of l a b o r is i n d i ­

in D a s notes

Kapital

t h a t it is

is v a l i d f a r b e y o n d “ the

the

separation

of

the the

of t h e w o r k ” in science. H e r e i n

is h i s s h a r p c r i t i c i s m o f c a p i t a l i s m . Also

in

another

place

in

discusses c ap i t a l i s m critically t w e e n a n d

capitalism

the e co nomi c

a n d

his

Philosophie

a s is s h o w n

des

Geldes

in his c o m p a r i s o n

the time of guilds as follows:

individualization

S i m m e l

that corresponds

be ­

“Capitalism to

it h a v e ,

8 0

G e o r g S i m m e l

a n d

M a x

W e b e r

at least in part, m a d e w o r k m o r e

a s a w h o l e — a n d t h e r e f o r e its c o n t e n t s

t o o !—

m u c h

insecure

a n d

m o r e

accidental circumstances than

w h e n

t h e g r e a t e r stability o f

m u c h

stricter

a n d

r h y t h m

t h e y e a r . ” 50

dominantly

to

A n d

rhythmical

to the m o r e

fact

character, work,

a n d

Well, touches

does

of

his

of

guilds

conditions of

during

labor in

a ccompanied

the

the

day

a

pre­

h a d the

by

also

case

of

songs,

but

individualization of labor” Thus,

“ labor as a

time

imparted

life

particularly

a g a i n lost.

o n

W e b e r

S i m m e l

w h o l e ”

of the guilds, a n d

diagnose

G e s a m m e l t e

“capitalism

follows: In m o d e r n talism

existed at the time

referred

b e c a m e

m u c h

the content

of

unrhythmical.

h o w

duction”

m a n y

w a s

a n d

in capitalism

insecure t h a n at the

labor b e c a m e

to

other contents

character w a s

that

it

laboring

“ the perfection of tools

this r h y t h m i c a l

subordinated

formerly the content of

primitive co-operative with

hav e

capitalism?

Aufsätze

peculiar

to

zur

that developed

n o w h e r e

the

“ Intro­

Religionssoziologie

the

times the Occident

In

m o d e r n

k n o w s

Occident,”

he as

“ the kind of capi­

else in the w h o l e w o r l d , ” n a m e l y ,

“ the rational-capitalistic organization of (formally) f r e e labor" a n d o n l y t h e e a r l i e r s t e p i s f o u n d e l s e w h e r e . 51 “ T h e r a t i o n a l - c a p i t a l i s t i c organization of (formally) free labor" i sm peculiar to the m o d e r n al

capitalism,”

a n d

is r e a l l y a n d

Occident.” This

truly “ capital­

is c a l l e d a l s o “ r a t i o n ­

is e q u i v a l e n t t o “ civil c a p i t a l i s m o f m a n a g e ­

m e n t w i t h its r a t i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n o f f r e e l a b o r . ” W e b e r sees that s u c h “ m o d e r n , rational organization of capital­

istic

m a n a g e m e n t ”

b e c a m e

elements of development; a n d

m a n a g e m e n t ”

a n d

possible

the

assumption

of

t w o

t h a t is, u t h e s e p a r a t i o n o f h o u s e k e e p i n g

“ rational

since precise calculation

o n

bookkeeping.”

is p o s s i b l e o n l y o n

Besides,

the ground

indeed of “ free

labor,” a n d b e c a u s e there w a s rational labor organization, “ rational socialism” w a s

ism

is

also

science

a n d

Moreover, spot

seen

in the m o d e r n

closely

a n d

technology, he

uses the

calculation,

a n d

Occident.

inseparably but

also

he

connected

with

twin concepts recognizes

A n d

law of

a n d

capital

“ the

m o d e r n capital­ not

only

with

administration. calculation

a nt in om y

of

a n d

formal

G e o r g

rationality w h i c h

a n d

material

has c o m e

rationality”

f r o m the formal

S i m m e l

in

a n d

M a x

capitalism

81

W e b e r

as

the

result

rationality of capital calculation.

H e r e W e b e r ’s d i a g n o s i s a b o u t c a p i t a l i s m i s s e e n d i r e c t l y . T h e r e f o r e , w e

can

find

here

differing f r o m B y w e o n

the

his

essential

understanding

S i m m e l ’s v i e w p o i n t

way,

w h a t

are

their

about

capitalism,

in his criticism of capitalism.

diagnoses of socialism?

A t

first,

w o u l d like to h a n d l e t h e c a s e o f S i m m e l . H e c o m m e n t s often s o c i a l i s m a n d m a k e s a d i a g n o s i s o f it. L e t u s t a k e u p t w o o r

three types

from

his a r g um en t s.

des Geldes h e c o m p a r e s

for

anarchism

nation

a n d

subordination

formal

motive

lies in

s o c i a l i s m , it i s a l s o o n e m a n d

a n d

m o d e

of

m easure o n

thought of

than

sentiments

by

w h i c h

of

takes

the m o t e

persons, m o r e

a n d

that entitle

a n

m o r e w o u l d

necessary,

subordination”

oppression,

they

absolute

ideal

or

a n d

superordi­

w h e n

material o n e

such

motive

a n d

to be

itself

institution of c o m p l e t e

suffering

that a

social o r d e r in

the

to c o m ­

claims

freedom

“a

the

based

be

“ no

equality”

degradation

a

within

person

S i m m e l

w o u l d

w e r e

if not

M o r e o v e r , a c c o r d i n g t o h i m , if s o c i a l i s t “psychological

surely

reflect

clarity” a n

“ t h e e q u a l i z a t i o n o f i n d i v i d u a l s is

m e a n s

rejection of

the degree of

socially

based o n

possessed

themselves, that

a

conditions

everything o n e

his Philosophie

o f s o c i a l i s m ’s b a s i c t e n e t s t o r e m o v e

connected with the former. theories

hostile

f o r c e t h e o t h e r t o o b e y . ” 52 A n d

superordination

w o r s e

the

b e t w e e n

replaced

differences in h u m a n

in

anarchism a n d socialism as follows: “ T h e

motive

is

F i r s t o f all,

the

for r e m o v i n g certain

categorical

with

awareness

regard of

for themselves imperative,

but

the

to fact

n o t a t all only

the

feelings o f affliction in o r d e r t o p r o ­

certain feelings of well-being.”

T h e n S i m m e l says, “ Super- a n d subordination (Uber- u n d U n t e r ­ o r d n u n g ) i n all its p o s s i b l e f o r m s is n o w t h e t e c h n i c a l p r e - c o n d i t i o n for

society

to accomplish

its g o a l s .

Y e t

it r e f l e c t s

the

intrinsic

significance of the person, his f r e e d o m to develop, a n d his personal relationship

with

mation,

super-subordination

all

c o m m a n d i n g

a n d

other

individuals.

obeying

w o u l d

B y

dissolving

(Obenb e c o m e

u n d

this

a m a l g a ­

Unterstehen),

merely

a n

all

external

82

G e o r g

S i m m e l a n d

M a x

W e b e r

t e c h n i q u e of t h e institution, w h i c h shade

u p o n

a n

could t h r o w

i n d i v i d u a l ’s p o s i t i o n

all f e e l i n g s o f

a n d

development,

s u f f e r i n g w o u l d d i s a p p e a r . ” 53 T h u s ,

pragmatically

“ super-subordination” T h a t

is t o s a y ,

h e

“ super-subordination”

their necessity.

b e c o m i n g

“ a

the

neither light n o r

in

society,

indicated m e r e

a n d

S i m m e l and

by

it

grasps

recognizes

the effectiveness of

external

technique

of

institution.”

But,

he

expedient

notes

that

aspects of

today,

w h e n

the

external

the social hierarchy

are

a n d

the

m e r e

still i n t o o - c l o s e a

c o m b i n a t i o n w i t h the personal-subjective qualities of the individual, o n e

can

sake

of

call for a n

abolition of that hierarchy

the above-mentioned

feelings

S i m m e l

thinks

“ this

a n d

organizational

its

that

through

technical advantages

conditions”

of the

of

in general

for the

suffering.

In this case,

objectivation of

performance

o n e

could

hierarchy” a n d

preserve

avoid

“ all

the

“ the neglect of

subjectivity a n d f r e e d o m ” w h i c h t o d a y are the sources of a n a r c h i s m and, to s o m e

extent, of socialism. T h e n

“ the direction of

culture

for

w h i c h

he

c o n s i d e r s t h a t t h i s is

m o n e y

e c o n o m y

paved

the

w a y . ” F r o m this p r e m i s e , w e c a n discuss t h e a b o v e - m e n t i o n e d “ separation of t h e laborer f r o m his m e a n s of labor.” Moreover, the

in his

s a m e

b o o k

S i m m e l

socialist ideal” in c o n n e c t i o n

results partly m o n e y . ”

fro m

For, by

a

socialist ideal s e e k s o w n

group

w h i c h

a n d at t h e s a m e astic s y m p a t h i e s

with m o n e y ,

reaction to

declaring

refers to

w a r

and

“ the complete u p o n

the

the

form

of

p o w e r

thinks that

of it

heartlessness of

m o n e t a r y

t o a b o l i s h t h e i n d i v i d u a l ’s embodies

“ the

system,

isolation f r o m

purposive

the his

association,

t i m e it a p p e a l s t o a l l t h e i n t i m a t e a n d e n t h u s i ­ f o r t h e g r o u p t h a t m a y lie d o r m a n t i n t h e i n ­

dividual. According to Simmel, “a

rationalization

( R a t i o n a l i s i e r u n g ) o f life,”

o f l i f e ’s a c c i d e n t a l regularities time

a n d

s o c i a l i s m is u n d o u b t e d l y d i r e c t e d t o w a r d s

a n d

characteristic

calculations of

affinities w i t h t h e “ v a g u e

residue of times long

towards

elements

reason.

But,

communistic

b y

the control

the

legitimate

it h a s a t

the s a m e

instincts” that, a s t h e

s i n c e p a s t , still lie d o r m a n t

in the recesses

G e o r g S i m m e l a n d

of the

soul.

“ S o c i a l i s m ’s d u a l m o t i v a t i o n s

posed

psychic

roots.

developmental o n

O n

product of

the other

it

a n d emotions.

is

the

have

the

o n e

hand,

the

rationalistic

e m b o d i m e n t

of

M a x

diametrically o p ­

socialism m o n e y

the

83

W e b e r

m os t

is

the

final

e co no my ,

a n d

basic

instincts

T h e d i s t i n g u i s h i n g f e a t u r e o f its p o w e r o f a t t r a c t i o n

lies i n its d u a l m o t i v a t i o n s , t h a t is t o s a y , i n r a t i o n a l i s m ( R a t i o n a ­ lismus)

as well as

in the reaction

to

r a t i o n a l i s m . ” 54

this w a y S i m m e l t h i n k s that socialism h a s f o u n d i d e a l i n t h e a n c i e n t c l a n h o o d w i t h its c o m m u n i s t i c the

contrary,

the

m o n e t a r y

system

spectively to concentrate u p o n leaves only friends,

the

closest

leads

the

himself and,

individual

as objects of personal

o n

relations,

a n d

in

its i n s p i r i n g equality. O n

individual the

such

emotional

Writing

o n e as

retro­

hand,

family

devotion,

and,

it and on

the other, leaves only the m o s t r e m o t e spheres s u c h as the m o t h e r country or m a n k i n d ism

a n d

reaction

the

in general.

m o n e t a r y

T h u s , grasping contrarily social­

system,

h e

finds

“ rationalism”

a n d

to rationalism” in socialism.

Moreover,

i n h i s l a t e r life, i n a

small book:

G r u n d f r a g e n

Soziologie (1917) S i m m e l c o m m e n t s o n socialism. H o w e v e r ,

formerly

discussed socialism

in his

to him, “ the discrepancy b e t w e e n times

“a

goes

to e x t r e m e s

it w i t h m o d e r n

discrepancy.

t h e possibility

acquisition of

position

he had

According

position a n d personality” s o m e ­

in social status

times, but c o m p a r i n g Rather,

Soziologie (1908).

der

a n d

in guilds

society w e cannot w h i c h

c o m m e n s u r a t e

in f o r m e r find such

generally permits the

with

ability

increases

ex ­

t r e m e l y b y liberalistic o r d e r s . A p a r t f r o m this, a c e r t a i n flexibility i n c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r o t h e r s is o f t e n b r o u g h t of the objective content of position f r o m m o r e suitable position o n the n e w e r , A n d

the

m a i n

thing

difference b e t w e e n depends Herein,

u p o n

here

is

only

personal quality

either d omination

S i m m e l

b y

the separation

t h e p e r s o n a l i t y itself. A

m o r e r a t i o n a l b a s e is r e a l i z e d . “ the a n d

original

chance

personal

position

of

the

w h i c h

o r s u b m i s s i o n . ” 55

considers socialism.

requires “ hierarchical institutions

o n

a n d

T h a t

is t o s a y ,

administration”

socialism w h i c h

are

absolutely centralized a n d hence, b y necessity, rigorously seg me nt -

84

G e o r g

-ed,

S i m m e l

a n d

of in

tainment

order

m o r e

that

that

states,

in

“O n

all a c c i d e n t a l

O n

the

other hand,

i t.

It f o l l o w s

this the

execute

than

hierarchy.

o n e

hand,

chance

w o u l d

a be

decides the at­

it f i n d s

the position

in socialism

subordinates,

c o m m a n d s . ”56

equally

it a l s o p o s t u l a t e s t h a t

that

that

priori,

T o

there

m o r e

would

persons

this idea of

w h o

S i m m e l ’s

e x i s t e n c e of “ a priori for s u p e r - s u b o r d i n a t i o n ” in a socialistic

order the

is p r e s u p p o s e d . U n d e r s u c h a p r e s u p p o s i t i o n h e r e a s o n s t h a t reverse

m o r e

than

m a k e s

a n d

pyramid,

in

w h i c h

the superordinates, a

the is

subordinates

b e c o m e

really impossible.

diagnosis of socialism f r o m

In

m a n y

this w a y

his liberalistic s t a n d p o i n t

c r i t i c i z e s it.

O n

the

o n e

hand,

important

in

Part

One ,

Chapter

Three,

“ T y p e s

of

Wirtschaft u n d Gesellschaft W e b e r states that

D o m i n a t i o n ” in his the

S i m m e l

‘ f r e e l y , ’ t h a t is,

with

than

whatever

a

individual qualification alone

superordinates

c o m m a n d

he

position

postulates

of positions.

c o m m e n s u r a t e

all i n d i v i d u a l s a r e ,

a n y

talent d e v e l o p e s

the

that

occupying

eliminated, a n d

be

W e b e r

his f o r m e r b o o k

socialistic

a n y

M a x

it p r e s u p p o s e s

capable N o w ,

a n d

m e a n s

of

bureaucratic

administration

is

“ special

k n o w l e d g e . ” I n t h i s r e s p e c t , it is c o n d i t i o n e d “ b y m o d e r n t e c h n i q u e

-and effective k n o w l e d g e

m a n a g e m e n t

is

tration. T h i s

absolutely

of

so

technical

s it u a t i o n is ide nt ic a l

far as effect,”

bureaucracy

supply

indispensable

is c a p i t a l i s t i c a l l y o r g a n i z e d , to say,

the

the it

or

is all t h e m o r e

to

whether

the supply

organization

that

the

that special

bureaucratic

socialistically

socialistic signifies

for g o o d s ”

for g o o d s

organized. “aim s

m e a n i n g

adminis­

at

T h a t

is

the sam e

of

professional

important. Herein W e b e r

t h i n k s that,

to t h e socialistic order, rational a d m i n i s t r a t i o n s h o u l d really signify “ strict b u r e a u c r a t i c a d m i n i s t r a t i o n a c c o r d i n g t o m o r e rules t h a n

t h e capitalistic o r d e r . ” O t h e r w i s e ,

irrationalities,”

t h a t is, “ t h e a n t i n o m y

m a t e r i a l r a t i o n a l i t y ” 57 w o u l d I n this c o n n e c t i o n , W e b e r Sozialismus,

Vortrag,

“ o n e

of formal

rigid formal

of those great rationality

a n d

arise here. states in his lecture ( M. W e b e r , D e r

in W i e n , Juli

1918):

“ Especially this ines­

c a p a b l e g e n e r a l b u r e a u c r a t i z a t i o n ( u n i v e r s e l l e B ü r o k r a t i s i e r u n g ) is

G e o r g

n o

m o r e

than

the thing

w h i c h

separation of laborer f rom istic

mottos

w h i c h

standing on

such

is

lies

behind

quoted

very

a viewpoint

W e b e r

has

course, here

is a d i a g n o s i s o f s o c i a l i s m .

w h o

85

the

motto

of

‘the

f r e q u e n t l y . ” 58

general

finds “ hierarchic

W e b e r

l a b o r m e a n s . ’ T h i s is o n e o f t h e s o c i a l ­

“ inescapable

W e b e r

M a x

S i m m e l a n d

bureaucratization

In

this

way,

clearly a n

insight

socialist

society.”

in

Accordingly,

into O f

S i m m e l w h o

institutions a n d a d m i n i s t r a t i o n ” in socialism,

finds “ g e n e r a l b u r e a u c r a t i z a t i o n ”

in socialism,

and agree

entirely in their essential u n d e r s t a n d i n g of socialism. Finally, S i m m e l b e t w e e n

a n d

the arts a n d

W e b e r

also

hav e

society.

This

is

their social diagnosis, a n d o f all, S i m m e l

h a d

clear f ro m

fact that

the

Ethnological Studien

wissenschaft,

13, 1882). o n

touches

“ the

Eight

y ea r s later

contrasts r h y t h m

ing.

to say,

space,”

is

r h y t h m

rhythmical inversely, b e c o m e s

the a

consideration

S i m m e l

the

order to i m b u e a n d

order

Thus,

the

creative

a n d

s y m m e t r y

s y m m e t r y

r e m o v e d of

the

thing T h a t

connect

in

If o n e

systematically, t h e m

paint­

in the quickest, m o s t

of

both

are

s h o w s

symmetric, o n l y “ dif­

with

rhythm,

a n d

materials, r h y t h m

e y e . ” 59

organize

m a n

of merely visible a n d

in

motives.”

proportionately

p o w e r

of

symmetric. A n d is

is,

(1890)

“ r h y t h m

w h i c h

s y m m e t r y

is f o r t h e

as

into time.”

a l i n e , it b e c o m e s

fundamental

does

chaos

a n d

m e a n i n g

T h a t

is t o s a y ,

things w i t h a n idea, a m e a n i n g a n d h a r m o n y ,

w h o l e

is r e g a r d e d

explains

conception.

s y m m e t r y

t h e m

contingency a n d

It is

“ Psychological

historical

start o f all f o r m a t i o n s o f r a w

for the ear w h a t has to f orm

o n e

of the s a m e

Moreover,

First

i n h i s first b o o k

a n d

in m u s i c

b y d ra w i n g

rhythmical

ferent f orms says, “ A t

if

is “ s y m m e t r y

motion

here.

Völkerpsychologie u n d S p r a c h ­

psychological

r hythm,” and T h a t

related to

M u s i c ” (Psychologische u n d ethnologische

Zeitschrift f ü r

he

it u p

relation

since his early period.

h i s first t r e a t i s e w a s

Studies on

in t h e

also indirectly

t h e r e f o r e let u s p i c k

interest in m u s i c

über Musik,

interest

the parts

around

w h e n

a

within

central

confronted

is in one the

point.

with

the

n a t u r a l f o r m a t i o n s is i l l u s t r a t e d direct m a n n e r .

a s “ t h e first i n d i c a t i o n o f t h e p o w e r

T h e n of

s y m m e t r y

rationalism.”

86

G e o r g

O n e

S i m m e l

example

a n d

M a x

of this

W e b e r

is

indicated in

the

fact that the l a n g u a g e s

of the primitive people are often m u c h m o r e s y m m e t r i c t h a n those of civilized people.

In this w a y

S i m m e l

does

c o m b i n e

s y m m e t r y

w i t h “ rationalism.” A t the s a m e t i m e h e finds r h y t h m as “ the rationalistic-systematic principle” (das rationalistisch-systematische Prinzip)

in m a n y

spheres, a n d

h i g h e r cultural level d o e s the

d a y

in

r h y t h m

general

gives the example

the

institution of

r h y t h m i c a l l y . ” 60

that “ only at a

regular meals

Therefore,

divide

s y m m e t r y

a n d

are respectively related to “ rationalism” a n d “the rational­

istic-systematic principle.” It is w e l l - k n o w n in m u s i c ,

a n d

that

W e b e r

h a d interest in t h e arts, especially

it r e s u l t e d i n h i s w o r k :

logischen G r u n d l a g e n

the “ sociology of

der

music.”

M u s i k

D i e

rationalen u n d

(1921). T h i s

Besides,

in

sozio­

is a c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f

the “ Introduction”

of

his

G e s a m m e l t e Aufsätze z ur Religionssoziologie h e explains western m u s i c , p r e s u p p o s i n g t h a t h e r e g a r d s c a p i t a l i s m a s “ t h e m o s t fatal

force of our m o d e r n

life.” I n t h i s c o n n e c t i o n , “ specifically r a t i o n a l

capitalistic m a n a g e m e n t ” lation a n d

is

regarded as o n e

a s profit m a n a g e m e n t

its g a i n s b y

m o d e r n

“ rational

h a r m o n y

m u s i c ”

a n d

calcu­

w h i c h administrates calculatively

bookkeeping.

peculiar to the Occident,

w i t h capital

It is o b v i o u s

the s a m e

w h i c h

is

that this o n e

is

thing applies also to the

m en tioned

by

him,

t h a t is,

the counterpoint as well as m e t h o d of h a r m o n y b y chord. Especially musical

notation (Notenschrift) corresponds to m o d e r n

ing, a n d

w e

this w a y

W e b e r

as a n

can

s a y t h a t “ it e x i s t e d o n l y indirectly m a k e s

m u s i c ”

a n d

deals

with

i s m ”

a n d

musical s y m m e t r y

notation,

a n d

is s e e n h e

as well as r h y t h m

“ rationalistic-systematic

i n t h e O c c i d e n t . ” 61

a diagnosis of

index of the rationality w h i c h

b o o k k e e p ­ society

in “ rational h a r m o n y

agrees as a n

principle.”

m o d e r n

In

with

S i m m e l

w h o

index of “ rational­ H o w e v e r ,

w e

can

say that the f o r m e r a i m s to deal with the sociology of music, w h i l e t h e l a t t e r w i t h t h e p h i l o s o p h y o f art, a n d t h e r e is a d i f f e r ­ ence

b et w e e n

them.

G e o r g S i m m e l

a n d

M a x

87

W e b e r

6. C o n c l u s i o n A s

w e

have

to m a k e

a

mentioned

comparative

at

the

beginning,

w e

have attempted

investigation b y looking at the aspects of

the sociological theories of S i m m e l a n d W e b e r , in order to c o n q u e r “ o n e o f t h e o m i s s i o n s o f all r e s e a r c h c o n c e r n i n g W e b e r a s w e l l as Simmel.” to

T h e

the m a i n

marize

thing

w h i c h

w e

have

points of their views. H e r e

tried w e

to d o

w o u l d

here

like

refers

to

s u m ­

the differences of their views.

Firstly, methodic

about

the

methodic

relativism

individualism of W e b e r .

of

S i m m e l

Standing o n

a n d

the methodic

the rela­

tivism, S i m m e l substantializes neither the society n o r the individual. H e

attaches i m p o r t a n c e to “ m e n t a l interaction a m o n g individuals,”

a n d insists o n f o r m a l sociology. O n methodic

indivudualism,

W e b e r

of the individual in society. the understandable regards “ each insists o n the

H e

individual a n d

‘ m e a n i n g , ’”

Therefore

it is,

the

the role

persons” as

least unit,” a n d

l o o k i n g at this

of course,

clear that

fro m

they

are

also attaches importance to the

individual in society

concepts

o n

the one

h a n d

while W e b e r

a n d

difference

therefore

a n d

also of

in

ideal

the

are

use

types.

S i m m e l

handles

both

“ distancing” as a concept

therefore

he

agrees with

of

handles “objectively valid

“ subjectively

different. the

H o w e v e r ,

concepts both

of operation

intended

Moreover, of

b y

of

w h e n

this connection,

h e w e

developed can

say

his theory

cal t h e o r y

the

m u c h

use

a

the of

influenced

understanding.

t h a t W e b e r ’s i n t e r p r e t i v e

i n t o e x i s t e n c e f o r t h e first t i m e

a n d

is

in order to u nd erstand the w a s

Simmel,

in

‘m e a n ­

there

types

agree

s o c i e t y . B e s i d e s , it is s u r e a l s o t h a t W e b e r

c a m e

to

Indeed, s o far a s the t h e o r y of elucidation of the m e a n i n g

is c o n c e r n e d , i n g , ’”

“ individual

his a ction” as “ the

different. But, S i m m e l

action of the

only

importance

bearers of meaningfully oriented action, a n d h e

sociological standpoint,

W e b e r .

sees

interpretive sociology.

remarkably

the contrary, standing o n

attaches

presupposing the

In

sociology sociologi­

of Simmel.

S e c o n d l y , a b o u t logic o f fluid tra ns it i on

a n d

the

understanding

88

G e o r g

S i m m e l

a n d

M a x

W e b e r

o f t y p e s . A b o v e all, t h i s m e a n s the types used b y Simmel, a n d types by

W e b e r .

B o t h

agree

t h e logic o f fluid t r a n s i t i o n of o f fluid tra ns it i on o f t h e ideal

in their techniques

in spite of

the

differences b e t w e e n the types a n d t he ideal types. T h e s e techniques are developed

w h e n

is,

a n d

the tattoo

w h i c h

exist

S i m m e l the

a m o n g

treats the

metal,

primitive people,

mediate,

a n d

W e b e r

prophet,

a n d

t h e priests as

relation of the three, that

as well as

treats the

the

a n d

clothing

relation of

the

stone

a do rn me n ts as the

inter­

the magician a n d

intermediate.

Meanwhile,

the

as

to

their u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the types, b o t h a g r e e that t h e y alike d e v e l o p t h e s o c i o l o g y of d o m i n a t i o n , t h o u g h t h e y differ in their methodic

viewpoints. In

discussed though both

the

sociology of

both

is

try

found

psychology

t h i s c a s e , it s h o u l d b e

to

in the

of the

domination

grasp

the

city,” w h i l e

earlier

types of

fact that

the the

noted that S i m m e l than

cities,

former

W e b e r .

a i m e d

latter a i m e d

A n d

the difference of at “ the

at

“ the

social

typology

o f cities.” Thirdly, about “ numerical is n e e d l e s s t o s a y the

former,

ideal

of

a n d

“ numerical

admits

a n d

in these concepts

W e b e r

p r a c t i c a l life o n l y W e b e r

that

calculability”

t h e latter.

through

S i m m e l

S i m m e l

calculability”

has

the m o n e y

that “ calculability”

“ calculability.” m a k e s

use

It of

admits early that the

bee n

m a d e

eco no my .

O n

possible

in

the contrary,

is c l o s e l y c o n n e c t e d

with

law

a n d a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , b u t a b o v e all, m o d e r n b u r e a u c r a c y a n d m o d e r n capitalism. T h e s e

concepts

used

b y

both

in spite of the contextual differences Fourthly, about referred

to the

the

up

the

severely.

This

point that

both

is

M a r x i a n

labor

theory

v a l u e . ” 62

A n d ,

they are

w h e n

feature used.

have already

a n d W e b e r consider their thesis. Especially S i m m e l

of

value,

a n d

criticizes

it

the paradoxical logic s h o w n

in

“ It is a f a l l a c y t o r e v e r s e t h e p o s t u ­

ethically

‘ all v a l u e is l a b o r ’ i n t o t h e equal

S i m m e l

is s u b s t a n t i a t e d b y

perhaps

in w h i c h

as their o w n

S i m m e l ’s f o l l o w i n g s e n t e n c e : late that

a c o m m o n

pluralistic v i e w of society. W e

confrontation against M a r x takes

have

groundable

one S i m m e l

in

the

statement

* all l a b o r is v a l u e / a n d

W e b e r

that

t h a t is,

criticized at

of the

G e o r g

s a m e

time the

tion of

historical m a t e r i a l i s m o r

history in

1905,

S i m m e l

S i m m e l

a n d

M a x

89

W e b e r

the materialistic c o n c e p ­

sharply

c r i t i c i z e d it s a y i n g t h a t

the historical m a t e r i a l i s m o r the materialistic c o n c e p t i o n of history confuses

the “ heuristic principle” w i t h the “ constitutive principle.”

T h e

principles are

an

t w o

investigation”

insisted.

a n d

eco no mi c

pluralistic v i e w M a r x ’s

D a s

a n d

ideal

events

a n d

W e b e r .

T hi s

of society. S i m m e l (3

vols.)

the m e a n s

here

capitalism,

W e b e r ’s

differs f r o m sees

a n d

admitting

nation,

he

standpoint,

w h i c h

h e

material

m a k e s a n d

“a

for

diagnosis of

criticizes

it. O n

has a n

separation

W e b e r

“ the

rationality.” of

they

agree

essence of socialism. A n d diagnosis, S i m m e l arts a n d

a n d

society, a n d

in the respect

arts, w h i l e W e b e r

though

of

see it

S i m m e l

in socialism. super-subordi­

fro m

his

liberalistic

W e b e r

sees

the

inescapable general

bureau­

b o t h differ in

try to understand

the

it is i n d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d t o t h i s s o c i a l

W e b e r

consider

the relation b e t w e e n

b o t h a g r e e in this respect.

that S i m m e l

w e

of

into t h e socialistic o r g a n ­

in that t h e y

as

a diag­

M ea nw hi l e,

the contrary,

insight into “ the

product

Therefore,

existence

socialism

diagnosis

a n t i n o m y

capitalism,

the

“ capital­

the

also m a k e s

recognizes

the

of

“alien” to the

cratization” in socialistic society. T h e r e f o r e , t h o u g h their viewpoints,

socialism

related

reaction to rationalism”

reason

a

a n d

in m a k i n g is

understanding

a n d

the

inter­

without

l a b o r itself w h i c h

penetration of professional bureaucracy ization, a n d

the

S i m m e l ’s c r i t i c i s m o f c a p i t a l i s m .

“ rationalism”

A n d ,

clearly

A n d ,

capitalistic e r a

essential

capitalism

is

of labor a n d

in

reciprocity

take

with

criticizes capitalism.

rationality

both

w h o w a s well acquainted

of his labor, formal

W e b e r

their

in the

of

points

to

that the laborer nosis

in

recognizes

istic d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n ” b r i n g s a b o u t . he

w h i c h

independent variable.

social diagnosis of

Kapi t a l

laborer f ro m

preparation of

their similar viewpoints,

events as the

S i m m e l

o n

“ the

p l u r a l i s t i c v i e w o f s o c i e t y , t h a t is, b o t h

Fifthly, a b o u t the by

with

events

taking economic m a d e

“ the conclusion”

In connection

the position of the pret

respectively equal to

tends

t ow ar d

tends t o w a r d the

the

B u t , t h e y differ

the philosophy

sociology of music.

of

the

9 0

G e o r g S i m m e l

W e a n d

hav e paid

M a x

W e b e r

already stated the differences of the views of S i m m e l

W e b e r .

w h o

a n d

N o w ,

w e

w o u l d like to t o u c h o n

attention to their relations.

r e c o g n i z e s W e b e r ’s c o n c e p t the thoughts of Friedrich H . begins

with

thing

in the

Dilthey

T h e r e

is a l s o

of the ideal types o n

a n d

Tenbruck.

the opinions of m e n

Simmel,

“ T h e r e

like a

m a n

w h o

a production

G e r m a n

of

sociologist,

is a s e r i a l l i n e o f t r a d i t i o n w h i c h

D i l t h e y ’s m a t t e r o f c o n c e r n special thing,

a

goes

w h i c h

b e y o n d

the

s h o w s form

the general

germinated

in

S i m m e l ’s , a n d e x t e n d s t o t h e c o n c e p t o f t h e i d e a l t y p e s o f W e b e r . W e b e r

s e e m s

to stand

o n

such

a

s e r i a l l i n e o f t r a d i t i o n . ” 63

Fol­

l o w i n g s u c h a s t a t e m e n t o f T e n b r u c k ’s , i n t h e y e a r 1 9 7 1 , a G e r m a n sociologist, H e r i b e r t

J. B e c h e r ,

S i m m e l ’s c o n c e p t o f t h e types, a n d

h e

types

said, “ W e b e r

at the

s a m e

of form.

W e b e r

clarifies t h e

designed

by

is t o s a y ,

Becher to

Bec he r

W e b e r

tensive parts, a n d up

of

the

ideal

‘typical ’ thing he

w a s

it.” 64

T h a t

of the

ideal

of the types. that

S i m m e l

his c o n c e p t

well as with is

w h i c h

strengthens

t h a t W e b e r ’s c o n c e p t

thinks

“ It

i n S i m m e l ’s c o n c e p t

stimulated

of interaction a n d with

his intuitive faculty

s u r e l y t o W e b e r ’s

and, at the s a m e

his c o n c e p t H o w e v e r ,

nections

b et w e e n of

of

this w a y

Simmel.

in e x ­

credit to h a v e

social

time,

interaction t hrough

to have

m o r e

his c oncept of

Becher appreciates W e b e r m o r e

there

is

S i m m e l ’s action,

no

doubt

concept a n d

again

of

sharply

that there

highly than

are close c o n ­

interaction b et w e e n

social

a n d

W e b e r ’s

S i m m e l ’s

formal

s o c i o l o g y a n d W e b e r ’s i n t e r p r e t i v e s o c i o l o g y . Schnabel also touches o n a matter of c o n ce rn of S i m m e l W e b e r ,

a n d

concern

to S i m m e l

w h i c h

the

the intuitive a n a l y z i n g o p e r a t i o n of S i m m e l in his ‘inter­

a c t i o n . ” 65 I n

concept

socially

with

as

says,

pretive ’ sociology, grasped

fictious e l e m e n t

S i m m e l ’s c o n c e p t

his sociological f o r m s taken

W e b e r ’s c o n c e p t

at that time, a n d

this,

sociology of M a x

time,

understands

types strengthened Previous

a n d

clearer the relation b e t w e e n

finds e x t r e m e l y clear also a constitu­

tive, a n d

S i m m e l

m a d e

has

s o let u s t a k e

a proper

a n d

it u p .

W e b e r ,

H e

said,

to confirm

“ It w a s

a

matter

a n d of

sociology as a science

field o f object, s u p e r c e d i n g t h e o l d d is ti nc t io n

G e o r g

S i m m e l

of natural science a n d historical science, idealism, a n d

English-French

utilitarianism a n d

of science ology as

in w h i c h a n

repeat,

a n d

historical m a t e r i a l i s m

is d e s c r i b e d

W e b e r

the situation

strove to establish

science at w h a t

is

called

“ the

soci­

turn of

the e n d of the 19th century to the 20th century.

it i s s u r e t h a t t h e r e

S i m m e l

91

W e b e r

philosophy of culture a n d

course, here

S i m m e l

independent

the century” from H o w e v e r ,

O f

M a x

in the center of G e r m a n

is d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r o m p s y c h o l o g y ,

n a t i o n a l e c o n o m i c s . ” 66

a n d

criticized

is a d i f f e r e n c e

encyclopedic

b e t w e e n

a n d

both.

synthetic

T o

sociology

f r o m the time of C o m t e ,

a n d brought forward formal sociology ; on

the other

later d e v e l o p e d

In

this

hand,

W e b e r

connection,

t w e e n

S i m m e l

W e b e r

inherited a

f rom

a n d

L a n d m a n n , W e b e r

n e w

S i m m e l . ” 57 T h i s

in

interpretive

w h o

the

handled

year

1957,

field o f s c i e n c e a s s h o w s

that S i m m e l

the

touch the

of

religion.

A n d

o n this point. T h a t

Protestant

ethic

so,

it

is

in

the year

1905,

“ E v e n

M a x

‘sociology of religion’ is a

still

is t o s a y , W e b e r

relation b e ­

said,

forerunner

s o c i o l o g y o f r e l i g i o n . It is u s u a l l y s e e n t h a t W e b e r of sociology

sociology.

of the

is t h e f o u n d e r

m o r e

necessary

to

w r o t e a treatise a b o u t

a n d

7 years before

that

S i m m e l h a d w r i t t e n his treatise, “ Z u r Soziologie d e r R e l i g i o n ” ( N e u e R u n d s c h a u , 9, 1898). I n this t reatise h e c o n s i d e r e d t h e sociology of religion as follows: “ T h e belief (Glaube), w h i c h m a n

Deutsche

has

considered

above schen

is

Menschen).

merely

L a n d m a n n

thought like M a x

b et w e e n

For a

a

essential relation

the

a m o n g

substance

m e n

of

religion,

(ein V e r h ä l t n i s

z w i ­

t h e i m p o r t a n t t h i n g is p r a c t i c a l b e l i e f w h i c h

low-level

or

declining

touches

o n

the difference of the s c h e m e s

w h o

S i m m e l

a n d

W e b e r ,

wrote

theoretical

o p i n i o n . ” 68

as follows:

trail o f its h i s t o r i c a l d e v e l o p m e n t , b u t

h i s t o r i c a l f a c t is t r a n s f o r m e d

thing. A s

“A

of

m a n

into a n e x a m p l e

to S i m m e l

of the general

a h i s t o r i a n h e r e m a i n s a l s o a p h i l o s o p h e r . ” 69 T h i s s h o w s

that the relation b e t w e e n cases of S i m m e l a

a n d

W e b e r could not express immediately a n y thought with­

out tracing the a n y

the

all, a p p e a r s a s

never

A n d

as

a n d

thought

W e b e r .

W e

sociologist, w h e r e a s t h e f o r m e r

a n d m a y

history

is i n v e r s e

in the

s a y t h a t t h e l a t t e r is o n l y

is a s o c i o l o g i s t a n d

at the s a m e

9 2

G e o r g

time

S i m m e l a n d

M a x

W e b e r

a philosopher. T h e difference of b o t h m i g h t b e seen essential­

ly in this respect. Finally, w e couples of can

w o u l d

S i m m e l

like to t o u c h a n d

W e b e r .

not afford to overlook,

them.

W h e n

referred to A n d

about

to Mrs. near

a n d

t w o

this

is

a

with Gertrud

thing

the

that w e

the relation b e t w e e n M a r i a n n e

Simmel,

she

W e b e r

states

that

I a l s o h a v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h G e o r g S i m m e l . ” 70

m o n t h s

W e b e r

Indeed,

in o r d e r to g r a s p

her friendship

husband

the friendship b e t w e e n

h er L e b e n s e r i n n e r u n g e n (1948)

in

“ m y

o n

before

his death

d a t e d July 4th,

S i m m e l wrote

1918, f r o m

Strasbourg

the front line in the First W o r l d W a r : — “ T h e r e

in a letter w h i c h

w a s

is n o l e c t u r e .

People are standoffish a n d heartily estranged, t h o u g h there are w o n d e r f u l e x c e p t i o n s . F o r t u n a t e l y , I c o u l d f i n i s h a f e w w o r k s . ” 71 T h i s m a y b e u n d e r s t o o d also a s his farewell letter to M r s . W e b e r . O n

the

Mrs.

W e b e r

ful a n d a

other hand,

in h e r a b o v e - m e n t i o n e d L e b e n s e r i n n e r u n g e n

regards

Mrs.

elegant, noble

refined N o r d i c

S i m m e l

w o m a n , ”

w o m a n

as “a

a n d

with a

tall a n d

“ blue-eyed

tender face.”

slender, grace­ with

T h e n ,

blond she

hair, writes

about Mr. a n d Mrs. Simmel, “ W h a t an odd-looking couple Gertrud S i m m e l a n d h e r h u s b a n d G e o r g a r e ! H e is b a r e l y o f a v e r a g e h e i g h t , a n d

s h o r t e r t h a n h i s w i f e , a t y p i c a l J u d e a n a n d h e is n o t b e a u t i f u l .

Rut,

w h a t

does

m o s t

brilliant m a n ?

H e

well

as

h u m a n e

his

his external a p p e a r a n c e

mild,

W e b e r gave her frank

enchanted

us

matter w o m e n

f r i e n d l i n e s s . ” 72

impressions

in the case

of M r .

by In

a n d

of

his insight this

Mrs.

w a y

a as

Mrs.

Simmel.

S h e

m u s t h a v e written these things, b e c a u s e there w a s indeed a friendship b e t w e e n t h e S i m m e l s a n d t h e W e b e r s . In this c o n n e c t i o n a s is s t a t e d a b o v e , Mrs.

W e b e r

S i m m e l

a n d

b et w e e n

both

w a s

Mrs. a

S i m m e l

w o m a n

W e b e r ,

w e

w a s

social

should

not

a

w o m a n

scientist. ignore

philosopher, W h e n

the

w a r m

w e

and

discuss

friendship

c o u p l e s d u r i n g t h e l a s t t e n y e a r s o f S i m m e l ’s l i f e . 7 3

Notes 1.

K .

G a s s e n u n d

M .

L a n d m a n n

(eds.), B u c h

des D a n k e s a n

G e o r g S i m m e l , 1958,

G e o r g S i m m e l

pp.

a n d

M a x

W e b e r

93

24-25.

2.

Ibid., p.

102.

3.

Ibid., p.

127.

4.

M a r i a n n e

W e b e r ,

M a x

W e b e r :

1926,

ein Lebensbild,

N e w

edition,

1950,

p.

408. 5.

Cf. M a r i a n n e

6.

M a r i a n n e

7.

P.-E.

8.

E.

9.

Cf.

W e b e r ,

W e b e r ,

Schnabel,

W e b e r :

ein Lebensbild,

M a x

W eb e r.

W e r k

u n d

11.

G .

S i m m e l ,

Ü b e r sociale Differenzierung,

12.

G .

S i m m e l ,

“A n f a n g

Kritik d er reinen

M .

L a n d m a n n

M .

W e b e r ,

m a n n , M .

Simmels, 1974, p. 102.

G e o r g

1964,

Person,

p. 626.

1781,

Vernunft,

1956, ed.

1890,

p.

b y

R.

S c hmidt,

p. 259.

13.

einer unv o ll e nd e te n Selbstdarstellung,” in K . G a s s e n

(eds.). B u c h

Wirtschaft

des D a n k e s

u n d

a n

1921-1922,

Gesellschaft,

1958,

G e o r g S i m m e l ,

1964,

ed.

u n d

p. 9. b y

J. W i n c k e l -

p. 3.

W e b e r ,

1913,

“ Ü b e r

einige K ategorien

der v erstehenden

Soziologie,”

Logos,

4,

p. 263.

15.

W e b e r ,

16.

G .

S i m m e l ,

Philosophie des Geldes,

17.

G .

S i m m e l ,

H a u p t p r o b l e m e

18.

375-409.

ibid., p. 614.

I. K a n t ,

14.

pp.

p. 542.

D i e soziologische G e s a m t k o n z e p t i o n

B a u m g a r t e n ,

10.

13.

1948,

Lebenserinnerungen,

M a x

Wirtschaft

u n d

Gesellschaft, p. der

I.

G .

u n d

Aufsätze,

u n d

Tür,

F r a g m e n t e

3rd

ed.,

1920,

p.

543.

1910, p. 36. C f .

Philosophie,

f r a g e n d e r Soziologie, C h a p .

S i m m e l ,

14.

1900,

ed.

b y

G .

G .

S i m m e l , G r u n d ­

K antorowicz, 1923, 2 n d

ed.,

1 9 6 7 , p. 8. 19.

Cf.

20.

W e b e r ,

21.

M a r i a n n e

22.

Cf.

G .

Brücke

Wirtschaft u n d

M .

ed. b y 23.

S i m m e l , W e b e r ,

W e b e r ,

W e b e r ,

24.

Cf.

S i m m e l ,

25.

W e b e r ,

26.

Cf.

27.

Cf. G .

G e s a m m e l t e

28.

Cf.

29.

W e b e r ,

30.

S i m m e l ,

31.

Ibid., p. 237.

32.

S i m m e l ,

33.

W e b e r ,

Aufsätze

pp.

u n d

G e s a m m e l t e

zur

u n d

u n d

1908,

3rd

Religionssoziologie, vol.

ed.,

Gesellschaft, p. 38.

p.

228.

Philosphie des Geldes, o p . cit., p p .

34.

S i m m e l , Loc. dt.

36.

Ibid., p. 483.

p. 484.

949-950.

Philosophie des Geldes,

p. 5.

p. 346.

Aufsätze z u r

Tür,

Wissenschaftslehre, 1922, 2 n d ed., 1951,

p. 499.

Gesellschaft,

Soziologie,

Wirtschaft

35.

1957, pp. 129-140.

Religionssoziologie, vol. 1, 1920,

zur

ibid., p. 1 02 . Brücke

L a n d m a n n ,

93-94.

Philosophie des Geldes,

Wirtschaft

S i m m e l ,

M .

Gesellschaft, p. 3.

G e s a m m e l t e Aufsätze

W e b e r ,

b y

op. dt., p. 355.

J. W i n c k e l m a n n ,

M .

ed.

p. 481.

1923,

p.

509.

1, p.

257.

94

G e o r g

S i m m e l

a n d

M a x

W e b e r

37.

Ibid., p.

498.

38.

Ibid., p.

499.

39.

Ibid., p.

500.

40.

Cf.

W e b e r ,

o p . cit., p . 6 0 .

41.

Cf.

W e b e r ,

G e s a m m e l t e Aufsätze

42.

Cf.

ibid., p.

43.

Cf.

W e b e r ,

44.

Cf.

ibid,,

z u r Religionssoziologie, vol. 1, p.

10.

11. Wirtschaft u n d

Gesellschaft, p. 220.

p. 7 1 6 .

45.

C f . G . S i m m e l , D i e P r o b l e m e d e r Geschichtsphilosophie, 189 2 , 4 t h ed., 1922, p. 210.

46.

W e b e r ,

47.

S i m m e l ,

48.

Ibid., p. 3 6 5 .

49.

Ibid., p. 515.

Wirtschaft

Gesellschaft, p. 259.

u n d

p. 514.

Philosophie des Geldes,

50.

Ibid., p. 559.

51.

Cf.

52.

S i m m e l ,

53.

Ibid., p. 364.

54.

Ibid., p. 376.

55.

Cf.

56.

G .

S i m m e l ,

57.

Cf.

W e b e r ,

Wirtschaft

W e b e r ,

G e s a m m e l t e

W e b e r ,

A u f s ä t z e z u r Religionssoziologie, vol.

G e s a m m e l t e

S i m m e l ,

p.

Soziologie,

G r u n d f r a g e n

58.

M .

59.

S i m m e l ,

60.

Ibid,, p. 558.

61.

W e b e r ,

179. 1917,

d e r Soziologie,

u n d

Gesellschaft, p.

2 n d

ed.,

1920,

p.

95.

165.

A u f s ä t z e z u r Soziologie u n d Sozialpolitik,

1924,

p. 498.

p. 556.

Philosophie des Geldes,

G e s a m m e l t e Aufsätze z u r

Religionssoziologie, vol.

1, p. 2.

62.

S i m m e l ,

63.

F . II. T e n b r u c k , “ G e o r g S i m m e l ( 1 8 5 8 - 1 9 1 8 ) , ” K ö l n e r Z e i t s c h r i f t f ü r S o z i o l o g i e

64.

H .

65.

Ibid., pp.

90-91.

66.

Schnabel,

o p . cit., p p .

67.

M .

u n d

op.

476. 10. J a h r g a n g ,

Sozialpsychologie,

J. B e c h e r ,

G e o r g S i m m e l .

L a n d m a n n ,

m a n n , 68.

cit., p .

1, p. 7.

p. 363.

Philosophie des Geldes,

H e f t

4,

1958,

D i e G r u n dl a ge n

p. 609.

seiner Soziologie,

1972, p. 91.

107-108.

“ Einleitung,” in

G . S i m m e l ,

Brücke u n d

Tür,

ed. b y

M .

L a n d ­

1957, x i n .

G .

S i m m e l ,

p.

116.

69.

L a n d m a n n ,

70.

M a r i a n n e

71.

G a s s e n

72.

M a r i a n n e

73.

Afterwards,

“Z u r

Soziologie der

op. dt.,

W e b e r ,

u n d

Deutsche R un dschau,

(eds.), B u c h

o p . cit., p p .

a n

essay “ G e o r g

in

it h e

b o o k

1898,

382.

des D a n k e s

a n

G e o r g S i m m e l ,

Soziologie w a s

S i m m e l

p.

135.

375-376.

a c c o rd i ng to a n A m e r i c a n sociologist, D o n a l d N .

S i m m e l ’s g r e a t

9,

X V H - X V I I I .

I^ebenserinnerringen, p.

L a n d m a n n

W e b e r ,

Religion,” N e u e

published

in the

year

Levine, just after

1908,

W e b e r

w ro t e

als S o z i o l o g u n d T h e o r e t i k e r d e r G e l d w i r t s c h a f t , ” a n d

criticized severely a s

follows.

“ In particular, crucial

aspects of

m et h -

G e o r g

odology his

of S i m m e l

manuscript.

those

d a y s

to

F o r

are unacceptable.” h e

publish

t h o u g h t his

Sociologist,” Introduction b y

1, 1 9 72, p. 157, p. 158.)

But,

that

manuscript. D o n a l d N .

it

h e

S i m m e l

withheld

b e c o m e s (Cf. M . Levine,

a n d

a n

M a x

a n n o u n c e m e u t

unfavorable W e b e r ,

W e b e r

to

“ G e o r g

Social Research,

9 5 of

S i m m e l

of

S i m m e l

as

vol. 39,

no.

Chapter Three Georg Simmel and Émile Durkheim

9 9

Georg Simmel and Emile Dürkheim

1. P r e f a c e It is k n o w n ologist, not

G e o r g

only

m e n t e d

that the

w o r k s

of a

S immel,

w e r e

early translated

that, o n

his essay,

b y “D a s

but also the F re nc h

G e r m a n

fact that

sociologists

P r o b l e m

der

philosopher a n d soci­ into French.

his w o r k s should

Sociologie”

be

w e r e

A n d

early c o m ­

n o t e d . F i r s t o f all,

{Jahrbuch

f ü r

Gesetz­

g e b u n g ,V e r w a l t u n g u n d Volkswirtschaft i m Deutschen Reich, XVIII,

1894), in w h i c h

h e

asserts positively

a s a s p e c i a l s c i e n c e , ” t h a t is, “ t h e

t h a t t h e r e is “ t h e

sociology

o n

the

sociology

forms

of

re­

lation a m o n g m e n ” a s against t h e C o m t i a n - S p e n c e r i a n e nc y c l o p e d i c a n d

synthetic sociology, w a s

problème

de

at o n c e translated into F r e n c h :

la s o c i o l o g i e ” { R e v u e d e

M é t a p h y s i q u e

et d e

Morale,

2, 1894). I n t h e

s a m e

year the translation of selected passages

his

Ü b e r

sociale D i f f e r e n z i e r u n g (1890),

first

book,

that

“L e

is,

of “ L a

différenciation sociale” { R e v u e internationale d e Sociologie, 2, 1894), and

h i s e s s a y , " L ’I n f l u e n c e d e

caractères

des

Sociologie,

1, 1 8 9 4 )

Célestin Bouglé a

F re nc h

sociétés” w h o

also

n o m b r e des

{Annales

appeared.

called himself

d e

u ni t é s sociales s u r les

l'Institut

international

T h e

latter w a s

“ a n

independent

sociologist, E m i l e D u r k h e i m ,

a n d

translated b y disciple” of

this c o r r e s p o n d s to a

part of the second chapter (Die quantitative G r u p p e ) o f S i m m e l ’s S o z i o l o g i e ( 1 9 0 8 ) . S u b s e q u e n t l y , S i m m e l ’s e s s a y , “ C o m m e n t

Bestimmtheit

T h e

first v o l u m e

der

les f o r m e s sociales se

maintiennent,” 1 translated b y D u r k h e i m himself, w a s published the

de

in

of L ' A n n é e sociologique w h i c h h e f o u n d e d in 1898.

original of this e ss a y w a s

“ Die

Selbsterhaltung

der sozialen

100

G e o r g

S i m m e l a n d

É m i l e D ü r k h e i m

G r u p p e ” (J a h r b u c h

f ü r

schaft

Reich, X X I I , 1898), w h i c h c o r r e s p o n d s to the S i m m e l ’s S o z i o l o g i e . A f t e r t h a t , G . S i m m e l ’s

i m

eighth

Deutschen

chapter

of

Gesetzgebung,

M é l a n g e s d e p h i l o s o p h i e relativiste.

translated b y

sophique,

subtitle s h o w s ,

this F r e n c h

contains

to

his

gie des

in

the

can

w h o

18.90's.

P r o b l e m

der

rendered

into F r e n c h

conception

because

translation of “E x k u r s

in the

here o n e

sociologist,

w o r k s

S i m m e l ’s e s s a y s

(1911),

K u l t u r

its not

it a l s o

relating t o his sociology, “ E s s a i s u r la s oc io lo ­

logie d er S i n n e ” f o u n d Fre nc h

A s

of culture. B u t the translation d o e s

s e n s , ” t h a t is, t h e

Meanwhile,

Volkswirt­

published in 1912.

translation contains

Philosophische

his essay

u n d

Contribution à la culture philo­

A. Guillain, w a s

relating to his philosophy correspond

V e r w a l t u n g

ninth

m a k e

paid

H e

m ention

in

sociologique

d u

“a

of

Alfred

Fouillée,

a t t e n t i o n t o S i m m e l ’s 1896,

o n

t w o

in his book,

considers sociology as

chapter of his Soziologie.

c o m m e n t e d

Sociologie,”

über die Sozio­

L e

S i m m e l ’s

years

sociological essay,

“ D a s

it

been

had

m o u v e m e n t positiviste et la

(1896).

m o n d e

after

a

In

special science”

this

a n d

b o o k

Fouillée

recognizes

that

it

c o n t a i n s a “f o r m a l p a r t . ” B u t h e c r i t i c i z e s t h a t “ S i m m e l c o m m i t t e d the error of building u p a n d

w h o l e

of

sociology o n

science

the

w h i c h

this w a y

opinion

sociology seems

to reduce

itself

to abstractification

t h a t s o c i a l ‘f o r m s ’ c a n

In short. Fouillée falling

into

reality of sociology the

abstract

one

goes

so far as

be discovered

history.

H e

science”

w a s

o n e

only

to

hold

the

b y reason, a n d

b e written a priori."2

of

w h i c h the

destroys

first

the concrete

critics o f

S i m m e l ’s

in France. s a m e

time

w h e n

F o u i l l é e ’s

of Bouglé,

w h o

graduation

f ro m

N o r m a l e

T h e

abstract

p a r t i c u l a r l y c r i t i c i z e s t h a t S i m m e l ’s s o c i o l o g y i s

“a n

m o n o g r a p h Les

to a n

in

is t o o d e s t r u c t i v e o f t h e c o n c r e t e r e a l i t y o f h i s t o r y .

that their constitution or their evolution c a n

A t

this m a t t e r , ”

f u r t h e r c r i t i c i z e s S i m m e l ’s s o c i o l o g y a s f o l l o w s : “ T h i n k i n g

this m a n n e r , O n

the

Ecole

sciences sociales

subtitle of

en

w e n t

w a s

to G e r m a n y Supérieure,

A l le m a g ne .

this b o o k ,

b o o k

Les

Les méth o d e s

published,

to study

w a s

méthodes actuelles,

the

after his

also published: actuelles

w a s

(1896).

rewritten

G e o r g S i m m e l

a n d

entitled

(1912).

It

“ L e

conflit

des

f ro m

the

is c l e a r

that the G e r m a n

this b o o k

L a z a r u s ’ folk psychology, political e c o n o m y

a n d

moral

science, toward

assumption

the

that

takes

considers

points out “ A n

to a b a n d o n Thus,

science a n d kind of

“a

w h o

itself,

a n d

looks

former B y

forward

morality.”4

should w ay ,

in

a

E i n ­

w h i c h

moral

in

Simmel's

science,

H e r e

u p

away,

c o n ­

o n

the

science

Steinthal”

concede to

its

is and

A n d

the birth

finds

as everybody

w h e r e

of

a

positive

taking

moral

part

in a n y

its t u r n a n y

at

the

f ro m

Bougie,

the

it h a s

the evaluation of

judging

a n d

applying

place to observation.

formulating in

o n e

overlooked

b y

to the point

S i m m e l ’s a t t e m p t

D u r k h e i m

have

Lazarus a n d

pushed

without

science.

w e r e b o r n in 1858. former

of

early work,

moral

s p i r i t f o r i t, w i t h o u t

value o n

b e t w e e n

the

be

it m u s t

prepares the

of a positive m o r a l relation

a

of l a w

i n S i m m e l ’s m o r a l s c i e n c e a s f o l l o w s :

recognition of morals,

sets m u c h

with Moritz

m en t i o n

sciences,

disciple of

m u s t

of imperative, a n d

positive

into consider­

useful, b u t a l s o t h e m o s t difficult t o c o n s t i t u t e . ” 3

thought

S i m m e l

taken

S i m m e l ’s

of

social

the principal a i m

criticism of

revised

the third edition”

(2 vols., 1 8 9 2 - 1 8 9 3 ) ,

establishing

S i m m e l

abstract

b ee n

ed.,

J h e r i n g ’s p h i l o s o p h y

note of

“ o f all t h e

perhaps the m o s t H e

3rd

to

century. M a k i n g

leitung’ in d i e M o r a l w i s s e n s c h a f t

tributed

its

101

D u r k h e i m

S i m m e l ’s m o r a l s c i e n c e , A d o l f W a g n e r ’s

19th

Bouglé

É m i l e

Bouglé deals mainly

Rudolf v o n

latter half o f t h e

in

“ Introduction

“ Methodenstreit” h a d

ation at that time. In

the

m é t h o d e s ”

a n d

is

kind

Bougie

establishment

the master-disciple it p o s s i b l e

that the

t h e l a t t e r ’s v i e w s ?

kno ws ,

both

D u r k h e i m

a n d

S i m m e l

A n d both died during the First W o r l d W a r :

1917, a n d

t h e latter in

1918.

Consequently,

the

though

of

different nationality, b o t h w e r e p r o p e r l y k n o w n as c o n t e m p o r a r i e s a n d b o t h of t h e m w e r e J e w s . But, o n e w a s the s o n of a rabbi, a n d

the other of a

D u r k h e i m ’s c a r e e r . Vosges,

Jewish H e

in Lorraine,

w a s

merchant. b or n

N o w ,

at Épinal,

the eastern province of

let u s o u t l i n e y o u n g in the prefecture of France.

A n d

after

h a v i n g r e c e i v e d h i s f i r s t e d u c a t i o n a t C o l l è g e d ’É p i n a l i n h i s h o m e ­ town,

he

studied

at

L y c é e

Louis-le-Grand

in

Paris,

a n d

then

102

G e o r g S i m m e l

entered

École

graduated c a m e

a n d

É m i l e D u r k h e i m

N o r m a l e

f r o m

École

N o r m a l e

a professor of

Saint-Quentin

Supérieure.

a n

w e r e

A m e r i c a n

philosophy

twenty-one

w h e n

1879. After graduation, a n d

taught

in L y c é e s

he

he

of

be ­

Sens,

to the University of

sociologist,

H a r r y

Bordeaux.

Alpert,

According

for D u r k h e i m

“ these

the years n o t only of apprenticeship but also of sociological

debut.”5 absence a n d

in

w a s

a n d T r o y e s f r o m 1 8 8 2 t o 1 8 8 7 , t h a t is, f o r f i v e y e a r s

until his a p p o i n t m e n t to

H e

Dur in g in

these

years,

1885-1886,

the second

D u r k h e i m

took

t h e first h a l f o f

half in G e r m a n y .

a

w h i c h

y e a r ’s

he

In G e r m a n y

leave

spent

of

in Paris,

h e called at several

u n i v e r s i t i e s , b u t it w a s a t L e i p z i g a n d B e r l i n t h a t h e s t a y e d l o n g e s t . In

Leipzig,

chology

he

of

views

of

deeply

W i l h e l m the

W a g n e r

w a s

a n d

W u n d t .

A c a d e m i c Gustav

semester

did

m e e t

not

wrote en

a

Well,

w h o

it

personal

wrote

is

the

given

not

he

experimental took

Albert

notice of the such as

Schäffle,

a n d

of

lectured

as a

pri­

University of Berlin

from

the

1885.

S i m m e l

psy­

But

it s e e m s

that

D u r k h e i m

after his return f r o m G e r m a n y D u r k h e i m a n d

“ L a

science positive d e

s o forth.6 A c c o r d i n g l y , above-mentioned

m a n y

clear

as

suggestions to

w h e t h e r

m o n o g r a p h f r o m or

b e t w e e n them,

la m o r a l e

it i s c l e a r t h a t about

ten

these m o n o g r a p h s

not

there

connection b et w e e n D u r k h e i m a n d Simmel,

scientific c o n n e c t i o n

only

at the

series of m o n o g r a p h s ,

y e a r s later, w a s o f D u r k h e i m ’s .

a

A n d

A l l e m a g n e ” (1887)

Bouglé,

In those days

in the year

him.

the

(Kathedersozialisten)

Schmoller a n d

(Privatdozent)

s u m m e r

by

In addition,

socialists

v o n

J h e r i n g ’s t h e o r y o f l a w . vate lecturer

impressed

w a s

s o m e

but there w a s

because S i m m e l entered not

his n a m e a s o n e of the c o r r e s p o n d e n t s in L ' A n n é e sociologique

founded

by

D ur kheim,

but

to the G e r m a n - s p e a k i n g

also introduced

world, as

soon

as

its first e d i t i o n ( 1 8 9 8 ) it w a s p u b l i s h e d . 7 A c ­

c o r d i n g l y , it is c l e a r t h a t S i m m e l w a s f a i r l y i n t e r e s t e d i n D u r k h e i m . A s

a g a i n s t this, D u r k h e i m

Simmel. translated Gruppe,"

For, as

had

e ve n

has already bee n

S i m m e l ’s

essay,

into F r e n c h

a n d

“ Die

b ef or e this t a k e n interest in

mentioned,

D u r k h e i m

Selbsterhaltung

published

it

in L ' A n n é e

der

himself sozialen

sociologique.

G e o r g

S i m m e l

a n d

É mi l e

103

D u r k h e i m

M o s t o f all, h e w a s n o t o n l y c o n c e r n e d a b o u t s e v e r a l w o r k s o f S i m m e l f r o m t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e 1 8 9 0 ’s , b u t a l s o w r o t e c r i t i c i s m s o n

them.

A n d

(1890)

r u n g

works. w h o

that

t w o

to b e

started

S i m m e l ’s

D u r k h e i m ’s

Ü b e r sociale Differenzie­

first

interest

in

on

D e

this b o o k

la division

in the

notes

of the

“Introduction"

travail social (1893):

d u

b o o k s related to the question treated in o u r b o o k or

have

c o m e

of M r .

S i m m e l

of

division

the

to o ur attention.

First,

(Leipzig, VII-147p.), of

labor

“Since

1893,

have appear­

Sociale Differenzierung

in w h i c h

specifically,

dividuation in general.”8 T h e n D i e

S i m m e l ’s

T h i s can b e seen f r o m the following sentences of D u r k h e i m

c o m m e n t e d

of his boo k, ed

it a p p e a r s

but

it i s n o t a

of

the

t h e r e is t h e b o o k

question of

process

in­

o f K a r l B i i c h e r ’s ,

d e r Volkswirtschaft, translated recently into t h e title o f É t u d e s d ' h i s t o i r e e t d é c o n o m i e p o l i t i q u e

Entstehung

French

under

(1901),

in w h i c h

economic

“ several

labor.”

T h a t

chapters is t o

say,

are devoted D u r k h e i m

to the

division of

considers

S i m m e l ’s

Ü b e r sociale Differenzierung as the b o o k w h i c h h a s a p p e a r e d “ since

1893.” But,

a s it w a s

in t h e y e a r

1890

t h a t S i m m e l ’s f i r s t w o r k

w a s

p u b l i s h e d , D u r k h e i m s h o u l d h a v e s a i d , “ it h a s a p p e a r e d s i n c e 1 8 9 0 . ” A t

any

Ü b e r

r a t e , i t i s c l e a r t h a t D u r k h e i m g a v e a t t e n t i o n t o S i m m e l ’s

individuation”

is

found

in S i m m e l .

a

m a t c h

Furthermore, after a n d

treated.

articles b y

in

H e r e

while D u r k h e i m

his h a v i n g

writing. O f ed

as the b o o k

sociale D i ff e r e nz i e ru n g

G.

m a y

at B o r d e a u x ,

L ' A n n é e

sociologique

Simmel,

he

F o r m e n ”

L ’A n n é e

sociologique,

that D u r k h e i m

reviewed

besides

being

had

of Paris

m a n y

books

e ng a g e d

in

a n d articles, t h e f o l l o w i n g a r e r e v i e w ­

Philosophie

des

s o c i o l o g i q u e , vol. 5, 1 9 0 2 ; G . S i m m e l , “ Ü b e r

socialer

say

“ the process of

t au gh t at the U n i v e r s i t y

taught

S i m m e l ’s b o o k s

h im :

w e

in w h i c h

(Z e i t s c h r i f t

f ü r

Geldes

(1900)—

räumliche

Sozialwissenschaft,

vol. 7, 1 9 0 4 ; G .

Simmel,

“T h e

L ' A n n é e

Projektionen 6,

1903)—

N u m b e r

of

M e m b e r s a s D e t e r m i n i n g t h e S o c i o l o g i c a l F o r m o f t h e G r o u p ” (T h e A m e r i c a n

Jour n a l

vol. 7, 1 9 0 4 ; “ L e

of Sociology,

8,

premier C ongrès

1902/3)—

L ' A n n é e

allemand de

sociologique,

Sociologie.—

Corn-

104

G e o r g

S i m m e l

a n d

É mi l e

D u r k h e i m

m u n i c a t i o n s et d is cussions,” L ' A n n é e sociologique, vol. 12, 1913. M e a n w h i l e , D u r k h e i m w r o t e h i s Italian article, “ L a s o c i o l o g i a e d s c i e n t i f i c o ” (R i v i s t a i t a l i a n a d i s o c i o l o g i a , I V , 1 9 0 0 ) ,

il s u o d o m i n i o in

w h i c h

he

expressed

s everely criticized

his

o w n

conception

t h a t o f S i m m e l ’s .

But,

of

sociology

let u s t o u c h

u p o n

and this

later. Further, w e w h o

wrote

m u s t r e m e m b e r that there w a s a F r e n c h philosopher

a

b o o k

o n

S i m m e l while

S i m m e l lived : a professor of

p h i l o s o p h y at L y c é e d e Belfort, A l b e r t M a m e l e t . In the y e a r 1914 h e w r o t e a b o o k u n d e r t h e title o f L e r e l a t i v i s m e p h i l o s o p h i q u e c h e z G e o r g

S i m m e l b o o k

h e recognized that “the doctrine of G e o r g

is p a r t i c u l a r l y s i g n i f i c a n t . ” A n d

are

based the

because

S i m m e l ,

the

o n

f o l l o w i n g : first, t h e

S i m m e l ’s

conception

Einleitung

relativity of m o r a l

in

its a p p l i c a t i o n ,

value, k n o w l e d g e

sociological

relativism,

in general

aesthetical

in this

ideas being

Moralwissenschaft:

die

of total relativism a n d

relativity of e c o n o m i c knowledge,

the points treated

second,

that

and

is, t h e

historical

relativism,

and

religious r el a t i v i s m ; a n d third, t h e relativistic c o n c e p t i o n o f p h i l o s o ­ p h y

a n d

the

u n i t y o f life. A b o v e

relativism h e

said, “ T h e

clearly g o v e r n e d ticular, b y a

notion

the

by

sociology of

to S i m m e l

p o s i t i v e s c i e n c e is n o t t h e contrary, their

the theory

prerogatives

science.

T hi s

S i m m e l i a n of

the

been

to be

the

e n d

by

virtue of

fact causes

in

all o t h e r

establishment of

of

very

in p a r ­

a n d reciprocity of action,

applied

philosophy

of k n o w l e d g e

a n d

sociology as a

a t all,

metaphysics

their c on nection

all t h e d i f f e r e n c e s

scientific

but,

o n

the

r e t a i n i n g all

with

w h i c h

this n e w

separate the

sociological conception f r o m the sociological conception

contemporary

positivists.”9

S i m m e l ’s s o c i o l o g y

is n o t

also his philosophy

of

it i s s u g g e s t e d fro m

H e r e

only connected

life lies a t

the

the above,

it

is

with

pointed

that

his relativism, but

nature

differs f r o m

specially that of

it i s c l e a r

out

root of his sociology,

that his sociology of such

positivistic s o c i o l o g y of t h o s e days, Judging

S i m m e l ’s s e e m s

of the correlation

has already

fields. T h e r e f o r e ,

S i m m e l ’s s o c i o l o g i c a l

the directive ideas of his relativism,

notion

w h i c h

all, a b o u t

that D u r k h e i m

and the

D u r k h e i m ’s . during

his

G e o r g

life-time define

had

the

bee n

closely

relationship

S i m m e l

associated

b e t w e e n

a n d

with

S i m m e l

É mi l e

Simmel.

a n d

105

D u r k h e i m

In order

D u r k h e i m

in

to the

following sections, I w o u l d like to a p p r o a c h their m a i n sociological theories, b y reviewed

taking

by

D ur kheim.

S im melian a n d have

into consideration the above-mentioned W e

nee d

D u r k h e i m i a n

scarcely m a d e

to

c o m p a r e

sociology

such a n

all

w e

w a s

already

appointed

fro m as

have

Ecole

it w a s

years, a n d H e

years

Supérieure

in

the years

in 187 9.

the University

that D u r k h e i m

after his graduation

If w e

take

this period

of

B o r d e a u x

as

his m i d d l e

in the U n i v e r s i t y of Paris a s his later years.

S i m m e l

w a s

a sociologist a n d

p h i l o s o p h e r o f life.

in Berlin in 1858, t h e s a m e y e a r

A n d

after

studied at

graduating the

f r o m

Faculty

of

Philosophy,

w a s

twenty-three

h e sent in a dissertation o n

three articles lectured his

ethics

for

A l m a in

a n d

the

w h e n

s u m m e r

in

course

w a s

after

year

h e

1885

born.

of

Berlin.

in t h e y e a r

b e c a m e a n d

w a s

G y m n a s i u m ,

degree of Doctor

semester of that year.

professor

H e

he H e 1881,

K a n t ’s p h y s i c a l m o n a d o l o g y

the

years, the

D u r k h e i m

University

finished the

obtained

M a t e r

extraordinary

h e

thirty

w h e n

Friedrich-W e r d e r

a n d

a n

1887

is, a s h i s e a r l y y e a r s , w e c a n

born

of

in

w a s entirely a sociologist f r o m b e g i n n i n g to end. U n l i k e D u r k ­

heim,

H e

w e

V i e w o f Sociology

to the University of B o r d e a u x

his years of apprenticeship, that

consider the

because

a t t e m p t t o d a t e . 10

mentioned,

N o r m a l e

investigate

the m o r e

2. S i m m e l * s M e t h o d i c R e l a t i v i s m a n d H i s A s

a n d

w o r k s

with

of Philosophy. a

Privatdozent

lectured

on

K a n t ’s

In

he

b e c a m e

(außerordentlicher

1900

Professor),

which

m e a n t m e r e l y a n h o n o r a b l e position, not a definite position w i t h a n a d e q u a t e r e m u n e r a t i o n . H i s position r e m a i n e d u n f o r t u n a t e until h e t o o k t h e p o s i t i o n o f a full p r o f e s s o r o f p h i l o s o p h y a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y of Strasbourg in 1914. T h i s s l o w p r o m o t i o n w a s c a u s e d b y certain difficulties S i m m e l ’s T h o u g h

with senior,

S i m m e l

W i l h e l m but w a s

its a

Dilthey m a i n

J e w

w h o

cause

as w a s

w a s

w a s that

D ur kheim,

twenty-five he the

w a s

years a

Jew.

fact that the

106

G e o r g S i m m e l a n d

former

continued

s e e m s

to

country

be

of

France

to be

due

to

Prussia

under

affair at “ t h e

E m i l e D ü r k h e i m

unfortunate the

in c o m p a r i s o n

difference

under

the

b e t w e e n

turn of

the

the affairs

reign of William

the Third Republic w h i c h

w i t h the latter

II

a n d

w e n t through

century” fro m

the

in

the

those

of

the Dreyfus

19th century to the

20th. A s to

S i m m e l

1918,

taught

the year

of his teaching I lis a c a d e m i c

at

w h e n

the University of Strasbourg

fro m

the

ended,

the period

little o v e r

four years.

First W o r l d

at S t r a s b o u r g career can

be

w a s

W a r

only

divided

a

into

the early years

1914

(1881-

1900), t h e m i d d l e y e a r s ( 1 9 0 4 - 1 9 1 0 ) a n d the later y e a r s (1911-1918). T h r o u g h

these years

his

studies

covered

a

very

wid e

range

of

subjects, but in sociology the following w o r k s m a y b e n o t e d ; Ü b e r (1890), “ D a s P r o b l e m d e r S o ciologie” (1894)

sociale D i f ferenzierung

a n d

Philosophie

G e l d e s (1900)

des

in

his early

(1908) in his m i d d l e years, a n d G r u n d f r a g e n

years,

Soziologie

d e r Soziologie (1917)

in his later years. Before explaining the sociological conception of S i m m e l , all,

w e

will treat his m e t h o d i c

only

briefly here.

had

established

different f r o m

In w h a t the

the

relativism.

microscopic

sociology

macroscopic sociology

later, in this r e s p e c t h i s s o c i o l o g y

A n d

S i m m e l ’s a i m interaction

dividual-society” concept

of

is t o a p p r o a c h

a m o n g

mention

by

having

w h i c h

h a d

b ee n

since C o m t e .

it

A s

quite will b e

i s s i m i l a r t o D u r k h e i m ’s .

society

the individuals,

problem

interaction

w e

is c a l l e d “ t h e t u r n o f t h e c e n t u r y ” h e

seen the

N o w ,

first o f

microscopically through

t h a t is,

to treat

g oo d

c o m m a n d

a

(Wechselwirkungsbegriff)

as

the

the “ in­ of

the

“ mental

interaction a m o n g individuals” (seelische W e c h s e l w i r k u n g z w i s c h e n Individuen) w h i c h m e a n s the concept of society in a very c o m m o n sense.

Accordingly,

istically b y

Simmel,

w h o

using the c o n c e p t of interaction,

w hich

considers the society as a

w h i c h

considers the

precursor m e r e

understands

of the

functionalist.

functional­

rejects social realism

s u b s t a n c e a n d social n o m i n a l i s m

individual as a

functionalistic

society

substance.

sociological

I n S i m m e l ’s s o c i o l o g y

Although

theory,

he

t h e r e is t h e

he is

is a not

a

functional-

G e o r g

istic v i e w

as

S i m m e l

a n d

Émile

well as the psychological m e t h o d

historical a n d ethnological

materials. H e r e i n

w h i c h

there

107

D u r k h e i m

manipulates

is h i s m e t h o d i c

relativism. Simmel,

in his distinguishing sociology as

beginning”

f ro m

other sciences

sociale Differenzierung,

relativism has

and

thinks

“ the general

w a y

fro m

the

o n

the

that sociology

w h i c h

material

takes “a

but

task of sociology as

follows:

scribe

the

the

1890

forms

“a

science

is

o n l y just

h i s first w o r k ,

position of

of

f r o m

n e w the

“a

n e w

this

Ü b e r

methodic

science”

w h i c h

of a group, a n d groups

m a y consider

this a s h a v i n g a

form.

A n d

h e

task of

starts

sets u p

sociology

gathering ( Z u s a m m m e n s e i n )

is a m e m b e r

as

standpoint” w h i c h

“ It is t h e

t o find t h e rules a c c o r d i n g t o w h i c h

of sociology

in

point of view, the unity of ultimate purpose, the

of study” a n d

not

stands

in

of

the

to

d e ­

m e n

a n d

the individual, insofar a s

he

r e l a t e t o o n e a n o t h e r . ” 11 W e

taken a step t oward the establishment

special science.

S i m m e P s

essay

in

1894,

“ D a s

P r o b l e m d e r Sociologie,” results f r o m this a t t e m p t at t h e establish­ m e n t

of

sociology

note, t h o u g h

it h a s

u p o n

“ the

as a

science of the

special science. seven

Thi s

pages.

In

essay

it h e

is w o r t h y

of

insists

positively

s p e c i a l s c i e n c e , ” t h a t is, “ t h e

sociology

f o r m s of relation a m o n g m e n ” so as

to m a k e

independent science as against the Comtian-Spenceri-

encyclopedic

sociology

only

sociology as a

sociology a n a n

as a

a n d

is a l r e a d y

synthetic sociology. T h e r e sketched

roughly,

his Soziologie a n d his G r u n d f r a g e n

a n d

his conception

is d e v e l o p e d

d e r Soziologie.

of

later in

S i m m e l , in this

essay, while regarding individual interests a n d contents, w h i c h are realized

in

a n d

by

sociation

(Vergesellschaftung),

as

the

subject

matters of special sciences, takes “ the f o r m a n d f o r m s of sociation as

such,”

t h a t is,

w h a t

is c a l l e d “ t h e

specifically social”

s u b j e c t m a t t e r o f s o c i o l o g y . It is j u s t l i k e p s y c h o l o g y springs f r o m

of special sciences, traces “ a T o

put

the

as a science

t h e differentiation o f “ t h e specifically p s y c h i c a l ” f r o m

its o b j e c t i v e m a t t e r s ( M a t e r i e n ) . S o c i o l o g y n o w ,

sociology

as

n e w

one.”

it m o r e

concretely,

S i m m e l

in

following:

according

the

through the realm

finds t h e to

subject

him,

m at te r of

society,

in

its

108

G e o r g

broadest

S i m m e l a n d

sense,

É m i l e D u r k h e i m

“ is p r e s e n t

interactions.” F r o m in t ak in g a

w a l k

the

Middle

Ages,

kind

a n d

aims,

a s it w e r e ,

h e

of

special by

ately

the

association with of

never

the pursuance interaction,

of

of

s a m e

society

f o r m

m o s t

m o s t

varying

takes place,

these aim s

or

a

form,

the

s a m e

material

forth,

t h i s is

the

the entire existence

rests u p o n

a n d

varied

call

sociation, the

of scientific abstraction. F o r

the

the

“ T h e particular causes a n d

t h e c o n t e n t c l o t h e s itself, a n d

place in the

others

material of t h e social process ; that the

a n

science

enter into

unity of a family or a guild of

sociation naturally

body,

m e a n s

that

individuals

recognizes “ sociation

their bearers, in w h i c h

take

to the complete

these causes,

f o r m

f or m

the purely ephemeral

w h i c h

the

results of

a

several

degree,” a n d goes o n to say:

without

a m o n g

w h e r e

isolation of

this

it t u r n s o u t i m m e d i ­

kind

a n d

of

sociation

for the m o s t

can

diverse

a i m s . ” 12 I n s h o r t , i n s o c i a l l i f e t h e r e a r e t h e p a r t i c u l a r c a u s e s a n d a i m s w h i c h f o r m its m a t e r i a l o n t h e o n e h a n d a n d t h e r e is t h e “ interaction” forth b y by

such

taking

as “a

or

the “ sociation”

causes a n d

this f o r m

as

aim s its

o n

w h i c h

“f o r m ”

is

called

the other hand, a n d sociology,

subject

matter,

t o s a y , S i m m e l ’s a t t e m p t

parts,

t h a t is,

based

o n

a

sociation

the

c o m e s

into existence

Kantian

w h i c h

viewpoint.

constitutes

trust a s well a s in a in a

family, but s a m e

school

forms

of

in a

b a n d

o f art, in a

not only

also,

of such

sociology in a

influence,

in a

public gathering as well unions. F o r

superordination

a n d a

all s t a g e s o f f r e e d o m

themselves,

the

of conspirators,

the formation of

vidual in relation to groups, external

finds

example,

h e

subordination,

of

hierarchy,

of the g r o u p - f o r m i n g principle in symbols,

in parties, groups

S i m m e l

is

h e finds f o r m a l similarities also in the special

competition, of imitation, b od im en t

A n d

the sociation (form),

the subject matter of

configurations a n d developments the

t o d i v i d e s o c i a l life i n t o t w o

material (content) a n d

religious c o n gr eg a ti on as well as

finds

its

special science of society.”

Needless

as

as

a n d a n d

the h e

the

o n

the division

restriction of

interaction

definite goes

or

forms to say:

a n d of

the e m ­ the

indi­

stratification of reaction

“Thi s

against

similarity

of

G e o r g

form

a n d

its d e v e l o p m e n t , complete

S i m m e l a n d

in spite of

É m i l e

109

D u r k h e i m

the case of

groups often

with

the m o s t

h e t e r o g e n e i t y o f material definitions,

re­

veals

force lying b a c k o f these i m m e d i a t e definitions, a n d suggests

the possibility o f constituting b y abstraction a legitimate r e a l m of investigation ; namely,

that of sociation as s uc h

a n d

the study

of

its f o r m s . T h e s e f o r m s a r e e v o l v e d t h r o u g h c o n t a c t s o f i n d i v i d u a l s , but are

relatively

their s u m

the abstraction— social

groups

f o r m s ” c o m e

independent

m a k e s

u p

m a y

be, w e

can

It g o e s

social

p h e n o m e n o n , merely

are

of or,

d e m a n d s

a

forms

m a k e s

saying

as

such

w h e r e v e r

u p

A n d

to him,

not,

at

content.” be

in

w e

each

the s a m e

A n d

its

individuals thing of

find t h e

subject

its f o r m s ” o r

particular

time,

this c o n t e n t

of a

subjective

this i m m e d i a t e b y

c o m p a r i n g

“deals with

historical

a

constitution

m a y

nature.

be

of a n

or o b ­

A c c o r d i n g to

unification of content a n d

forms

in his w o r k

sociology

the m e r e

that sociology should

sociology”

deal

f or m

which,

with

“ sociation as

T h i s

find t h e middle

years,

of

his sociology

p a r t s , t h a t is, “ f o r m a l

sociology” or “ pure

“sociology

as

Soziologie.

soci­

A n d w e

d e r Soziologie,

w h i c h

a

a n d

of this “ for ma l

consists of

in find

three

sociology” (reine Sozi­

ologie), “ g e n e r a l s o c i o l o g y ” ( a l l g e m e i n e Soziologie) a n d sophical sociology” (philosophische Soziologie). O f these, f r o m

such

is h i s “ f o r m a l

maturity

o f his latter years, G r u n d f r a g e n

results

ac­

spatial f o r m s of bodies,” h e

of sociation.” of the

to g e o m e t r y

the large-scale s y s t e m

sociology

a n d

the concrete

that h e r e

m i x e d

o l o g y ” (formale Soziologie). W e w o r k

these

heterogeneous

content a n d “ sociation a n d

it m a y

its f o r m s ” o r “ t h e

the

“ sociation

and

designate by

find in historical reality d o e s n o t p r e v e n t their scientific

separation. cording

find

contact,

w e

sociology.

a n d

however,

w e

find

in reality

social

development

w h i c h

w h i c h

t h e r e is n o “ s o c i a l c o n s t i t u t i o n o r d e v e l o p m e n t w h i c h

jective kind, Simmel,

basis of such

thing

their s u m

to Sim me l,

forms

can

without

matter of S i m m e l i a n

is

w e

into contact, a n d

A cc ording

the

s o c i e t y . ” 13 T h a t i s t o s a y , h o w e v e r

in t h e m ,

“ society.”

of

that concrete

m e t h o d

“ philo­ general

(Soziologie

als

Methode),” philosophical sociology corresponds to the philosophical

110

G e o r g S i m m e l

a n d

É m i l e D u r k h e i m

p a r t o f s o c i o l o g y w h i c h is c o m p o s e d o f “ t h e e p i s t e m o l o g y o f society” a n d “ the philosophy of society.” B u t his s y s t e m of soci­ ology h a d

w a s not for me d

already

W o r l d b o o k

W a r

been

i n h i s m i d d l e y e a r s . 14 A n d

b r o k e out, D u r k h e i m

published

well

s u d d e n l y in his latter years, b u t in s u b s t a n c e

built u p

during the

could

war.

n o t s e e S i m m e l ’s f o r e g o i n g

H o w e v e r ,

he

t h e c o n t e n t s o f S i m m e l ’s w o r k p u b l i s h e d

T o u c h i n g here,

he

o n

.the subject

thinks

that only

matter

a s the First

of

m us t

have

k n o w n

in his m i d d l e years.

S i m m e l ’s

sociology

associations (Associationen) a n d

again c o m b i ­

n a t i o n s ( V e r e i n i g u n g e n ) i n t h e n a r r o w e r s e n s e , t h a t is, i n t h e s e n s e of a

cooperation

or a

h a r m o n i c

connection,

never

belong

in “ so­

ciology as a science of the f o r m s of relation a m o n g m e n . ” “ A l s o opposition (Gegnerschaft) a n d competition (Konkurrenz) bring about, or

rather are relations, interactions a m o n g

the

individuals

w h i c h s h o w , in spite o f b e i n g p r o m p t e d b y the m o s t different k i n d s o f c a u s e s , s i m i l i a r f o r m s a n d d e v e l o p m e n t . ” 15 S o , i n “ r e ­ lations, interactions a m o n g m o m e n t

the

of association s u c h

individuals” h e

finds n o t o n l y the

as associations a n d combinations, but

the c h a nc e of separation such as opposition a n d competition. T h a t is t o s a y , b o t h are developed kinds a n d

opposition by

a n d

the contact

competition of m e n

point

with

sources of their forces m u s t

each

be

to forces w h i c h other.

studied

A n d ,

by

the

themselves

in order to k n o w h o w the m o s t extraordinary diversities of m o t i v e s a n d contents in single cases nevertheless c au se a similarity in t h e

forms

sociology the

forms

T h e n , H e

o f relation.

proves to be w h a t

kind

to be

parative psychological

that

giving

help,

together, the

it

m o r e

“ the

S i m m e l

methods,

sciences. A t w h i c h

use

b y the

in his sociology ?

w h i c h s a m e

the b ot to m

the problems as

in all c o m ­

lie c e r t a i n

psycho­

n o science of history c a n exist at

concretely,

of love a n d

m e a n both

those of separation.

investigated,” are

logical p r e m i s e s w i t h o u t put

subject matter of S i m m c l i a n

of m e t h o d s did

is o f t h e o p i n i o n

T o

the

“ the forms of sociation” w h i c h

of association a n d

of sociation are

all.

Thus,

hate, of

the

p h e n o m e n a

avarice

a n d

of

seeking

pleasure

self-preservation of individuals with

and

in living

the s a m e

goals

Georg

through

competition

o n

the other, a n d

be

assumed,

may ,

existence only

b y

so on.

A n d

a n

selecting f r o m

trace b a c k

be

through

psychical.”

e c o n o m i c

to certain Likewise,

111

D u r k h e i m

combination events must

the occurrence

of relations of a n individual

the

s u m

history c o m e s

of

into

historical situations

needs physically induced, a n d “ there

b e c a u s e certain specific f o r m a t i o n s m a y

a n d

Ém ile

a f t e r all, u n d e r s t a n d

formations of groups,

a n d

w h i c h

h a n d

a n d

a chain of other primary psychical

to the whole,

yet always

the o n e

so that w e

of sociations, of

“ those

o n

S i m m e l

is

within

a

science of

society

that historical c o m p l e x

referred to psychical states a n d actions that p r o c e e d only

f r o m social contact, f r o m the m u t u a l influence of g r o u p s a n d of i n d i v i d u a l s . ” 16 T o p u t it c o n v e r s e l y , “ a s c i e n c e o f s o c i e t y , ” o r sociology,

explains certain

states a n d

actions” w h i c h

of individuals a n d ology

needs

reason

the

N o w ,

S i m m e l first

ment.” F o r

formations

find expression

of groups.

H e r e

psychological

m o r e clearly

follows

historical w e

in c o m p a r i s o n

“ psychical

in the m u t u a l

find t h e

method,

f r o m

but

reason

w e

relations w h y

shall

soci­

find

with the philosophy of

this

history.

f i n d s t w o c o u r s e s i n s o c i o l o g i c a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n . “ It

the

longitudinal

example,

direction

of

a

particular

the history of the G e r m a n i c

association of provinces

in G e r m a n y ,

develop­

tribe, o r

of the

or of t h e parties in E n g l a n d ,

or of the f o r m s of the R o m a n family, or of a trade union, or of t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n o f a c h u r c h , is i n s o f a r s o c i o l o g i c a l a s s o c i a l forming nation, the m e r e

(gesellschaftliche F o r m u n g ) — the

s u m

ification of the

formation of a n

objective c o m m u n i t y

as over

against

of individuals, the g r o w t h of subdivisions, the m o d ­

the

social

g roup— appears

abstracted by

superordination a n d subordi­

f o r m in

the

through c o m p l e x

the quantitative p h e n o m e n a

changes

a n d

can

in be

i t s e l f . “ I t is, s e c o n d l y , t o l a y a c r o s s - s e c t i o n t h r o u g h

particular developments.” T h i s cross-section paralyzes the material differences of such developments w h i c h is c o m m o n such. In this case,

a n d establishes b y induction that

t o t h e m ; t h a t is, t h e s o c i a l c o n s t e l l a t i o n s a s these constellations m a y be the m o s t general

relations a n d their c h a n g e s w h i c h call forth t h e c o n s t a n t similarities

a n d

differences in the

persons

in every

individual

formation

of

112

Ge org

S i m m e l

a n d

Émile

D u r k h e i m

a c o m m u n i t y , or also the m o r e special f o r m i n g s of a c o m m u n i t y w h i c h a r e f o u n d in t h e sociations o f a definite territory, o r of a definite

period.

comparative

H e r e

method,

consisting of the shall

S i m m e l

write

or

by

understands using

vertical axis

a b o u t D u r k h e i m ’s

comparative

with

a n d

society skill

b y

the

using

cross-section

t h e horizontal axis.

attaching

importance

Later

to

method.

strictly f r o m

the philosophy of history. H e

philosophy of history in detail in his p h i l o s o p h i e (1892),

P r o b l e m

w e

his o w n

F r o m the viewpoint of the special task of sociology, sociology w h i c h has t w o m e t h o d s of study m en tioned separated

the

a n d

h e

refers to the

D i e P r o b l e m e der Geschichts­

touches o n

der Sociologie.” A c c o r d i n g

S i m m e l ’s a b o v e is

it a l s o i n h i s a r t i c l e ,

“D a s

to this article, t h e p h i l o s o p h y

o f h i s t o r y s e e k s t o b r i n g historical facts, e x t e r n a l a s w e l l a s p s y ­ chical,

in

their

entirety,

o p p o s i t i o n t o this, entirely to a

u n d e r

general

sociology as

a

set of p h e n o m e n o n

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . ” 17 N e e d l e s s in d ea li ng w i t h

special a n d

to say, them.

“ In

its i m m e d i a t e

sociology

A n d

he

m a y

complete

science...restricts

here S i m m e l

social p h e n o m e n a ,

logical interpretation” o n

concepts.

sets u p

prevent

psychological

emphasized

m u s t

itself that,

put a “ psycho­ “a

special

it f r o m

field”

in his sociology

in o r d e r that h e

“a m e r e

m e t h o d

for other sciences” or “ a m e r e n e w w o r d

c o m p l e x

o f all historical s c i e n c e s , ” n a m e l y , e n c y c l o p e d i c a n d s y n ­

thetic sociology. B y

t h i s s p e c i a l field S i m m e l m e a n s

of sociation, a n d

its i n n u m e r a b l e

w h a t

c o n d i t i o n is s o c i o l o g y p l a c e d

this s e n s e ? m u s t

be

ception to g o o d clopedic n e w

to

to Simmel,

arrest

of sociology,

claims, in w h i c h

for the

“ the function

forms a n d developments.” In b y

having

“ in w h i c h

the confusion

and,

in

of course,

in

“a

special field” in

(‘ a s p e c i a l f i e l d ’) w e the

conventional

after h a v i n g

con­

a b a n d o n e d

its

it c a n f o u n d a b o u n d a r y - s e c u r e d h o m e

p o s s e s s o r y r i g h t s . ” 18 T h u s , S i m m e l r e p l a c e s t h e e n c y ­ a n d synthetic sociology with “high-flown claims” b y sociology,

conception of

A cc ording

able

high-flown

a

of

ending

so

that

h e

of sociology” w h i c h

sociology.

A n d

h e

will

give

m a y

a b a n d o n

“ the

conventional

o r i g i n a t e s i n C o m t e ’s c o n c e p t i o n “a

boundary-secured

h o m e ”

to

G e o r g

this

n e w

a n d

o f its i n n u m e r a b l e

In

sociology w h i c h

contrast

w h a t

to

deals

forms

S i m m e l

with

a n d

“ the

sort of a sociological conception this q ue s t i o n

E m i l e

113

D u r k h e i m

function of

sociation,

developments.”

S i m m e l ’s s o c i o l o g i c a l

course, to a n s w e r

a n d

conception does

is t o m a k e

of

D u r k h e i m

this

kind,

s h o w ?

his f u n d a m e n t a l

O f

stand­

poi nt clear.

3. D u r k h e i m s

Metho dic

Rationalism

a n d

H i s

V i e w

of

Sociology D u r k h e i m

writes his

about

chapter

of

later o n

he presents

short essay, 1889),

a n d

L e s

“ W h a t

règles d e

la

his o w n

“M o rphologie in his essay,

is

a

social fact?”

m é t h o d e

sociologique

conception

sociale”

in

the

first

(1895),

a n d

of sociology, also in his

(L ' A n n é e

“ Sociologie et

sociologique,

sciences

sociales”

v o l . 2, { D e

la

m é t h o d e d a n s les sciences, First Series, 1909). Particularly, h e thinks,

in the “ P r e f a c e ” to that

sociologique,

the

first e d i t i o n o f

neither

the

spiritualist e x a c t l y b e c o m e s w h i c h such

he a

can

is

conduite

to

h e

goes

extend

humaine).

past, w h e n

o n

It

can

règles d e

materialist

rather

n a m e .

saying,

scientific

of

but

accept as his only

n a m e ,

jective

n a m e

him,

Les

“ In

A n d

nor

“ that of

reality, o u r

s h o w n

analyzed, can be reduced

effect. T h e s e r e l a t i o n s h i p s c a n t h e n

that

the

conduct

be

transformed,

of

the

b y a n equally

positivism

only

himself

to relationships of cause a n d

have

is

of

c o n d u c t (la

into rules of action for t h e future. W h a t

our

that

principal o b ­

logical operation, called

m é t h o d e

rationalist"

after giving

rationalism to h u m a n

be

la

o n e

certain

aspect

critics of

this

r a t i o n a l i s m . ” 19 T h e n D u r k h e i m c a l l s o u r a t t e n t i o n t o t h e p o i n t t h a t this r at io na l is m “ m u s t n o t b e c o n f u s e d w i t h the positivistic m e t a ­ p h y s i c s (la m é t a p h y s i q u e p o s i t i v i s t e ) o f C o m t e a n d M r . S p e n c e r . ” Needless

to say, here

alism different f r o m Spencer. i s m . 20

A n d

w e

of

methodic

t h e “ positivistic m e t a p h y s i c s ”

it i s c l e a r

Moreover,

find his s t a n d p o i n t that this standpoint

this clearly differs f r o m

thodic relativism of S i m m e l ,

w h o

affirms

the

leads

ration­

of C o m t e

a n d

to Cartesian-

standpoint of

that “ relativism as

m e ­ the

114

G e o r g S i m m e l

a n d

É mi l e D u r k h e i m

principle of recognition” w h i c h attaches i m p o r t a n c e to interactions at last a p p r o a c h e s In

the

t o S p i n o z i s m . 21

“ Conclusion”

of

states that his m e t h o d

his

above-mentioned

is e n t i r e l y

that

“ our m e t h o d

is

related to the standpoint he

refers to the

second

o b j e c t i v e . ” 22 of

D u r k h e i m

independent of philosophy,

s o c i a l f a c t s (les faits s o c i a u x ) a r e c o n s i d e r e d des choses) o r “ as social t h ings” ( c o m m e a n d

b o o k

“as things” ( c o m m e des

T h e s e

his m e t h o d i c

choses

views

sociales),

are

rationalism.

m e t h o d o l o g y of sociology

that

closely

Moreover,

in the “ P r e f a c e to the

edition” (1901) of his book.

I n this “ P r e f a c e ” D u r k h e i m h i m s e l f j u d g e s that “ in recent years, in spite o f opposition, t h e c a u s e o f specific a n d m e t h o d i c , o b ­ jective

sociology

gro un d

continuously.” A s

is n o t e w o r t h y

(la

sociologie w e

objective)

m a y

that h e considered

has

find also

kept

o n

gaining

in this j u d g e m e n t ,

it

his o w n sociology as “ objective

sociology.” T h i s m e a n s the introduction of the objectivistic m e t h o d into the

his sociology. m o m e n t ,

A n d

this m e t h o d

is

w h e n D u r k h e i m maintains

found,

in

ought

things.”

W h a t

is “ t h e

thinking,

a n d

is h e r e c a l l e d

social facts indicate

the

to be treated “as w a y s

remarkable

of acting, property

existing outside of the individual consciousness.” “ T h e s e conduct

or

thought

are

n ot o n l y external to

are, m o r e o v e r , e n d o w e d w i t h virtue of w h i c h they i m p o s e

at

t h a t social facts, o f w h i c h

the subject m a t t e r of sociology consists, feeling w h i c h

particular,

the

of

types of

individual but

imperative a n d coercive power, by themselves u p o n him, independent

o f h i s i n d i v i d u a l w i l l . ” 23 T h i s s e n t e n c e is f o u n d i n t h e first c h a p t e r entitled, “ W h a t In

the s a m e

is a

chapter

social

fact?”, of

the above-mentioned

D u r k h e i m ’s e x p l a n a t i o n

that social facts h a v e

is f o u n d

book.

w h i c h

says

a s t h e i r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t h e e x t e r n a l i t y ( l ’e x ­

tériorité) a n d

t h e c o n s t r a i n t (la c o n t r a i n t e ) .

A n d

in the

to the second

e d i t i o n ” i s f o u n d D u r k h e i m ’s s t a t e m e n t

“ Preface

that a social

f a c t is a l s o c o l l e c t i v e c o n s c i o u s n e s s (la c o n s c i e n c e c o l l e c t i v e ) . T h i s consciousness c annot be reduced to individual consciousnesses. F o r , a l t h o u g h c o l l e c t i v e c o n s c i o u s n e s s is t h e m i x t u r e o f i n d i v i d u a l consciousnesses,

it is,

o nc e formed,

of

another

nature

from

in-

G e o r g S i m m e l a n d

dividual just as

consciousnesses,

exercises

can

chapter,

also then “Rules

“ s o c i e t y is n o t a formed

by

be

for

m e r e

found, the

constraint u p o n

s u m

w h i c h

has

w h e n

D u r k h e i m

explanation

of

of individuals,

their association, a n d

cific r e a l i t y

such a

its o w n

them,

facts,” that “ social p h e n o m e n a

are

states

social

but

in

the

facts,”

rather the

system

that

system

represents a

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . ”24

states in the s e c o n d chapter, “ R u l e s as

a

i n t h e r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n a c o m p o u n d a n d its e l e m e n t s . T h i s

viewpoint fifth

a n d

115

E m i l e D u r k h e i m

spe­

Moreover,

he

for t h e o b s e r v a t i o n of social things a n d o u g h t to be treated

t h i n g s . ” 25 Let

us

vidual.

n o w In his

turn

to the relation b e t w e e n suicide (1897)

L e

t r u e t h a t s o c i e t y is m a d e material things, w h i c h T h e it

u p

only

Durkheim,

a n

element

of

for example,

a

m o u s true

of the roads a n d

p r i v a t e life

the

of history, a n d life w h i c h ports,

is,

o nc e

express

to such

a n

w o r l d . ” 26 incarnated

it i s n o t

w h i c h

are

the state of

a n d

T h e

According

it w e r e ,

is e x t e r i o r i z e d

the outside. H e r e

b y

s a m e in

technique

is s h o w n

itself,

is “ a

autono­

thing holds

transport, of the instru­

e m p l o y e d

crystalized a n d this fact

to

in h o u s e s a n d

industry

at e a c h

o f w r i t t e n l a n g u a g e , etc. C o n s e q u e n t l y , as

life.

extent that

constructed, b e c o m e

of individuals.

for c o m m u n i c a t i o n

machines

a n d

the external

which,

indi­

role in the c o m m o n

materialized

it i s i n p a r t

realities, i n d e p e n d e n t

m e n t s

“ First,

determinate type of architecture

social p h e n o m e n o n . ” N o w , in all s o r t s o f edifices,

says,

the

o f i n d i v i d u a l s ; it a l s o i n c l u d e s

play a n essential

s o c i a l f a c t is s o m e t i m e s

b e c o m e s

D u r k h e i m

society a n d

fixed a n d

o n

or

in

m o m e n t the social

material

acts u p o n

us

sup­ from

the fact that social facts as “ the w a y s

of thinking o r acting,” m e n t i o n e d abo ve , exist outside of individuals a n d ing

exercise a constraint o n t h e m . A s w e shall state later in d e a l ­ w i t h D u r k h e i m ’s s o c i o l o g y o f r e l i g i o n , t h e a p p r o a c h t o t h i s

relation to a

b e t w e e n

religion,

but

society

a n d

the

also to a law,

individual a

moral,

is a

applied

fashion,

institution, a n e d u c a t i o n a l pract ic e , etc., in a w o r d ,

not a

only

political

to “ e v e r y f o r m

o f c o l l e c t i v e life.” N o w ,

D u r k h e i m ’s s o c i o l o g y , w h i c h

treats these social facts ob-

116

G e o r g

S i m m e l a n d

jectivistically,

consists o f t h r e e parts, n a m e l y ,

(la m o r p h o l o g i e a n d

general

É m i l e D u r k h e i m

sociale),

sociology

social m o r p h o l o g y

s o c i a l p h y s i o l o g y (la p h y s i o l o g i e s o c i a l e )

(la s o c i o l o g i e g é n é r a l e ) .

In this respect h e

states in his article, “ S o c i o l o g i e et s c i e n c e s sociales” (1909): S o ­ c i e t y , c o n s i d e r e d f r o m t h e a n g l e o f “ its e x t e r n a l a s p e c t , " a p p e a r s to b e f o r m e d w h i c h

the m a s s of the population w i t h a certain density,

is d i s p o s e d o n

•condition is t o

b y

t h e soil in a c e r t a i n m a n n e r ,

in villages o r

in a

c r o w d e d

s a y , it o c c u p i e s t h e t e r r i t o r y

in s u c h a n d tory of the

such

m a n n e r

m o r e o r less e x t e n d e d ,

neighboring peoples. T h i s

territory,

of the population

surface, are naturally the “ important

its c o n ­

m o v e s

o n

its

f a c t o r s o f t h e s o c i a l life” a n d

brain

in a c c o r d a n c e

w h i c h

supports

with

the anatomical

i t,

so

the collective

the composition

of

the

to

there

place for a social science w h i c h a n a t o m i z e s

is a

this s cience h a s society, w e

f o r its o b j e c t t h e e x t e r n a l

propose

social m o r p h o l o g y only confine

substratum. a n d

“ Then, as

material for m

of

t o c a l l it s o c i a l m o r p h o l o g y . " 21 C h a r a c t e r i z i n g in this w a y ,

D u r k h e i m

t h a t it h a s

t w o aims;

base of the peoples

ganization,” a n d

of

vary

i t. A n d

t h i n k s t h a t it m u s t

itself t o a d e s c r i p t i v e a n a l y s i s b u t m u s t

explanation, a n d geographical

social

in­

composition

p h e n o m e n a

according

a n d

situated

to t h e terri­

its size,

w h i c h

T h a t

“ s u b s t r a t u m ” o f t h i s life. J u s t a s t h e p s y c h i c a l life o f a n

dividual varies the

in towns.

in relation to the sea a n d

figuration, th e c o m p o s i t i o n the

condition

in a dispersed

namely,

its d i s p o s i t i o n o n

also give a n

“ the study of the

i n its r e l a t i o n

“the study of the population,

not

to the

social o r ­

its s ize, its d e n s i t y ,

t h e soil.”

Subsequently, D u r k h e i m

r e c o g n i z e s that, besides t h e s u b s t r a t u m

o f c o l l e c t i v e life, t h e r e is t h i s life itself. H e r e h e f i n d s a d i s t i n c t i o n analogous ample, the

to that w h i c h

w e

observe in natural

sciences.

F o r

ex ­

in biology, w h i l e a n a t o m y (also called m o r p h o l o g y ) a n a l y z e s

structure of living beings, the m a k e - u p of their tissues a n d

their organs,

physiology

of these organs.

studies t h e functions of these tissues a n d

“ Likewise,

besides social m o r p h o l o g y ,

place for social p h y s i o l o g y

w h i c h

o f s o c i e t i e s . ” 28

s t a t i n g it i n t h i s w a y ,

But,

of

while

t h e r e is a

s tu di es t h e vital m a n i f e s t a t i o n s D u r k h e i m

also

G e o r g

recognized

that social physiology

S i m m e l

are

117

D u r k h e i m

is itself v e r y c o m p l e x a n d c o m ­

prises a great m a n y particular sciences, of physiological order

a n d É m i l e

for the social p h e n o m e n a

themselves e x t r e m e l y varied. W h a t

are

first g i v e n a s e x a m p l e s a r e t h e o b j e c t s o f “ t h e s o c i o l o g y o f r e l i g i o n " (la s o c i o l o g i e religieuse) ; r e l i g i o u s beliefs (les c r o y a n c e s religieuses),

p r a c t i c e s (les p r a t i q u e s ) a n d institutions. A

religion

social t h i n g ” (une c h o s e

it h a s

thing of a group,

t h a t is, o f t h e C h u r c h

the great majority are

even

sociale) b e c a u s e

of cases,

mingled.

certain divinities

Until b y

the

c er ta in state. I n a n y

the

recently,

m e r e

fact

a

that o n e

w a s

a

case, the d o g m a t a a n d

of

are

collectivity a n d

cordingly,

T h e

obligatory a

religion

the

for

all t h e the

belongs

in

believer citizen

the m y t h s

are c o m m o n

rites (les rites) a l s o a r e

the study of

bee n

the political society w a s

of beliefs w h i c h

a

a n d o n e

sisted of the s y s t e m s collectivity.

always

(l’ E g l i s e ) a n d b e c a u s e ,

C h u r c h

m o s t

is, i n e f f e c t , “ a

to

of a

have c o n ­

to the

whole

m e m b e r s

s a m e

of

of this

as these.

sociology,

A c ­

a n d

it

constitutes “ the object of the sociology of religion.” In the s a m e ject

of

the

"juridical

way,

the “moral

sociology

of

institutions”

ideas a n d

moral

are

the usages” are

(la s o c i o l o g i e

studied

b y

the

morale),

sociology

sociologie juridique). B o t h

are closely connected.

the sociology of e c o n o m y

(la s o c i o l o g i e é c o n o m i q u e )

with the “e co no mi c

the o b ­ a n d

of

the

law

(la

Besides, there w h i c h

is

deals

institutions.” D u r k h e i m considers these as the

“ principal b r a n c h e s of sociology.” F u r t h e r m o r e , h e recognizes the existence of the a n d B y f r o m

of the this “a

sociology of language

linguistique)

s o c i o l o g y o f a r t (la s o c i o l o g i e é s t h é t i q u e ) . analysis

sort of

thought, only

one

D u r k h e i m

very simple problem.”

o n , it i s i m p o s s i b l e f o r a of his science,” e a c h

of

judges science

that

sociology

w h i c h

takes

A ccording

to D u r k h e i m ,

the savants

m u s t

devote

different as

C o m t e

f r o m

n o w

the general conclusions w h i c h different the

himself

to

“a

this d o e s n o t m e a n that t h e r e

place for “ a synthetic sociology” w h i c h

sciences. H o w e v e r

in,

is

sociologist to possess “ the encyclopedia

special order of p ro bl em s . ” H o w e v e r , is n o

(la s o c i o l o g i e

strives to a s s e m b l e

a r e d r a w n f r o m all t h e s e p a r t i c u l a r social facts of diverse sorts f r o m

118

G e o r g

S i m m e l a n d

É mi l e

D ü r k h e i m

o n e a n o t h e r m a y be, t h e y a r e o n l y t h e species o f the s a m e g en us . “ T h e n , w e h a v e n e e d to search for w h a t m a k e s u p the unity of the genus,

w h a t

there

not

are

established

characterizes social facts in abstracto a n d w h e t h e r the very general

laws

of w h i c h

the

diverse laws

b y special sciences are o nly the particular forms. T h i s

is t h e o b j e c t o f g e n e r a l s o c i o l o g y . ” 29 S t a t i n g it i n t h i s w a y , h e i m

considers

this g e n e r a l

o f s c i e n c e . ” It is n e e d l e s s of sociology. “the

But,

since

sociology

to say “ the

this w o r k

“ the philosophical part

t h a t it is t h e p h i l o s o p h i c a l p a r t

value of

value of analysis” f r o m

advance

as

D u r k ­

w h i c h

synthesis”

it r e s u l t s , h e

depends

upon

thinks that “ to

of analysis constitutes the m o s t

urgent

task of

sociology.” Further, m é t h o d e et

D u r k h e i m

describes

sociologique)

sciences

in t h e

sociales,”

administration

a n d

following

c on o m i c causes

have

above-mentioned in

the

sixth

are

brought

t h e m

about?

only instrument

( l ’h i s t o i r e c o m p a r é e ) .

A n d

facts.

in

a

is p a r t i c u l a r t o t h e d e t e r m i n a t e

lution, t h a t h e task

is

t h e life

useful a i m s

he provides

m a n n e r . ”

considers

of

a

grasped

these

a

W h a t

d o

they

in sociology history”

part, “ a sort historian also from

the side

peoples a n d to the d e t e r m i ­

specific at

A

facts

e-

nation

a n d

of

specific m o m e n t

a of

specific its e v o ­

is g e n e r a l l y i n t e n d i n g t o i n v e s t i g a t e . H i s i m m e d i a t e

to discover

character of each of that s a m e

he

moral,

calls “ c o m p a r a t i v e

certain

w h i c h

collective individuality,

w h a t

he

social

is

But

juridical,

beliefs constituted ?

T o

treats

It

“ Rules for the

s o c i o l o g y ' is, f o r t h e m o s t

of history c o m p r e h e n d e d

time.

chapter,

for w h i c h

to solve these kinds of questions,

nate

(la

article, “ S o c i o l o g i e

political,

religious institutions a n d

respond ? T h e

m e t h o d ”

as the “ principal p r o b l e m s of sociology,”

problems : H o w

a n d

“ sociological

of proof,” of L e s règles d e la m é t h o d e sociologique.

F i r s t o f all, h e c o n s i d e r s , the

the

a n d

society

to

elucidate

and

of each

the

proper

a n d

individual

of

periods

w h i c h

the

life

society c o m p r e h e n d s .

A s c o m p a r e d w i t h t h i s , it s e e m s t o D u r k h e i m t h a t t h e s o c i o l o ­ gist tries t o d i s c o v e r t h e g e n e r a l relationships a n d t h e verifiable laws

in different societies.

A n d

m o r e

concretely,

he

says,

“T h e

G e o r g S i m m e l

sociologist

cannot hold

and

m u c h

the

societies of the

that h e

less of

a

compares

to

a n d

the consideration

unique epoch. s a m e

But

type a n d

the variations,

he

É m i l e

of

119

D u r k h e i m

only

the people

is o b l i g e d

to c o m p a r e

likewise of different types, so w h i c h

are

found

in

the

insti­

tution a n d the practice of w h i c h h e will explain, w i t h the vari­ ations w h i c h a r e f o u n d also in t h e social e n v i r o n m e n t a n d in the state of w h i c h t h e m

ideas,

etc.,

a n d

unite these t w o s o m e

it

groups

possible to of

relation of c a u s e a n d

(la m é t h o d e

comparative)

sociological

m e t h o d . ” 30

usual

is

is

sense of the word,

G r e e k g r a m m a r tive g r a m m a r . sociology”

facts a n d

g r a m m a r ,

is

m e t h o d

instrument

Latin g r a m m a r

of or

is t o t h e s c i e n c e o f c o m p a r a ­

shall state the r e a s o n

(la s o c i o l o g i e c o m p a r é e ) ,

comparative

b e t w e e n

i n D u r k h e i m ’s c a s e , h i s t o r y , i n t h e

is t o s o c i o l o g y w h a t

w e

relationships

comparative

the pre-eminent

or F r e n c h g r a m m a r N e x t

the

to establish

effect. T h e

then

Thus,

find

c o m p a r e d

considered

by

h i m

w h y to

“comparative this

to be

science of

“ sociology

it­

self.” Besides

his

notice

of

m e t h o d ” in sociology, further

considers

the

significance

in c o n n e c t i o n

“the

m e t h o d

of

with

of

this

“comparative

this m e t h o d , D u r k h e i m

concomitant

variations”

(la

m é t h o d e

des variations concomitantes) as “ the pre-eminent instru­

m e n t

sociological

the

of sixth

W h i l e

chapter

he

clusively

investigation.”

of

his

Les

recognizes that in

establishing

“ comparative

m e t h o d ”

In this r eg ar d

règles

d e

la m é t h o d e

causality,

alone

h e

also

is t h e o n l y

o p e ra to r . H e t h e n criticizes C o m t e understand even

historique) a n d w h y

“m e t h o d only and

considers,

indirect experimentation, of

concomitant

the m e t h o d that

w a s

that

but

the

the action of an

at the s a m e

time, h ar d

s o m e also

to

that a n experimentation,

is i n a p p l i c a b l e t o s o c i o l o g y . B u t

given

ex ­

suited to sociology,

fro m

ideas

variations” of Mill.

of residues

consists

recognizes

o n e

in

for u s i n g the historical m e t h o d

J o h n S. Mill m a i n t a i n e d

is c l e a r t h a t D u r k h e i m

writes

sociologique.

“ sociological explanation”

b ec au se social p h e n o m e n a escape evidently (la m é t h o d e

h e

f r o m H e

it

the

so-called

thinks

that not

the m e t h o d

of

a greement

of difference a r e not useful in t h e investigation o f social

120

G e o r g S i m m e l a n d

É m i l e D u r k h e i m

p h e n o m e n a . H o w e v e r ,

things are quite different in the “ m e t h o d

tant variations.”

D u r k h e i m

says,

“ In

reality,

for

of c o n c o m i ­

the

m e t h o d

of

c o n c o m i t a n t v a r i a t i o n s t o b e d e m o n s t r a t i v e , it i s n o t n e c e s s a r y t h a t all

the

shall

variables differing

have

been

f r o m

strictly

series of values presented it h a s b e e n is

proof

d u e

those

excluded. by

the

w h i c h

T h e t w o

to the

are comparing

parallelism

p h e n o m e n a ,

established in a sufficient n u m b e r

that a

w e

m e r e

relationship exists b e t w e e n

of

the

provided

that

a n d variety of cases, them.

Its v a l i d i t y

fact that t h e c o n c o m i t a n t variations display

is

the causal

relationship not externally, as the preceding o n e s do, but internal­ l y . ” 31 N e e d l e s s t o s a y , h e r e concomitant

it i s m a i n t a i n e d

variations” h a s a different privilege

other three m e t h o d s mentioned above, dues, the

m e t h o d of a g r e e m e n t

it i s t h e

m e t h o d

ternally,

but

“ m e t h o d

of concomitant

a

m e t h o d

internally.

maintains is

not

a

both

ception of the the

as

the causal relationship not D u r k h e i m

recognizes

ex ­

that

m e t h o d

the

which

at the exclusion of the others.” F u r t h e r ­

that “comparative of

sociology”

employing

sociology,

but

this

“ sociology

it c e a s e s t o b e p u r e l y d e s c r i p t i v e a n d a s p i r e s t o S i m m e l

a n d

former,

it

w h o

D u r k h e i m is

clear

in this respect it m a y ,

w e

c a n

w e

sociology,

as

criticized

f r o m

methodic w h o

fro m

o n

w e hav e already m ention­

S i m m e l ’s s o c i o l o g y

matter of

rela­

stands in

in detail.

1900.

B e

pure sociology

his standpoint

that

t w o ’s s o c i o l o g i e s i n

his standpoint, considered “ the

his subject

sociology” a n d treated

sociological c o n ­

latter,

shall w r i t e later a g a i n

while D u r k h e i m

great importance

the

find t h e difference of t h e

the fact that S i m m e l , of sociation”

that

that of the

position of m e t h o d i c rationalism. A s particularly

attach

takes the position of

is q u i t e d i f f e r e n t f r o m

ed, D u r k h e i m B u t

t h a t is, t h e m e t h o d o f r e s i ­

v a r i a t i o n s ” is “ t h e u n i q u e

use

a comparative method,

tivism,

f r o m that of the

facts.

A lt ho ug h to

Thus,

of

the m e t h o d of difference, a n d

particular b r a n c h

itself,” i n s o f a r a s explain

a n d

of understanding

sociologist s hould

more, h e

that the “ m e t h o d

or

forms formal

claimed “ objective

social p h e n o m e n a “ a s things,” t h o u g h

both

G e o r g S i m m e l a n d

of t h e m

maintained their o w n

o v e r c o m e

t h e difficulties o f

É mi l e

121

D u r k h e i m

sociology in order that they m i g h t

the

Comtian-Spencerian

encyclopedic

a n d synthetic sociology. In dealing w i t h their sociologies of religion in

the

next

section,

w e

m u s t

sociological conceptions

T h e

4.

Problems

S i m m e l the

and

this

characteristic

of

their

in m i n d .

the Sociology

D u r k h e i m

sociology of

wrote

o f

bear

o f

Religion

w e r e interested early

religion.

Especially

t h e article of “ Z u r

Simmel,

Soziologie der

in the p r o b l e m s as

early

as

of

1898,

R e l i g i o n ” (N e u e D e u t s c h e

R undschau, 9,1898) a n d a p p ro ac h ed the fundamental p r o bl em s of the

s ociology of religion. W e article, h e

touched

first b o o k ,

Ü b e r

o n

m u s t not

the

forget also that, prior to this

relation of religion he wrote m a n y

of religion

of

and

the b o o k

find his o w n

ology

of

views

religion.

religion. R a t h e r , and

greater.

later years,

o n

D i e

it s e e m s be

thought

(1906).

Religion

to m e

he

did

not

fairly said that S i m m e l ,

deeply

about

to be

interested in both

In c o n t r a s t t o this, D u r k h e i m the article of “ D e

sociologie religieuse M é t a p h y s i q u e

with

et d e

the t h e m e

as

book, b o o k

a n d

Les f o r m e s

the

latter

in

greater

religion

w e c a n

say

in

that

a r t a l l h i s life.

i n 1 8 9 9 , a little l a t e r t h a n

la d ef in it i on d e s p h é n o m è n e s r e l i g i e u x ” in 1 9 0 9 t h e article o f “ L a

la c o n n a i s s a n c e ”

17,

1909).

T h e

to the

sociology of

former

{Revue

article

d e

deals

religion

and

w i t h t h e f i r s t c h a p t e r (“ D e f i n i t i o n o f r e l i g i o u s

o f R e l i g i o n ”) o f t h e élémentaires

also

of

approach

Morale,

is c l o s e l y c o n n e c t e d P h e n o m e n a

wrote

et la t h é o r i e d e an

interest

especially in his

religion a n d

vol. 2, 1 8 9 9 ) a n d

sociologique,

these w o r k s

lose

the philosophy

he

{ L ' A n n é e

In

that this interest b e c a m e

t h e p h i l o s o p h y o f art. A c c o r d i n g l y ,

Simmel,

in the b e g i n ­

the philosophy of religion a n d the soci­

A f t e r that, also,

It m a y

in his

essays o n the philosophy

parallel w i t h continued

society

sociale D i f f e r e n z i e r u n g (1890). A n d

ning of the 20th century w e

a n d

is

d e

included

therefore consider that D u r k h e i m ,

first p a r t o f

his later great

la vie

religieuse (1912).

as

“ Introduction.”

o n

In

this

W e

can

the basis of the a b o v e

t w o

its

122

G e o r g S i m m e l

a n d

articles, d e v e l o p e d

É m i l e

D u r k h e i m

his sociology of religion o n

a

full scale.

N o w , S i m m e l w r i t e s a b o u t “ b e l i e f ” (G l a u b e ) i n t h e a b o v e - m e n t i o n ­ ed

article o f “ Z u r S oz i o l o g i e d e r R e l i g i o n ” a s f o l l o w s : “ T h e beliefy

w h i c h

m a n

religion,

has

considered

above

a s the essential

all, a p p e a r s

important thing

is

as

a

a n d

relation

t h e practical belief

the

a m o n g

w h i c h

at t h e sociological Further, m e n

investigation of

S i m m e l

always

re­

to m a n ­

to their fighting class o r of a p r o u d

t o his status, t h e relation o f a s ub je ct to his ruler, w h a

gives

his subject s o m e

suggestion,

possible

a n d

the

relation of

a

all t h e s e r e l a t i o n s h a v e a n infinite v a r i e t y

o f c o n t e n t s , b u t , if w e o b s e r v e is

h e says, “ T h e

or of enthusiastic cosmopolitans

true soldier to his a r m y — it

S i m m e l early at t e m p t s

religion.

to his parents, of enthusiastic patriots

the relation of w o r k e r s

n o b l e m a n

a

his consideration

of the religious,” a n d

respectful child

to their native c o u n t r y kind,

the

thinks that “ a great variety of relations a m o n g

contains an element

lation of a

F o r

men.

is n e v e r m e r e l y

l o w - l e v e l o r d e c l i n i n g t h e o r e t i c a l o p i n i o n . ” 32 A s of belief as “a relation a m o n g m e n " s h o w s ,

substance of

the f or m

of their psychical aspect,

for these relations to h a v e

call r e l i g i o u s . ” 33 O f

a

c o m m o n

tone

w h i c h

w e

m us t

o n

saying, “ All k i n d s o f religiosity c o n t a i n a peculiar m i x t u r e of

unselfish devotion vation, with is,

of sensuous

w h i c h

the

a definite

a n d

e u d a e m o n i s t i c desire,

immediateness

following

degree of

firmness of mental

higher order, mental a n d is

a n d

contained

religiosity (Religiosität) S i m m e l

w h i c h

personal.

h e

a n d

of humility

t e n s i o n o f feeling, a n d

a n

regards at

It s e e m s

a

in

the above-mentioned

F r o m

S i m m e l ’s w r i t i n g

that

relations

s o . ” 34

stand

that “ religiosity” o r “ religious m o m e n t ”

live.

Furthermore,

“ religion a s

specific t e n d e r n e s s time

something

as well as

here quoted, w e

as

to a

w e

can

m a n y under­

exists e v e r y w h e r e

find his indication that

p s y c h i c a l r e a l i t y ” is n o t “ a f i n i s h e d t h i n g ” o r “ a f i x e d

substance” but “a A b o u t

in this article

that

this religious m o m e n t

other w e

into being,

attitude of submission

the s a m e

to m e

ele­

nonsensuous abstraction;

inner conditions c o m e

state,

a n d

goes

living process.”

religiosity a n d

religion S i m m e l ,

also in D i e P r o b l e m e der

G e o r g

Geschichtsphilosophie

1905,

repeats

above

(2nd

ed.,

the

s a m e

almost

quotations

as

follows:

S i m m e l

revised)

a n d

w h i c h

statement “T h e

É mi l e

h e

as

published

h e

attitude of

123

D u r k h e i m

stated

a

in

in

patriot

the

to

his

native country, of a respectful child to his parents, of a n enthusiast t o his ideal,

of

the

of religiosity ; religion

m o m e n t

those as

a

soldier to

h i s f la g — all t h e s e a t t i t u d e s

is t h e p e c u l i a r life i n w h i c h

feelings are e n h a n c e d a n d interwoven,

in a spark, only

the

individual

r e l i g i o n is t h e i r e m o t i o n a l ential

a n d —

m o r e

before. m e n t

It m a y b e

in

the above

the

the object

infinite,

the

of

differ­

figure, t o w h i c h

article publi sh e d

noted that S i m m e l

in relation

usually w a r m ,

they

t o u c h e s o n religiosity a n d religion m u c h

of religiosity,” a n d

its o b j e c t

in

if r i g h t l y u n d e r s t o o d — a b s t r a c t

intelligibly t h a n

w h i c h

field o f i n t e r e s t ;

intersection

c r y s t a l i z e . ” 35 H e r e S i m m e l

contain

seven

years

refers v e r y often to the “ m o ­

g r a s p s “ r e l i g i o n ” i n r e l a t i o n t o life a n d

to feelings.

H e r e

the object of

religion

is

already shown. It m a y

be

noticed

Erkenntnistheorie philosophische

religiosity” jects. I n

a

119,

i n its n a r r o w e r

contrast,

a n d

attitude

S i m m e l

Philosophie

finds

then

u n d

of

feeling to very earthly

o b ­

that, w h e n

w e

religion

it i s t h a t w e

transcendental

zur

the “ m o m e n t

the principle of

h a v e set forth sharpened,

first u n d e r s t a n d

in t h e c on s c i o u s n e s s of m a n ” a n d o n l y

“the

subjektive

A n d

Verhalten)

he

it

that

(das

sense.

are

m ixed

considers

soul (Seele)” a n d

purely formal

the

relation

as

follows : “ Just

of

m a n . ”

c a t e g o r y . ”36

of religiosity a n d as

is “ a f u n d a m e n t a l ,

In

this

Further,

but, e v e n o n this

S i m m e l

religion also in D i e

recognition

does

but

religiosity

m a k e s

r e l i g i o n . ” 37

touches

T h i s

not m a k e is

on

Religion (1906)

n o t create causality,

causality d o e s create recognition, so religion d o e s iosity,

“ Beiträge

h e c o n s i d e r s t h a t r e l i g i o s i t y is “ a u n i t e d a n d f u n d a m e n t a l

state of the account,

1902),

absolutized,

r e l i g i o n is " a p r o c e s s subjective

article,

in w h i c h these b e g i n n i n g s o r these

realizations of a n d

another

is c o n v i n c e d

the process

sublimated

in

host of relations of

this article h e

faint

also

d e r R e l i g i o n ” (Z e i t s c h r i f t f ü r

Kritik,

in

Teligion as or

that,

a

but relig­

paradoxical

l o g i c , a c c o r d i n g t o w h i c h r e l i g i o s i t y is t h e v e r y b e a r e r o f r e l i g i o n .

124

G e o r g S i m m e l

M e r e

S i m m e l

religion s e e m s

a n d

É m i l e D u r k h e i m

lays

rather

to m e

stress

than

u p o n

that

of

the

the

psychological

sociology

A s

S i m m e l w e

early

had

have

already

a n d

society

religion

religion.

of

A n d

it

t h a t a t t h e b a s e o f t h a t v i e w p o i n t t h e r e lies t h e p h i l o ­

sophical con si de r at io n of religion. B e s i d e s this philosophical con si de r at io n that

of

viewpoint

the

sociological

suggested, in

his

sociological consideration

h e

first

of

religion,

consideration

touches

b o o k

o f religion,

o n

(1890).

of religion.

the

I n it

in w h i c h

it i s c l e a r relation w e

of

find his

the following are

t r e a t e d : first o f all, t h e “ s o c i a l i z i n g i m m e a s u r a b l e e f f e c t o f r e l i g i o n in general,” secondly, the q u e s t i o n of the decline in the traditional n o r m s

of

thirdly,

religion c au se d the

status of

b y

m o n k s

the

expansion of

w h i c h

the

social

gradually appears

circle,

with

the

secularization o f religion, fourthly, t h e conflict b e t w e e n sects origi­ n at in g in

“the

difference

fro m

o t h e r s . ” 38 H e r e

pecially about

the third

point with

consideration

of religion

is c l o s e l y

In

this

third

point

S i m m e l

w e

will w r i t e

es­

w h i c h D u r k h e i m ’s s o c i o l o g i c a l related.

gives

an

e x a m p l e

of

t h e earliest

C h r i s t i a n c o m m u n i t y . A c c o r d i n g t o h i m , t h e life i n t h i s c o m m u n i t y , a t first, w a s in the

sphere

over the

full o f r e l i g i o u s i d e a s , a n d all a c t i v i t i e s w e r e e n h a n c e d of this idea.

masses,

But, after that,

a certain shallowness

as

a n d

this s preads

itself

secularization

could

not help but appear. “ T h e secular, w i t h w h i c h the religious mix ed , n o w i n c r e a s e d t o o m u c h in quantity, s o that t h e religious e l e m e n t could not at o n c e a n d completely i mpress o n

it. B u t , a t t h e s a m e

in w h i c h m e n t the

time, the status of the m o n k s w a s formed,

the secular w a s

life m i g h t

be

exclusively

of religion a n d

set b a c k

into the t w o

completely,

filled w i t h

statuses

A n d w a s

in o rder that the

religious content. T h e

life d i s a p p e a r e d , a n d

r e l i g i o u s s t a t u s a p p e a r e d . ” 39

division

its c h a r a c t e r i s t i c f e a t u r e s

agree­

the secular status a n d

also according to him, “a

differentiation

within

this the

circle of Christianity,” a n d this differentiation w a s entirely n e c e s ­ sary

for

its c o n t i n u a n c e ,

original n a r r o w N o w ,

w h e n

it

h a d

to

step

out

b ey on d

its

limits.

in his later b o o k ,

D i e R e l i g i o n (1906), t h e a b o v e - m e n t i o n e d

G e o r g S i m m e l

religious status is “ o n e

is

treated as

p h e n o m e n o n

religious sphere.”

H e

its i d e a l is t h e

cluded

É mi l e

in dealing

sake

of others but soul. B u d d h i s m

sufferings

only

w i t h this

it c o m p l e t e l y l a c k s “ t h e s o c i a l m o m e n t , ”

“ m o n a s t i c . ” In this ideal are

o w n

w h i c h

decisive division of labor in the

speaks about B u d d h i s m

sacrifices a n d

125

D u r k h e i m

priesthood (Priestertum)

of the mos t

aspect. A c c o r d i n g to him , a n d

the

a n d

for

for others,

the

subject

occasionally in­

w h i c h

a n d

are

the

not

for the

salvation of

teaches “absolute withdrawal

f r o m

his

t h e social

w o r l d . ” R e d e m p t i o n ( S i c h - E r l ö s e n ) is b u t a w i t h d r a w a l ( S i c h - L ö s e n ) from

all e x i s t e n c e ,

k nowledges all

living

of the

d h i s m

is

It s e e m s called

himself. is

in

the

A n d

sharp

w h i c h

natural, w h e n

Christian world. A n d

to m e

religion.

that this v i e w

H e r m a n n

B u d d h i s m

“ the welfare “the

obligations

in

also

says, “ N o w

B u d ­

t e a c h i n g a b o u t s a l v a t i o n . ” 40 w a s

given as a

author of B u d d h a

without

to

in g en e r a l , a n d

o f S i m m e l ’s

Oldenberg,

“ religion

social

world

it a c ­

the welfare of

is t h e n

so S i m m e l

It is a

a n d

contradiction

defined

in the non-Christian

also not a

gestion fro m

This

demarcation,”

classical a n d

in m o s t

as well as

involved in t h e m , r e d e m p t i o n beings.”

political-social the

social

only duties t o w a r d

others b e c o m e s of

the

god.”

T h e

sug­

(1881),

reason

w h o

w h y

w e

t o u c h e d u p o n t h i s a s p e c t i s b e c a u s e t h i s i s c o n n e c t e d t o D u r k h e i m ’s view

of B u d d h i s m

Simmel, follows: only

further,

substance of grace a n d

as the

logical

him.

B u d d h i s m

w e

about

fro m

shall s p e a k the

later.

substance of

suffering (Erlösung v o m

Buddhism,

does

not

require

a

a m e d i a t o r ; it i s n o t p e r f o r m e d ,

result

this p r e m i s e

w h i c h

speaks

“ R e d e m p t i o n

power, O n

about

of

S i m m e l

t h e s o u l ’s r e n o u n c i n g deals with

recognizes mos t

as

Leiden),

the

transcendental but takes place

a l l w i l l t o l i v e . ” 41

the priesthood.

distinctly “ the

B u d d h i s m

According

sociological

to

e m e r ­

g e n c e of the priesthood.” N a m e l y , the religious functions, originally performed w h o

perform

to say found B y

b y

that

each

passed

o n

these duties in behalf of the this differentiation

in B u d d h i s m , the

individual, h a v e

way,

but

D u r k h e i m

to specific p e r s o n s

others.

It is n e e d l e s s

in religious functions

is n o t

only

also in Christianity. also refers to B u d d h i s m

in his treatise.

126

“ D e

G e o r g

S i m m e l

a n d

É m i l e D u r k h e i m

la définition d e s p h é n o m è n e s

as follows:

“ In

reality,

there

religieux” (1899), a n d

are

religions

in w h i c h

h e writes

t h e r e is n o

i d e a o f G o d a t all. O n e e x a m p l e is B u d d h i s m . ” 42 I n t h i s c o n n e c t i o n , D u r k h e i m deals w i t h B u d d h i s m in his b o o k , L e s f o r m e s élémentaires la vie religieuse (1912).

d e

ligions f r o m

w h i c h

the

According

to him,

idea of g ods

there

(les d i e u x )

are

and

great re­

spirits

(les

e s p r i t s ) is a b s e n t , o r a t l e a s t , w h e r e t h i s i d e a p l a y s o n l y a s e c o n d ­ ary a n d

m i n o r

role.

that B u d d h i s m system says

D u r k h e i m

primarily

in

B u d d h a w a y

with

Buddhism.

is

w h o

o n e

k n o w s

“ absolutely atheistic.”

salvation,”

the g o o d

only

to D u r k h e i m ,

w h i c h

Christ

a n d

b ooks

f r o m

a n d

salvation

doctrine

as “ the

a n d

O n

is i n c o n c e i v a b l e

his

his

w h i c h D u r k h e i m

c u l t . ” 43

cites here,

B o u d d h a

role

the ever-present B y

the

A n d in n o

the contrary,

is q u i t e d if f e r e n t f r o m

without

ever-practised

presupposes

p r a c t i s e s i t.

wisest of m e n , ”

B u d d h i s m

o f O l d e n b e r g ’s o n e , L e Let

another

cites these passages, B u d d h i s m consists

“ the idea of

is r e g a r d e d

tianity,

says

as a moral

a n d an atheism without Nature," a n d

r e s e m b l e s that of other divine personalities. O n

according

O n e

O l d e n b e r g also calls B u d d h i s m “ a religion w i t h o u t

god.” F o r that

case

doctrine of B u d d h i s m

the other hand,

solely

is t h e

“ sets itself i n o p p o s i t i o n t o B r a h m a n i s m

without g o d

that the

This

way,

one

is t h e F r e n c h

“Chris­ idea of of

the

translation

(1903).

us here

turn

to the definition of religion b y D u r k h e i m ,

fore w e touch

u p o n

the relation b e t w e e n the c oncept of priesthood

in S i m m e l

a n d

t h a t o f p r i e s t (le p r ê t r e ) i n D u r k h e i m .

writes about the his b o o k

of

a n d

forms

of s ym bo ls

b y

then

have

originated

a n d

w h i c h

w h i c h possible

is

a

as follows:

society.

“ T h e

Religion

of w h i c h

in

w e r e a

word,

society b e c o m e s

in

only the

conscious

of thinking p r o p e r to collective existence.

f r o m

analysis of

gods

is,

mental

states

individual consciousnesses

f ro m

D u r k h e i m

relation of religion a n d society

vast totality of if

result

derive

of

m e a n s

o f i t s e l f ; it is t h e w a y H e r e

the

suicide (1897)

L e

the hypostatized system

gods

be­

this u n i o n

individual the

latter,

a n d

natures. they

are In

w h i c h had

w o u l d

not combined,

superadded spite of

will n e v e r

not

the

serve

to those minutest to explain

G e o r g

the foundation a n d

development

t i c e s . ” '14 N e e d l e s s t o s a y , b y

D u r k h e i m

religion,

as

in

symbols

m e a n s

so to speak,

as

ence.”

A n d

derives

from

not be

reduced

even

society,

of w h i c h

“the

w a y

society h a s individual

though

A t

here the g od s

to

w e

h a v e

but, w e

and

R o m a n s

facts are

o n

o n

the o n e

intention in r e g a r d

of

states,” w h i c h appeared,

elucidate

the

that t o t e m i s m

w a s

that they

turned

h a n d

the other hand.

unexplainable

system

c a n ­

former,

t h e latter.

writes

singular beliefs a n d practices, a n d religion of J e h o v a h

also

to collective exist­

having

cannot

but

c o n s c i o u s o f itself,”

proper o nc e

prac­

understood

“ the

vast totality of m e n t a l

analyzed

127

D ü r k h e i m

society,” as

b e c o m e s

of thinking

natures,

D u r k h e i m

of

understood

to these. H e n c e

that time,

É mi l e

are not only

forms

society

“a

a n d

the s t r a n g e beliefs a n d

“ the hypostatized

relation

b y

of

S i m m e l

h av e

a n d

A n d

he

Polytheism

consists

from

into the

of G r e e k s

emphasizes

f r o m individual natures. In

to this e m p h a s i s

bor n

that these

short, his real

in his d e m o n s t r a t i n g

t h a t t h e p r e c e d i n g c o n s i d e r a t i o n is n o t o n l y a p p l i c a b l e t o religion, but

to a law,

pedagogical life. W e

a moral,

p r a c t i c e s , etc.,

have

Durkheim, a n d

to

in a

in

the

to political institutions,

word,

already m entioned further, says

religion

to modes,

t o all f o r m s

of

to

collective

this.

a b o u t r e l i g i o u s f ac ts (les faits religieux)

article,

“ D e

la

définition

des

p h é n o m è n e s

religieux,” published w ithin t w o years after h e presented L e suicide (1897)

to the

deals

with

them.

W e

public as follows:

religious facts, say

it

religious facts,

totality o f religious p h e n o m e n a , in t e r m s

of the

manifestations religion. I n be

they

“Since

is a n d

d o

not

necessary not

to begin

religion,

of

to

a n y

defining

r e l i g i o n is a

only be defined

there are innumerable

belong

religion

by

for

a n d the w h o l e c a n

parts. M o r e o v e r , w h i c h

the sociology

properly

religious

recognized

e v e r y society, there a r e scattered beliefs a n d practices,

individual o r local, w h i c h

are

not integrated into

a defi­

n i t e s y s t e m . " 45 T h i s i s o n e o f t h e o p e n i n g p a r a g r a p h s i n t h e a b o v e article,

w h e r e

t h e o b j e c t o f t h e s o c i o l o g y o f r e l i g i o n is n o t c o n ­

sidered a s religion,

but

as

“ religious facts,”

a n d

totality of religious p h e n o m e n a . ” Besides, t h e r e w e

religion

as

“a

find his indi-

128

G e o r g S i m m e l

cation that A b o u t

a n d

É m i l e D u r k h e i m

religious beliefs a n d

practices exist e v e r y w h e r e .

these religious “ beliefs

that beliefs are ligious,”

a n d

not

“ the only

further,

and

p h e n o m e n a

there

are

r e l i g i o u s p r a c t i c e s (les p r a t i q u e s obligatory N am e l y ,

w a y s they

of

acting,”

vary

practices are b o u n d “t w o

that

practices.

o n e

O f

religieuses) are

like

moral

a n d

“ beliefs in m o t i o n ”

different

aspects a n d

of practices.” A n d according

of

to

object.

Religious

s a m e

religious practices

w h a t

both

are

reality.”

are often

him,

practices, practices.

their

the

beliefs

call r e ­

juridical

religious beliefs, a n d

but

thinks

“ the definite a n d

u p

with

to

mus t

these

according

are

a n d

D u r k h e i m

merely

ing

beliefs as well as

practices”

“ an

noth­

Practices

interpretation

characterizes religious

is t h a t “ t h e y

are obligatory,”

“ w h a t is o b l i g a t o r y h a s all its o r i g i n i n s o c i e t y . ” F o r

“a n

o b ­

ligation” (une obligation) implies a c o m m a n d , a n d consequently, “ a n authority

w h i c h

c o m m a n d s . ”

religious p h e n o m e n a in the

s a m e

w a y

b e l i e f s . ” 46

It

considered

by

T o way ,

be

h i m

noted

relating to that

given

religious

w h o

characterizes

of p h e n o m e n a

here

is t h a t

k n o w n

f r o m

ligion”

(la

the

m o r e

T o

suicide.

fact that h e

an

H e

recognizes,

as

exact,

that

however,

w h a t

calls

in

such

are

here

uses

H e r e

in

the

the w e

term

and

system­

indeed, This

that

can

be

“obligatory

re­

find a l m o s t

above-mentioned

in this b o o k

in this

h e w o u l d like to

obligatory nature.

even

obligatoire).

religion be

p h e n o m e n a

o r less o r g a n i z e d

of this k i n d . ”

religion h a s

religion

definition of

objects

religious p h e n o m e n a

“ r e l i g i o n is e s s e n t i a l l y a s o c i a l t h i n g . ” B u t say

says, " O n e

a s “ obligatory beliefs.”

r e l i g i o n is “ t h e w h o l e ,

atized,

so, D u r k h e i m

o b l i g a t o r y b e l i e f s (les c r o y a n c e s o b l i g a t o i r e s )

as practices

m a y

D urkheim,

A n d

D u r k h e i m

the

s a m e

book,

L e

lays e m ­

phasis o n

t h e s u p e r i n d i v i d u a l i t y o f r e l i g i o n i n h i s d e f i n i n g i t, w h i l e

he

stress u p o n

places

religion

w h i c h

w e

its o b l i g a t o r y

us

n o w

v i e religieuse.

a n d

to explain

turn T h e

in

the definition

h a v e just t a k e n up. C o n s e q u e n t l y ,

quite different standpoints Let

nature

to

in his definition of

D u r k h e i m ’s

Les f o r m e s

w e

of

find t w o

religion. élémentaires d e

la

t h e m e o f t h i s g r e a t b o o k is t o s t u d y , t o a n a l y z e

“ the

m o s t

primitive a n d

simple

religion

w h i c h

is

G e o r g S i m m e l

actually k n o w n , ” natives. in so

that

According

far as

w e

is,

the

to him,

can

totemism

a

observe,

a n d

É m i l e

found

a m o n g

Australian

religious s y s t e m

is m o s t

w h e n

the

it

m eets

129

D u r k h e i m

primitive,

following t w o

c o n d i t i o n s : first, it m u s t b e f o u n d i n a s o c i e t y

w h o s e organization

is a s s i m p l e

b e

as possible,

this society w i t h o u t ceding to

i t.

primitive

religions

hold

O n

be

ritual

attitudes,

w h e r e

and

with

“the

express

w h i c h

perform

of

h av e

the objective content generally

a n d

F r o m

the profane

(le s a c r é ) a n d

“ t h e distinct trait of is a b s o l u t e . I n

or

sacred

of

so

a n d

as separated

sacred

sacred

in

cannot

at t h e b a s e of

T h e y

this standpoint,

w h o

they

a r e all w e

talk

religion

is

defines, for the present,

is d i v i d e d

into t w o

or

to o n e

says, “ T h i s

worlds

It is t h e t o t e m

thought

always

there

w h i c h

have

communi c at io n b e t w e e n

and

profane

impunity. the t w o is n o t

differ­ the

everywhere not

mutually

w h i c h divides these t w o things

the profane,

with

is n o

N am e l y ,

a n d

is

heteroge­

so profoundly

a n o t h e r . ” 47

are considered t w o

the

(le p r o f a n e ) , a n d t h i s d i v i s i o n

categories of things

as

domains,

this t o t e m

itself is “ a t y p e

t h i n g s (les c h o s e s s a c r é e s ) . ” I n t h i s c a s e ,

s ible. F o r , if t h e

and

every­

though

w e express w h e n

religious t h o u g h t . ” H e

t w o

a n d

touch

neces­

m e a n i n g

religion.

t h i n g s a r e , a b o v e all, t h o s e w h i c h p r o f a n e and

religions

representations

all t h e h i s t o r y o f h u m a n

layers,

into the

to him,

of

o r less c o m p l e x s y s t e m of m y t h s ,

radically o p p o s e d

elements.

of the

world

the profane

c o m m o n

primitive

objective

F r o m

of D u r k h e i m

sacred

entiated

study

ceremonies.”

the standpoint

e xa m p l e

s a m e

of the idea w h i c h

the

other

the

cults, t h e r e m u s t

the h u m a n

religion in this w a y ,

neity

religion pre­

functions everywhere,

about “ the religion.” rites a n d

that

to explain

It is t h e s e p e r m a n e n t e l e m e n t s w h i c h

grasped b y D u r k h e i m as “a m o r e dogmas,

a

m a k e s

fundamental

the

able

fro m

D u r k h e i m

o f all t h e

the s a m e

eternal

element

assurance

and

differ in their e x t e r n a l f o r m s . the

it m u s t

it.” A c c o r d i n g

a certain n u m b e r

constitute

a n y

this a s s u m p t i o n

of beliefs

sarily

besides,

borrowing

to reality a n d

all t h e s y s t e m s

and

B u t

worlds

the sacred

persons m u s t not touch

b y

t h i s i n h i b i t i o n all t h e

is n e v e r

rendered

impos­

able to h a v e a n y t h i n g to d o w i t h

130

G e o r g

the

S i m m e l

sacred,

sacred the

a n d

this sacred

things are

profane

applied

a n d

D u r k h e i m

thing

“those are

w h i c h

mus t

here

is

w h i c h

things

things.” F r o m T h a t

É m i l e

“ those

w a s

be

g o o d

each

things a n d

other

or

of behavior sacred

to w h i c h

left at

d r a w n

the

the

a

these

so

the

prohibitions

distance

from

definition of

relations

to profane

the

are

sacred

religious beliefs.

w h i c h

prescribe

things.” W h e n

h o w

the

c o r r e s p o n d i n g beliefs

Perhaps

relations

fro m

here

of

also w a s

rites

are

m a n

has

to

behave

“ the

rules

towards

with

and

subordination,

“ the

rites constitutes a religion.”

d r a w n

are connected

D u r k h e i m ’s d e f i n i t i o n o f o f beliefs a n d

re­

practices w h i c h

t h i n g s .”

sacred

D u r k h e i m c a l l s t h i s d e f i n i t i o n o f r e l i g i o n its first d e f i n i t i o n ,

to this h e

further adds

is a n

T o

C h u r c h . ” 16

“essential” than it m u s t

says

in a

be

note

a n

this s e c o n d

eminently that

have w e

it,

w h i c h

a group

fro m

the

imposes

that

nitions partially overlap.

formerly

defined

the idea of religion it s o u n d

this point h e

this, o u r p r e s e n t d e f ­ proposed

in

L ' A n n é e

religious beliefs exclusively

these

its m e m b e r s .

If w e

less

this obligation c o m e s clear, a n d

fact that

u p o n

“ A

c o mm u n i ty ,

d e f i n i t i o n is n o t

as follows: “ B y

w e

In this w o r k ,

s h o w

m o r a l

collective thing.” O n

their obligatory character. B u t

as w e

to the s a m e

the idea of C h u r c h , a religion m a k e s

of his b o o k

inition rejoins o n e sociologique.

to h i m

D u r k h e i m

follows:

o f beliefs a n d p r ac t i c es w h i c h

t h e first. F o r , “ s h o w i n g

is i n s e p a r a b l e f r o m that

its s e c o n d d e f i n i t i o n a s

interdependent system

unite all those th at a d h e r e called

the

a n d

interdependent system

religion

A n d

coordination

ligion as “ a n N o w ,

m ai n t a i n to

a certain n u m b e r of sacred things mutually

w h o l e

of

that these things

things.”

maintain

by

A n d

i s t o s a y , it i s “ t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s w h i c h e x p r e s s t h e n a t u r e

of sacred

a n d

for nothing.

prohibit protect a n d isolate,” a n d

h av e

beliefs

are

H e n c e

these t w o

thought

w e

m u s t

the

things defi­

propose

a

n e w d e f i n i t i o n , it i s b e c a u s e t h e f i r s t w a s t o o f o r m a l a n d n e g l e c t e d too note

completely

s h o w s , t h e first d e f i n i t i o n i n w h i c h

sidered are

t h e c o n t e n t o f r e l i g i o u s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s . ” 49 A s

a s o b l i g a t o r y is d e r i v e d

regarded

from

this

religious beliefs are c o n ­ the

second

in w h i c h

they

a s “ t h e t h i n g s o f a g r o u p , ” a n d o n e is c o m p l e m e n t a r y

G e o r g

to

the other.

Consequently,

religion

in

w h i c h

religion

as

“the

istence.”

T h e

its

here

S i m m e l a n d

D u r k h e i m

obligatory nature

w a y

of

former

thinking

v ie w

is

found

in

T h e n ,

L e

rites, a n d

m a g i c

“the repugnance b et w e e n

n o

moral

is f o r D u r k h e i m

to him,

fro m

the

t h a t it i s n o t c o m m u n i t y

maintains based

o n

that this,

with

D u r k h e i m moral

there exists

a

grasps

c om mu ni t y,

o n

idea of C h u r c h . ” simply a

But

d r a w s

a

the church

is n o r m a l l y

church,

Therefore,

the

of

a n d

the

In this point

as

well

as

w an t i n g

magician

there

fro m

the

thinks

as

but

by

in is

is a n

in

magic.

a

w e

is t h e

priests,

(le m a g i c i a n )

priesthood,

believers

while S i m m e l

and,

“ religion

find his v i e w o f t h e priest. W h e n

priests

exists or

a n d religion. A n d after h e c o n ­

believers

concept

is

s h a r p line

sacerdotal brotherhood

distinguishes

there

the contrary, “ the

magical

the church.

church

w e

relation b e t w e e n

also consists of beliefs a n d

n o

b y

S i m m e r s

the priesthood

ex ­

already-mentioned

is t h e

w h e t h e r

formed

he

t h e priest. H e r e this

w h a t

M a g i c

essential difference b e t w e e n m a g i c sidered

collective

its m y t h s a n d d o g m a s .

religion w i t h o u t

inseparable

of

that of

religieux,” a n d t h e latter

to religion.” Besides, w h a t

t w o

not. A c c o r d i n g

about the

of religion to m a g i c , ” and,

magic

the

history,

(la m a g i e ) ?

l i k e r e l i g i o n it h a s

hostility of

and

suicide.

in t h e c a s e of D u r k h e i m ,

religion a n d

the view

stressed

properly

131

D ü r k h e i m

unites

is

article, “ D e la définition d e s p h é n o m è n e s in his b o o k ,

É m i l e

he

Being fro m

w e c o m p a r e can

church,

say

that

namely,

a

that t h e differentiation of

secular status b e g a n

with

the

seculari­

z a t i o n o f religion. P e r h a p s t h e c a u s e o f this d i f f e r e n c e lies in t h e fact that the f o r m e r attaches i m p o r t a n c e to the distinction b e t w e e n the magician

and

t h e priest, w h i l e t h e latter l a y s e m p h a s i s

defining the e m e r g e n c e

of the

priesthood

A s w e have already mentioned, con si de r at io n of religion in w h i c h of

at the s a m e

time,

he

w h i c h

b e l i e f is t a k e n

as

hand,

D u r k h e i m

the

has

has

“a

religion.

S i m m e l has the philosophical t h e b e a r e r o f religion, n a m e l y ,

“ the subjective attitude of m a n , ”

and,

in h i g h

u po n

the

is

considered

sociological

relation a m o n g

religiosity,

viewpoint

m e n . ”

sociological viewpoint

as O n

f r o m

f ro m

the other w h i c h

he

132

G e o r g

regards in

S i m m e l a n d

É mi l e D ü r k h e i m

religious beliefs as “ o b l i g a t o r y ” a n d s ee k s

society. In this case, t h e w a y

different.

But

it is c l e a r

viewpoint. H e r e

w e

in

that each

w h i c h

for their origin

t h e y g r a s p r e l i g i o n is

of t h e m

has

the

sociological

f i n d t h e c o m m o n f e a t u r e o f b o t h . F o r all t h a t ,

since 1 8 9 0 S i m m e l h as a t t e m p t e d to consider religion sociologically as well

as philosophically.

sociology of

religion

a n d

A s

it w e r e ,

in

S i m m e l ’s t h i n k i n g

the philosophy

of

the

religion coexist

and

b o t h a r e closely related. A s a g a i n s t this, t h o u g h D u r k h e i m i n q u i r e d sociologically into religion after a while,

in his case the philosophy

of religion d o e s n o t b e c o m e the c e n t e r of interest, a n d h e c o n t i n u e s to h a v e

an

natural

exclusive

that there

interest

is a

thinking of S i m m e l

in

the s ociology of religion.

notable difference

a n d

D ur kheim.

A t

in the contents

a n y

rate, t h e y

interested, indeed, early, in t h e s o c i o l o g y of religion, be

safely said

heim,

so h e

W e

that S i m m e l

w a s

w a s

that both

S i m m e l

have

with

something

Karl

M a r x .

m o r e

in c o m m o n .

this

respect

In

both

it m a y to D u r k ­

of religion. a n d

interest in t h e s ociology of religion. H o w e v e r , they

but

is

of the

w e r e

i n t e r e s t e d i n it p r e v i o u s

a precursor of the sociology

h a v e just m e n t i o n e d

It

D u r k h e i m

had

in a d d i t i o n t o this,

It is t h e i r c o n f r o n t a t i o n

w e

shall

write

in

the

next

section.

5.

T h e W e

Confrontation have

methodic “Preface”

already

with

given

relativism. T h i s of

K a r l

M a r x

the outline of standpoint w e

S i m m e l ’s s t a n d p o i n t o f find m o s t

his P h i l o s o p h i e des G e l d e s (1900),

in

clearly

in the

w h i c h

he

at­

t e m p t e d to “ construct a n e w storey b e n e a t h historical materialism.” A ccording

to S i m m e l ,

w h o believes in “ relativism as t h e principle

of recognition,” for t h e practice of c o g n i t i o n a n intellectual culture a n d

an

e c o n o m i c

life m u s t

every

interpretation of

n o m i c

structure

be

understood

themselves

mus t “ f r o m

an

develop “ in endless reciprocity.” A n d ideal structure

lead to m o r e

the general

the d e m a n d

ideal d e p t h s , ”

e co no mi c

base

has

b y that

m e a n s

of

a n

eco­

the latter in turn

while for these depths to be

sought,

a n d

so

G e o r g S i m m e l a n d

o n

infinitely.

conceptually b e c o m e s

“ In

such

a n

alternation

a n d

É m i l e

133

D u r k h e i m

entanglement

of

the

o p p o s e d principles of cognition, t h e unity of things...

practical a n d

vital f o r u s . ” 50

In this w a y ,

S i m m e l

w h o

p a y s a t t e n t i o n t o t h e r e c i p r o c i t y o f intellectual life a n d

economic

life d o e s

but

pays

recognition,

and

fro m

this

n o t stick o n l y

to the principle of recognition,

attention to the interaction of takes up

the standpoint of

methodic

alternation a n d entanglement himself with S i m m e r s

M a r x

fro m

a n d

the essence of m o n e y

the

connections

“Synthetic

Part,”

a n d

the

intelligible

o f life i n g e n e r a l ,

H e n c e

h e confronts relativism.

a n d

former

f ro m

part

the

In

this b o o k

m o n e y

t h e latter s e e k s

national economics, but M a r x

w h o

to

considers

b e c o m e

m a k e

the

the function the

object

of

m o n e y

as

a

substance,

thinks that “ m o n e y

S i m m e l

grasps

is, a s it w e r e ,

actus

h e c o n s i d e r s t h a t it i s a " p u r e r e l a t i o n s h i p , " a n d t h a t

it is a n e x p r e s s i o n a n d dependence,

not

to and

that of philosophical study. In opposition

as a function a nd

purus.” A n d

does

seeks

conditions

a n d o r g a n i z a t i o n o f t h i s life i n t el li g ib le f r o m

of m o n e y .

m o n e y

are emphasized.

w h i c h

Philosophie des G e ldes (1900) consists of the “ Analytical

m a k e

to

relativism

this standpoint of m e t h o d i c

Part”

essence

the principles of

or

the

a m e d i u m of the relationship, or the inter­

relativity

of

m e n

that

always

m a k e s

the

satisfaction of o n e p e r s o n mutually d e p e n d e n t u p o n a n o t h e r person. Accordingly,

m o n e y

instrument w h i c h m o n e y

the

a pure a n d

there

is

n o

as

that

pure “a n

there bee n

is a n has

instrument

economic

satisfies t h e m c o m p l e t e l y , a n d b y

the p h e n o m e n a the cha ng e

S i m m e l

of

finds the

means,

“a concrete

of

as

Thus, so

in

the

world

thoroughly

than

O n

M o n e y the

so m a n y

men , value

clearly

other m e n

a s it

of

its o w n

m o n e y .

m a k e s

it is,

hand,

so c o m ­

o f all e n d s , t h e p o s s e s s i o n w h i c h

is t h e g o a l o f all s t r i v i n g . H e r e

h u m a n

m o n e y

absolute m e a n s ;

m e d i u m . ”

a n object that

p l e t e l y b e l i e v e t h a t it i s t h e e n d find

reality of

m e d i u m . ”

other object

only

never has

forms

simple

its q u a l i t y a s a

appeared

purest

is a b s o l u t e l y i d e n t i c a l w i t h its a b s t r a c t c o n c e p t ”;

“ i n its p e r f e c t e d

were, and

is

alienation a

fact that there

m e a n s is n e v e r

that into

is a n

a place

brought end.

A n d

a n y w h e r e

w e

about here else

134

G e o r g S i m m e l

w h e r e

the

a n d

“ axial

É m i l e

D u r k h e i m

rotation”

(Achsendrehung)

takes

place

m o r e

radically. M ea nw hi l e,

D u r k h e i m

begins with the following preliminary re­

m a r k i n h i s c o m m e n t i n g o n S i m m e l ’s P h i l o s o p h i e d e s G e l d e s i n t h e f i f t h v o l u m e ( 1 9 0 2 ) o f L ’A n n é e s o c i o l o g i q u e : “ T h e t i t l e o f t h i s w o r k m ight

suggest

that

it i s p r i m a r i l y c o n c e r n e d

of e c o n o m y .

B u t , i n fact,

wider

T h e r e

scope.

are

not

the

selling of

w o m e n ,

vantage of m o n e y , in S i m m e F s lowing

means,

in t h e

a n d

virtue of in the

m o n e y , ”

the

m o s t

the m o s t

A n d

far a s

idealized p o w e r s

it c a n

“ the

life a n d

w a y

turning he

a n d

to

that

affects h u m a n

culture

in dealing w i t h “ the value of m o n e y based

o n

the

to g r a s p

According intellect,

m o n e y to him,

and

that

also

c o n ­

it t h e n

totality of to him,

to

it

and

life a s a in

in

parts: of

t h o s e it

“Synthetic,”

S i m m e l ’s P h i l o s o p h i e d e s G e l d e s ,

tried

he

“ the essence

called

chapter,

essentially

A n d

into t w o

w h i c h

second

stanzwert des Geldes).

into

rise

the most

f r o m w h i c h

his b o o k

gave

fortuitous

According

in

the second,

m o n e y

a n d

h i s t o r y . ” 52

divides

“ Analytical,” needs

is s i m p l y

of existence,

understood.”

S i m m e l

elucidated;

to reveal the

be

to t h e fol­

“M o n e y

realistic

a point of departure

called

namely,

n o w

the

for the presentation of relations

superficial,

individual

this concept,

meets,” are m e a n t

pays attention

question of eventually developing

first p a r t ,

fro m

In

is a t r e a t i s e i n s o c i a l p h i ­

and

des Geldes

s i d e r s t h a t “ t h i s is o n l y existence, so

w h i c h

f r e e d o m , etc.

primarily

“ P r e f a c e ” of this b o o k :

currents of a

m u c h

problems

transaction,

here

a

of slavery, b o n d a g e ,

considered

have

have

D u r k h e i m finds “ a treatise in social p h i l o s o p h y ”

b et w e e n

p h e n o m e n a

b e c o m e s

is

material, or a n e x a m p l e

that exist profound

w e

Philosophie

passage

sociological

will find a t h e o r y

society

w h a t

l o s o p h y . ” 51 T h u s ,

a n y

punishment,

although

the sociology

questions dealt with

are hardly

tackled here ; o n e

other words,

a

the

with

“ is

whole.” in

the

the context of

as a substance” (Sub­ “ the idea

intellect

that

life

is

is a c c e p t e d

in

p r a c t i c a l life a s t h e m o s t v a l u a b l e o f o u r m e n t a l e n e r g i e s , ” is u s e d to g o

h a n d

H e n c e

he

in h a n d says

that

with

the “penetration of a m o n e y

“ the

g r o w t h

of

intellectual

e c o n o m y . ”

and

abstract

G e o r g

abilities c h a r a c t e r i z e s t h e a g e pure

in w h i c h

a n d É m i l e

m o n e y

b e c o m e s

m o r e a n d

a

noted

that h e asserts that m o n e y b e c o m e s m o r e a n d m o r e But,

n e u t r a l i n its i n t r i n s i c v a l u e . ” 53

first o f all,

s a y s , “ If m o n e y

is o n l y

D u r k h e i m

135

D u r k h e i m

m o r e

symbol.”

symbol,

S i m m e l

It m a y

be

“a pure

criticizes this assertion.

a symbol, a

y a r d s t i c k , it h a s

n o

H e

need

to

p o s s e s s b y itself a n i n t r i n s i c v a l u e s o a s t o fulfill its m i s s i o n . ” T o Simmel, of a

however,

pure

mark,

m o n e y or

increasingly c o m e s

of a n

to hav e the character

abstract expression, while

the

intrinsic

n a t u r e a n d v a l u e o f t h e m a t e r i a l u s e d f o r its c a s t b e c o m e s c o n v e r s e ­ ly

a still m o r e

m o n e y

meaningless

factor

t h e social

services

w h i c h

renders.

In o p p o s i t i o n t o this, D u r k h e i m the

of

importance

of

the s u m s

says,

of m o n e y

“N o w a d a y s , w e

w e

evaluate

receive without

even

reflecting o n the c o m m e r c i a l value of the precious m et a l s w h i c h m a k e u p m o n e y . T h i s d e v e l o p m e n t , it i s t r u e , c a n n o t b e t a k e n t o its l o g i c a l c o n c l u s i o n : it i s i m p o s s i b l e clusively a pure mel.

F o r

“m a n y even

ideas, k e e n

observations, interesting,

proof,” he goes o n

to say, “ T o

together without

read

l a b o r i o u s , is t h e r e f o r e i n t e r e s t i n g , objective value of

a n d

is n o t

m o n e y ,

taking w e

up

m u s t

his m e t h o d o l o g y

D u r k h e i m ’s say

that

it

accept

the

velopments, A ccording s a m e

time,

theory

w h i c h

f o r it r e s t s o n to h i m ,

b y

criticism d o not

in p r o p o r t i o n

it i s d e v e l o p e d .

S i m m e l ’s t h e o r y as

is k n o w n

of

f ro m

believe that a n e conomist

lies at t h e

an a m b i g u o u s

m o n e y S i m m e l

metallic m o n e y

o n

But

c r i t i c i z e s S i m m e l ’s

w h i c h

is v e r y s e v e r e ,

D u r k h e i m ’s j u d g e m e n t t h a t “ w e can

o n

or

s o m e w h a t

in places, suggestive.

the insights p r o p o s e d to us a n d

accuracy

this b o o k , t h o u g h

t o t h e i r i n g e n i o u s n e s s . ”55 S a y i n g s o , D u r k h e i m of m o n e y

sometimes

a w e a l t h of historical a n d e t h n o g r a ­

facts, yet, u n f o r t u n a t e l y , p u t

First,

ex ­

a l l t h a t , a f t e r h e f i n d s i n S i m m e l ’s P h i l o s o p h i e d e s G e l d e s ,

ingenious

theory

to b e c o m e

s y m b o l . ” 54 H e r e D u r k h e i m s e v e r e l y c r i t i c i z e s S i m ­

surprising comparisons,

phical

for m o n e y

bot to m

of

all t h e s e d e ­

a n d confused

understands,

(le n u m é r a i r e ) , w h i c h

n o t i o n . ” 56

at o n e a n d has

the

a real v al u e

i n itself, a n d p a p e r m o n e y (le p a p i e r - m o n n a i e ) , n a m e l y , m o n e y w i t h a

purely

fiduciary

value

(la m o n n a i e

p ur em en t

fiduciare).

A s

it

136

G e o r g

were,

in

S i m m e l

a n d

É m i l e D u r k h e i m

S i m m e l ’s c a s e b o t h

A ccording

to D u r k h e i m ,

are

dealt

however,

they

with are

in t w o

the

s a m e

way.

entirely distinct

institutions, w h i c h a r e n o t b a s e d o n t h e s a m e principles. F o r p a p e r m o n e y

depends

o n

the development

different origins f r o m for t w o

such

the

m o n e t a r y

in o n e

a n d

correct to say

that

“ m o n e y

this time, m a y b e ,

about cant

“ the value that

creased m e a n s its

the

the

of m o n e y

of e xc ha ng e

bill

concept.

beco m e s

m o r e

kept

totally

and

relations,

(Tauschmittel),

elimination

w h i c h

Therefore, m o r e

b y

through

passage

“ It is signifi­

w h i c h

originally in­

in m o d e r n

interlocal

transfer

But,

fiduciary.”

(Substanzwertigkeit) leads,

the

with­

it i s n o t

S i m m e l ’s f o l l o w i n g

valuableness

is t h a t “ t h e r e a r e

circulation),

impossible

It is t h u s

s a m e

trade

( W e c h s e l v e r s a n d ) . ” 57

matter

system.

as a substance” in m i n d ;

expansion of

substantial

complete

the

D u r k h e i m

balancing of accounts a

o n

different categories of fact to b e c o m p o u n d e d

out confusion A t

of credit, n a m e l y ,

(Giro)

and and

for D u r k h e i m

of

the

culture,

to

international negotiation of

the truth of

the

i n e x i s t e n c e t w o t y p e s o f c i r c u l a t i o n (la

relate to t w o

v e r y different

forms

of

social

organization.” A n d

according

to D u r k h e i m ,

metallic currency

paper

m o n e y

can

substitute

only to the extent that e c o n o m i c

ized, a n d , c on v e r s e l y , e c o n o m i c control of

society

w h e r e

important.

Fiduciary

the

m o n e y ,

functions escape

life is s o c i a l ­

all t h e m o r e

role of metallic c ur r e n c y then,

cannot

for

b e c o m e

is

the m o r e

preponderant

t h r o u g h a sort of s p o n t a n e o u s d ev el op m en t, in the course of w h i c h m o n e y , m o r e a n d m o r e c o m p l e t e l y , r e a l i z e s its n a t u r e . R a t h e r , i n this case,

profound

transformations

w o u l d

have

to occur

in the

structure of o u r societies, i m p o s i n g a different s y s t e m o f circulation f r o m

the o n e

that

that D u r k h e i m

is c u r r e n t l y

grasps

the development

m o n e y

to paper

c h a n g e

of social structure e ns ui ng f r o m

functions. H e r e of m o n e y N o w ,

m o n e y

in use.

in relation to

Accordingly, of

m o n e y

w e

fro m

this d e v e l o p m e n t

can

say

fiduciary with

the

the increase of eco no mi c

w e f i n d h i s v i e w p o i n t f r o m w h i c h S i m m e l ’s t h e o r y

is c r i t i c i z e d . in his criticism t o w a r d

S i m m e l ’s m e t h o d o l o g y , D u r k h e i m

G e o r g

criticizes

“ Synthetic

A ccording

to

Part” of

D u r k h e i m ,

S i m m e l a n d

t h e l a t t e r ’s P h i l o s o p h i e

this

“Synthetic

137

É m i l e D u r k h e i m

Part”

des Geldes.

calls

for

“ even

clearer reservations” and, “here, ideas are often mutually attached b y

an

external

v i e w his

reason

rather than

a

l o g i c a l . ” 58

His

fundamental

is d i r e c t l y a n d i n t e n s i v e l y e x p r e s s e d i n t h i s p a s s a g e , i n w h i c h reasoning

mentioned

is

very

severe,

theory of m o n e y .

as

follows: S i m m e l

in

w h i c h

h e

as

is h i s c r i t i c i s m

W e

to

the above-

c a n s u m u p D u r k h e i m ’s c r i t i c i s m

in t h e “ P r e f a c e ” of his Philo s o ph i e d e s Geldes,

differentiates

philosophy

f r o m

individual

sciences,

said, “ R e p r e s e n t i n g a n d investigating p r e - c on d it io ns w i t h objective a n d

methodical

scend

nature,

philosophy

such pre-conditions. Only,

point of recognition appeal

to the

at w h i c h

D u r k h e i m

given

free reign here, a n d

very

F o r

high

our

said, o w n

part,

D u r k h e i m

to the

point

of

confess

riving

persists

f r o m with

each

D u r k h e i m losophy.

philosophy,

m a k e s A n d

the

the

rival in S i m m e l ,

a

under

thus

n o

rele­

spe cu la t io n (ce g e n r e

a de

in necessarily s u b ­

i n s c i e n c e . ” 60

T h e

because

so severely?

F i r s t o f all, S i m m e l

deriving of

latter

F o r

“ the

this fresh

nor

“ the

w e

m u s t

stands

f r o m

o n

S i m m e l

say

not

while

to understand did not

sociology

in

e s p e c i a l l y h i s p h i l o s o p h y o f life, reason

is

b e t w e e n

sociology

that D u r k h e i m

the circumstances

that

rationalism de ­

try

grasps

to

the v i e w ­

Spinozism,

methodic did

It s e e m s

their methodologies

rigid distinction third

are

not attach

t h a t t h e artist a ro us es ,

his viewpoint

other,

d o

offer u s neither

criticize S i m m e l

Cartesianism.

relation w i t h

t h e last

t h e scientist seeks.

relativism in

feelings

w e

r e a l i t y is e x p r e s s e d

f o r m e r ’s v i e w p o i n t . S e c o n d l y ,

along

that

bastard

are v e r y different;

methodic

D u r k h e i m the

w e

following reasons:

their viewpoints

personal

a s s e r t s t h a t it c a n

does D u r k h e i m

d u e

tran­

a n d

rigorous demonstrations hav e

living sensation of things”

W h y

authoritative decision

in art, b u t abstractly, a s

distinct ideas” after w h i c h be

a n

v a l u e to this style of

jective terms, as a n d

i n t h i s c a s e , it is a l w a y s

“ Imagination,

spéculation bâtard), w h e r e reason,

completely

u n p r o v a b l e a r i s e s i n u s . ” 59 P a y i n g a t t e n t i o n t o t h i s

view, vance.

itself c a n n o t

that they

w e r e

its

while

a n d

found

go

a

phi­ g oo d

of

the

138

G e o r g

s a m e very

S i m m e l

age and different

century.”

a n d É m i l e D ü r k h e i m

b o t h tried to rebuild standpoints in w h a t

Thi s

is

clear

f r o m

a science of sociology f r o m is c a l l e d “ t h e t u r n o f t h e

D u r k h e i m ’s

article,

“ Sociologie et

s o n d o m a i n e s c i e n t i f i c , ” o n w h i c h w e s h a l l m e n t i o n l a t e r . F o r all t h a t , it i s s t r a n g e t h a t S i m m e l d i d n o t r e f u t e D u r k h e i m a t all. Let

us

heim.

n o w turn

It m a y b e

confronted “ T h e

imagined

M a r x .

N u m b e r

to the views of socialism of S i m m e l a n d D u r k ­ In

f r o m their v ie ws of socialism h o w

t h e first p l a c e , S i m m e l

of M e m b e r s as Determining

of the G r o u p , ” translated n u m b e r

of the eighth Thi s

of Sociology.

by Albion

v o l u m e

is

the original

already

D u r k h e i m . view

of

mentioned,

Relying o n

socialism.

the Sociological F o r m

of

of

T h e A m e r i c a n Journal

the second

says,

“ T h e

small

group

viduals can obvious repays

and,

t h e latter b o o k

After

h e

w o r k

here, w e

finds socialism

w h a t

each

to him,

a large group,

of

a n d

w h a t

overlook

socialism,

reward,

can

is s u r e l y e q u a l l y

a n d

does

A s

w e

r e f e r t o S i m m e l ’s

only

for the

w h o l e

in quite

namely, be

fairness

realized best

important

a n d

small

in large groups,

control this t e n d e n c y .

so that c omparison however,

his

t h e f o r m e r article w a s c o m m e n t e d o n b y

inner tendency

the distribution of

chapter of

Determination of G ro up . ”

g r o u p s a n d r e c o g n i z e s t h a t it c a n n o t b e o r g a n i z e d he

they

t h e article,

S m a l l , i n t h e first a n d s e c o n d

(1902/03)

S o z iologie (1908), “ Q u a n t i t a t i v e

hav e

published

is

in

in a

that

indi­

It is h e r e q u i t e

with

w h a t

the

w h o l e

a n d a d j u s t m e n t a r e e a s y . ” 61 I n

t h e y a r e difficult, b e c a u s e o f t h e i n e v i t a b l e

d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n o f its m e m b e r s ,

that

is, o f

their functions a n d their

claims. Nevertheless, concerned, m e m b e r s .

the

m o r e

Therefore,

individuals to socialism

the closer

the

unity

of

a

group

is

articulate

m u s t

be

the specialization of

its

this

the w h o l e

feelings

the w h o l e

m u s t

increasingly

to t hem.

o f a l a r g e g r o u p ” i s p o s s i b l e , it w o u l d

est differentiation a m o n g entiation

specialization and

wide-spread

w o u l d a n d

extend

wishes.

B u t

its m e m b e r s . b e y o n d this

achievements, a m o n g rewards,

their w o u l d

A n d ,

bind

if “ t h e

require the sharp­

of course, this differ­

occupations m a k e

T h e n ,

and

comparisons

to

their a m o n g

a n d adjustments b et w e e n them,

ex-

G eo r g

tremely

difficult.

According

socialism

for

group

“the o n e

is

a small

to

g r o u p ”

that

S i m m e l

Simmel,

that

relies

is

o n

a n d

hence

it

possible.

complete

139

É m i l e D ü r k h e i m

is

F o r

only

“the

only a

small

systematization and

entire practicability.” A b o u t

this v i e w

o f s o c i a l i s m o f S i m m e l ’s , D u r k h e i m

in

the above-mentioned

as

Determining

“ Impossibility But

he

Sociological

that

he

conspicuously article. M r .

could

clear.

the eras of the

history other

L e

the

is

all s o r t s o f

socialism and work,

m a k e

as

N u m b e r

not

a

fro m

as

the

facts,

m e t h o d

b o r r o w e d

in

very

deals

b o o k

w a s

this it o c ­

f r o m

all

o f c o l l e c t i v e life.” 02 severely.

with

the

the doctrines of Saint-Simonians

socialisme (1928). T h i s

factor

n u m e r a t i n g rapidly, as

all t h e f o r m s

D u r k h e i m

follows : “O n e

numerical

the consistent

criticizes S i m m e l

hand,

of

writes:

in s m a l l circles.”

w h o l e

multitudinous

a n d

also notes

of M e m b e r s

of the G r o u p ” a n d

role

is c o n t e n t w i t h

also, D u r k h e i m

O n

“ T h e

F o r m

article

S u c h

S i m m e l

curs to him,

o n

for socialism to b e realized except

c r i t i c i z e s S i m m e l ’s

believed

H e r e

the

c o m m e n t

definition

of

in his p o s t h u m o u s

edited b y

his n e p h e w ,

M a r c e l M a u s s . A c c o r d i n g t o M a u s s w h o w r o t e its “ I n t r o d u c t i o n , ” it i s “ a n u n p u b l i s h e d w o r k , ” “ t h e f i r s t p a r t o f a h i s t o r y o f s o c i a l ­ ism,

d r a w n

given

at

u p

the

under

S e p t e m b e r

1895

D u r k h e i m

M a u s s

socialism f r o m the

the

Faculty

of

to M a y

for m 1896.

says,

of

Letters,

a

lecture.”

University

A b o u t

“ D u r k h e i m

scholar should look

of socialism” of

considered

the

a problem

it is a q u e s t i o n o f e x p l a i n i n g a n i d e o l o g y — to explain

constrained

a

a n d

M a r x ,

a n d

e co no mi c

that

f e w

m u s t

m e n

to advance

such

analyze

the

as a

“the doctrine

of

fact w h i c h

in sociology;

with­

for him,

t h e socialist i d e o l o g y — social

as Saint-Simon

Needless to say,

considered

doctrine

prejudice, a n d

a n d

n e w principles of morality

a c t i o n . ”63

D u r k h e i m

purely

it o n e

w a s from

“the study

u p o n coldly, w i t h o u t

t r e a t s it a s

lecture

Bordeaux,

a p u r e l y scientific poi nt of v i e w ,

o u t t a k i n g sides. H e a n d

Thi s of

here of

pressures

w h i c h

Fourier,

O w e n

a n d

o f political

M a u s s

socialism”

points out f r o m

“a

scientific p o i n t o f v i e w ” a n d a n a l y z e d t h e social facts w h i c h

produced

the

socialist ideology. M a u s s further believes that D u r k -

140

G e o r g S i m m e l

a n d

É m i l e D u r k h e i m

h e i m ’s l e c t u r e i s “ a m o d e l o f t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f s o c i o l o g i c a l a n d historical m e t h o d to the analysis of t h e c a u s e s w h i c h p r o d u c e d an

idea.” In defining

socialism at

the

beginning of

the First Part in his p o s t h u m o u s

work,

the

first c h a p t e r

D u r k h e i m

of

thinks that “ a

s c i e n c e i s a s t u d y t o r e c o g n i z e a n d , if p o s s i b l e , t o u n d e r s t a n d o n a d e t e r m i n a t e p or t i o n o f reality.” F o r D u r k h e i m , “ to describe a n d explain task

that w h i c h

is

of science, a n d

though

its final

however,

a n d

that w h i c h

that “ speculation o n

objective

is t o

attention to

or has

it h a s

it h a s

received

r e f l e c t i o n , it h a s

various itself.”

“ Yet,

b e t w e e n

Socialism, it i s a b o v e

societies,” n a m e l y , “ a C o n s e q u e n t l y , it p a y s to

“ that w h i c h

is

given f ro m

back

m o r e

“ a c e r t a i n scientific

services to social science

this science.

F o r

it h a s

s t i m u l a t e d scientific activity,

its h i s t o r y m i n g l e s

h o w

m o r e

can

o n e

a w a k e n e d

it h a s

us

provoked

m a n y

problems.

with

the history of sociology

fail t o n o t e

Accordingly,

the e n o r m o u s

disparity

the rare and m e a g e r deta socialism b or r o w s fro m sciences

the extent

of

the practical

are, nevertheless, the

complete h e i m

possible.

the future, a n d

b e ” than

a n d

r e s e a r c h e s , a n d it h a s p o s e d

“ in m a n y points,

w h i c h

its w o r k ,

is c l o s e l y c o n n e c t e d w i t h s c i e n c e . A c c o r d i n g

it h a s a f f e c t e d m o r e

tendency,” a n d

a n d

the unique

been.”

to D u r k h e i m ,

to

is

f u t u r e ” is n o t

of present “ a n ideal.” m u s t

b e e n ”

t h e m

toward

“ that w h i c h

H o w e v e r , socialism

than

m a k e

is o r i e n t e d c o m p l e t e l y

all “ a p l a n o f r e c o n s t r u c t i o n p r o g r a m m e o f c o l l e c t i v e life,” m o r e

has

conclusions

that

heart of the s y s te m?

it d r a w s ,

and

It a s p i r e s t o a

r e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e s o c i a l o r d e r . ” 64 S t a t i n g t h u s , D u r k ­

recognizes

that

historical

standpoint

E u r o p e a n

peoples,

transformed

it

is a b s o l u t e l y n e c e s s a r y

the to

m a n y

discover

these institutions a n d

institutions the

and

principal

practices.

to study

f ro m

practices

conditions

O n l y

w h e n

a of

w h i c h this h a s

b e e n m a d e c l e a r , it is p o s s i b l e t o a s k r a t i o n a l l y “ w h a t t h e s e i n ­ stitutions a n d practices h a v e to b e c o m e n o w a d a y s , u n d e r the present conditions of o u r collective existence.” But, h e t h a t “ all t h e s e

researches are

in t h e

diagnoses

infant stages as yet.”

G e o r g

After having given

tude that science permits however,

t o M a r x ’s

had

D a s

one

a n d

Kapital,

w e

in a

f e w

their

affirmations

arguments. establish than

T h e a

are

doctrine

that

reminded lines?

the only

atti­

this h e

statistical dealt

studies

that h a d

bee n

to

with

truth

solve there!

m a d e

of

is t h a t t h e facts to d o c u m e n t

except to give

they

w h a t

that a n entire theory

T h e

there

points

data,

necessary

are

Social­

w e r e

f o r m

to the

undertaken

previously conceived,

to

rather

t h e d o c t r i n e b e i n g w h i c h w o u l d b e a r e s u l t o f t h e r e s e a r c h . ”65

D u r k h e i m

gives

such

a

cutting

criticism

to the

scientific socialism, i n c l u d i n g t h e a u t h o r o f D a s a “passion”

he

finds that

cording to him, forces

says

b y theoreticians anxious

hardly

research

D u r k h e i m

him,

be

141

D u r k h e i m

cautiousness.”

studies w o u l d b e

observations assembled

a n d

“ W h a t

of the innumerable question

v a l u e is e s t a b l i s h e d

Émile

this attitude. W i t h

says,

w h a t

I n M a r x ’s C a p i t a l n e e d and

exist.” F o r

is “ m o d e s t y

not a ss u m e d

historical c o m p a r i s o n s , a n y

a n d

this d iagnosis to socialism,

that “ a scientific s o c i a l i s m c a n n o t ism,

S i m m e l

is

w h a t

w h i c h

brings

inspires

“ t h e thirst for m o r e

torments

“ Socialism

the

is n o t a

A n d

Kapital.

all t h e i r

systems.

forth these systems a n d m a k e s perfect justice,” “ the pity

m i s e r y o f the w o r k i n g class,” a n d w h i c h

theoreticians of A c ­ their

for the

“a v a g u e feeling for the trouble

contemporary

science, a

in

societies.”

sociology

D u r k h e i m

in miniature—

adds,

it i s a c r y

of grief, s o m e t i m e s o f a n g e r , u t t e r e d b y m e n w h o feel m o s t k e e n l y o u r c o l l e c t i v e a n x i e t y . ” 66

H e r e

of socialism.

H e

thus regards

furthermore,

as

“a

t h i n k s o f it a s W e

have

consider

social

just n o w

mentioned

this c o n n e c t i o n M a u s s to

D u r k h e i m ’s v i e w

the highest

“a

social fact,”

importance,”

and

the “object of science.”

socialism as “a

adhere

find directly

s o c i a l i s m itself a s

fact of

the

fact that D u r k h e i m

social fact”

of science.” Standing firmly o n to

w e

a n d

to m a k e

this p r e m i s e ,

(properly

so-called),

the “object

h e dealt with

s a y s , “ A l l h i s life D u r k h e i m

socialism

it

tried to

w a s

because

i t. I n

reluctant of

certain

f e a t u r e s o f t h i s m o v e m e n t : its v i o l e n t n a t u r e , its c l a s s c h a r a c t e r — m o r e

or

l e s s p u r e l y w o r k i n g m e n ’s — a n d

even

politician-like tone.

D u r k h e i m

t h e r e f o r e its p o l i t i c a l a n d

w a s p r o f o u n d l y o p p o s e d t o all

142

G e o r g

w a r s

S i m m e l

a n d

of class or

of the

w h o le

of

if t h e

latter h a d

É mi l e D u r k h e i m

nation.

H e

society

a n d

n u m b e r s

desired c ha ng e not of

a n d

only

f o r c e . ” 67

only

o n e

T o

for

the benefit

o f its p a r t s — e v e n

D u r k h e i m

w h o

thus

g r a s p e d socialism objectively a n d tried to c h a n g e society as a w h o l e , political r evolutions a n d p a r l a m e n t a r y e vo l u t i o n s s e e m e d to be H e

“ superficial,

therefore

expensive

always

a n d

resisted

rather theatrical t h a n

“ the

idea of submitting

serious.”

to

a

party

w i t h political discipline, specially a n international o n e . ” A c c o r d i n g to Mauss, the

m o r e

Dreyfus

First W o r l d a n y

hopes

ally.”

than

that, e v e n

affair” did n o t W a r ,

he

on w h a t

w a s

N am e l y ,

c o m r a d e

o n e

a n d

his opinion.

of the persons

moral E v e n

w h o

crisis of

during the

did

not

place

is c a l l e d “ w o r k i n g c l a s s o r g a n i z e d i n t e r n a t i o n ­

Consequently,

m e a n . ”

“ the social

c ha nge

h e

always

although

h e

Jean Jaurès, a n d

continued

to

“sympathized”

socialism, h e

be

in

with

“ the golden socialists,

never devoted

his

himself to

it. Judging S i m m e l

f r o m the

a n d

their o w n h e i m the

cuttingly

he

regarded

clearly

took

it b i t t e r l y . T h i s

u p

in this section,

confronted

a

S i m m e l ’s

this b o o k .

M a r x

Philosophie

T hi s

socialism only

large g r o u p ”

can be

from

is c l e a r f r o m

k n o w n

as impossible,

f r o m

M a r x ’s l a b o r t h e o r y

des Geldes,

from

in a small g ro up

socialism as “ a social fact” a n d

“object of science” exclusively

S i m m e l

mentioned

in spite of the c i r c u m s t a n c e that D u r k ­

found

“ socialism in

D u r k h e i m

h a d

criticized

facts that S i m m e l

it t h e

both

set s o m e value o n

considered

all,

D u r k h e i m

points of view,

m o s t

though

facts that w e h a v e

a n d

the paradoxical

value

that

tried to m a k e

this v i e w p o i n t . of

and

a n d

A b o v e

criticized

logic w h i c h w e c a n

f i n d i n t h e f o l l o w i n g p a s s a g e : “ It is a f a l l a c y t o r e v e r s e t h e p o s t u ­ l a t e t h a t is p e r h a p s

ethically g r o u n d a b l e in the s ta t e m e n t

v a l u e is l a b o r ’ i n t o t h e v a l u e . ” 68 T h i s

A s

w e w e

h av e have

search m a d e

‘ a l l l a b o r i s v a l u e , ’ t h a t is, o f e q u a l

p a s s a g e o f S i m m e l ’s a g r e e s w i t h D u r k h e i m ’s p a s s a g e

of “a n entire theory w h i c h

one

t h a t ‘ all

b y

o f v a l u e is e s t a b l i s h e d t h e r e i n a f e w

mentioned already

lines,”

before.

mentioned,

D u r k h e i m

considered

the re­

t h e t h e o r e t i c i a n s o f scientific s o c i a l i s m a s “ u n d e r -

G e o r g

taken a n d

to establish

S i m m e l

a doctrine that they

criticized that this d o c t r i n e w a s

the other hand, (2nd

philosophie

present

although

“ the

ed.,

merit

fundamental

of

that historical

É mi l e

143

D ü r k h e i m

h a d previously conceived”

not

a result of research. O n

in his b o o k D i e P r o b l e m e d e r Geschichts­

revised,

1905)

historical

principle

a n d

of

S i m m e l

materialism”

scientific

w h i c h

is k n o w n

for

the

forms

the

criticism

w a s

“ a heuristic principle”

with

socialism,

materialism confused

“ a constitutive one.” T h i s

recognized

f ro m

his

the following passage:

“ Historical materialism confuses... a principle w h i c h h a s a heuristic meaning, a

as applied

constitutive

the

one

facts d e v e l o p

first,

w h i c h f ro m

as

it w e r e ,

fro m

o n

trial e v e r y w h e r e ,

the beginning

with

is f i x e d a n d

itself.”69 C o n s e q u e n t l y ,

S i m m e l ’s

m a k e s

criticism

a g a i n s t scientific s o c i a l i s m o r historical m a t e r i a l i s m h a s s o m e t h i n g to d o

with

D u r k h e i m ’s c r i t i c i s m a g a i n s t it.

6. Concl u s i o n A s

w e

m e r s

have

article of

i n L ’A n n é e Ersten

12, ed

“Ü b e r

Deutschen

il s u o

räumliche

also w r o t e

D u r k h e i m

c o m m e n t e d

Projektionen

1904)

a n d

in the

Soziologentages

h e

dominio

a n d

mentioned,

s o c i o l o g i q u e (vol. 7,

1913), a n d

1900)

already

o n

Also

like to take u p

these c o m m e n t s .

a n d

S i m m e l ’s “ Ü b e r chapter

e xa m i n e

a part of (“ D e r

R a u m

the

u n d

in question

is t o d e t e r m i n e

of a g r o u p

problems

group of

so

affects a

its

relation of

is

can

find

I w o u l d

in

the

O r d n u n g e n

der

saying:

in w h i c h

it w e r e ,

a s p e c t . ” 70 group

treated

S o z i o l o g i e (1908).

begins b y

the w a y

are projected, as

a n d

such

sociologia

w e

D u r k h e i m ,

die räumlichen

this article, D u r k h e i m

this

a n d

here

contents w h i c h

m en t i n g o n

by

r e p o r t (vol.

r ä u m l i c h e Projektionen socialer F o r m e n ” (1903)

Gesellschaft”) of his later great b o o k ,

forms

annual

des

scientifico” in Ri vi s t a italiana d i sociologia (IV, S i m m e l

ninth

F o r m e n ”

V e r h a n d l u n g e n

s a m e

the point of contact b et w e e n

to

socialer

the Italian article of “ L a

c r i t i c i z e d S i m m e l ’s s o c i o l o g y .

corresponds

o n S i m ­

a n d

o n A n d

In

“ T h e

c o m ­ point

social forces a n d the space occupied he

classifies

the

space,

e x a m i n e d

by

144

G e o r g

Simmel,

S i m m e l

a n d

into the

É m i l e D u r k h e i m

following

four categories a n d

summarizes

them.

F i r s t o f all, t h e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n , t h r o u g h w h i c h s o c i e t i e s p a s s f r o m t h e principle of f a m i l y into a p r o p e r l y political o r g a n i z a t i o n a n d

f o r m

a

so-called

state, is o f t e n a c c o m p a n i e d

b y the differen­

tiation of g r o u p s

a c c o r d i n g to a territorial base. “ In s u c h

social f r a m e s

r e g i o n s (les districts), n o t

races

to

n e w - b o r n

more.

are

According

the author,

it

is

the

substitutes this n e w

principle for the old principle of

cause

still

it

facilitates

D u r k h e i m

recognizes

attaches

m o r e

the

political

the opinion of "the

importance

to

the

unity

case,

state

that

family,

of

author,”

social f r a m e

a

(les g e n t e s ) a n y be­

s o c i e t y . ” 71

Simmel,

of the region

w h o

a n d

c o n ­

siders that the principle of family declines w ith the formation state a n d

“ t h e p o l i t i c a l u n i t y o f s o c i e t y ” is e s t a b l i s h e d . S e c o n d l y ,

“ the sovereignty of w h i c h

of a chief,”

a group

established o n

is

the

territory.

of the

former. Moreover, have as

the

seat

"secondary g r o u p ” a

easily

N am e l y ,

a

of

the

latter

F o r

centralized

the individuals the sovereignty is

translation

of territorial s o v e r ­ w h e n

in the center power.

secondaire),

a

example,

c i t y is e r e c t e d

this

on

b e c o m e s

the different f o r m s

(le g r o u p e

club, a r e g i m e n t a n d m a k i n g

established

various spatial expressions.

strong centralization,

territory,

once

composed,

eignty is a

such

as

“a

“building”

form.

to w h a t

appropriate

N am e l y ,

these

people

After D u r k h e i m

the each

family,

a

a university,” t e n d s to t a k e a spatial f o r m b y

different social g r o u p s

unique

there of

Thirdly,

to

b e c o m e

an

element

p r o p e r c h a r a c t e r . F o u r t h l y , “ t h e s p a c e ” (l’e s p a c e ) w h i c h t w o

of

it

takes, as a is

a n d

result of

of

separates

this situation,

the frontier w h i c h

its

varies

a

according

their relationships are.

thus s um ma ri z ed

S i m m e l ’s v i e w s , h e g i v e s t h e

following j u d g m e n t

o n t h e s e v i e w s . “ T h e flexibility o f spirit w i t h

w h i c h

m o v e s

M r .

passing

S i m m e l

fro m

o n e

subject

n e x t idea, interests a b o u t concepts A n d m e r c y

w h i c h

although

h e

within

into another, w h i c h

e mploys

he

have

these concepts h av e

of development,”

the questions

they

f ro m

that

o n e

writes.

But,

generally

n o

he

idea

as a

treats, into the

result, t h e

p r e c i s e s e n s e . ”72

“ a n e x c e s s i v e elasticity at t h e

“h av e

generally n o

precise sense.”

G e o r g S i m m e l

Thus,

D u r k h e i m

does

not

see h o w

territorial s o v e r e i g n t y ” b y F o r

example,

the

a n d

Émile

’’t h e p o l i t i c a l p r i n c i p l e o f t h e

itself i m p l i c a t e s s p a t i a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n s .

fact that

a

king

is

considered

the

territory d o e s n o t affect the constitution o r t h e f o r m s “ W e

can

district

say

is

the

a

145

D u r k h e i m

s a m e

thing

conventional,

about

divisions

a

of territory.

into

ideal circumscription,

ruler of districts. A

w h i c h

is

only

m o s t accessorily spatial, in s o far a s w e trace b o u n d a r i e s o r w e e r e c t m i l e s t o n e s , i n o r d e r t o d i s t i n g u i s h b o r d e r i n g d i s t r i c t s . ” 73 I n this w a y ,

D u r k h e i m

t h i n k o f i t, h e

A s

asserts that Friedrich

(1897),

G e o g r a p h i e

m o r e

c r i t i c i z e s S i m m e l ’s v i e w s s e v e r e l y . W h e n treats

“ the

Ratzel,

w h o l e

part

“extensively and

profoundly” than

w e

mentioned,

hav e

already

w e

author of Politische relating

to frontiers”

Simmel.

D u r k h e i m

c o m m e n t e d

o n

V e r ­

h a n d l u n g e n d e s E r s t e n D e u t s c h e n S o z i o l o g e n t a g e s (1911), in L ' A n n é e

(vol. 12,

sociologique

first

meeting

1910.”

But,

Soziologie days for

of

Berlin.

savants,

this

as

the

had

October

congress first

meeting

1910,

he

mistakes

the others,

a lecture

this lecture

h e

writes that

in Berlin

Deutsche

19-22,

Kantorowicz a n d gave

of

Frankfort

it a s i d e ,

he

place

in

Ferdinand

w e

took

held

as

mel, w h i c h

In his c o m m e n t

been

Setting

such

1913).

in O c t o b e r

Gesellschaft

the

Main,

Frankfort

deals

Tönnies,

o n

o n

with

the

views

Ernst

Tröltsch,

a n d h e deals also with

t h e first d a y

corresponds

keit”) in his later b o o k ,

of the

roughly

to

meeting.

the

G r u n d f r a g e n

for

für four

the

M a i n

of

m a n y

H e r m a n n

those of S i m ­

find in “ Soziologie d e r Geselligkeit,” o n o n

"the

T h e

w h i c h

he

contents of

t h i r d c h a p t e r (“ G e s e l l i g ­ S o z i o l o g i e (1917).

d e r

D u r k h e i m ’s a p p r a i s a l o f t h i s “ S o z i o l o g i e d e r G e s e l l i g k e i t ” i s a s follows: “M r .

S i m m e l ’s r e p o r t i s d e d i c a t e d

Various

sociabilité.

interests,

political,

to L a sociologie d e

economic,

aesthetic, give birth to various kinds of groups. In i n t e r e s t s , it i s i m p o r t a n t t o d i s t i n g u i s h the group bility.

itself a n d

T h e

pleasure

conditions

w h i c h

feeling of satisfaction m a y professional

differences,

be

but,

in

a

are

a

so-called

form.

necessary

in

the

s a m e

This order

of

is s o c i a ­ that

are effacement

time

a n d

regard to these

feeling of e n j o y m e n t

a t its m a x i m u m at

religious

la

attenuation

this of of

146

G e o r g

S i m m e l a n d

Êntile D u r k h e i m

personal differences,

tact,

equality

received

face contacts, ‘played ’ d em oc ra c y, analyzes notes

with w ell-known

the

o n e

m u s t

m e n t

o n

be

and

a w a r e

sets

that

S i m m e r s

in individual

t h a t is w h a t

face to

M r . S i m m e l

s u g g e s t i v e a c u t e n e s s . ” 74 H e r e D u r k h e i m

“suggestive acuteness”

a n a l y z i n g sociability

etc.— of

S i m m e l

a high

w h o

value

o n

s h o w e d

it i n

this analysis,

it i s a s d i f f e r e n t f r o m

so

his cutting c o m ­

a b o v e - m e n t i o n e d a r t i c l e , a s l i g h t is f r o m

dark­

ness. P r i o r t o this, in 1 9 0 0 sociologia

ed

il s u o d o m i n i o

sociologia and,

presented

t h a t o f S i m m e l ’s . of

“ D a s

formes

In

P r o b l e m

to take u p article

w a s

pendix of

m e l

as

book.

because

v a

m a d e the

di

(1894), a n d

of “ C o m m e n t

w h i c h

he

w h i c h F o r

les

himself trans­ w e

are going

that reason, this

original

w a s

missing

B u t g r a d u a l l y it b e c a m e k n o w n , in the year

1953, as a n (1953),

la sociologie f r ançaise?

ap ­

written

Quvillier.

t r a n s l a t i o n , first o f all, D u r k h e i m c o n s i d e r s S i m ­ w h o

attempts to establish

barely b e g u n a

italiana

t o S i m m e l ’s a r t i c l e s

its F r e n c h

sociologist A r m a n d

“ L a

of s ociology a n d criticized

in F rench.

in French.

Oil

the person has

Rivista

article of D u r k h e i m

the encyclopedic a n d

w h i c h has

a

in

referred

translation appeared

this F r e n c h

f r o m

of

Thi s

not noted,

F re nc h

In

view

Sociologie”

it w a s u n r e a d a b l e

a

his o w n

this article h e

der

t h e Italian article,

scientifico,”

w a s originally written

a f t e r its F r e n c h by

w rote

sociales se m a i n t i e n n e n t ” (1898),

lated into F rench.

and

D u r k h e i m

notable,

a n d

appreciates

a l m o s t violent,

subject matter of

science

different

s y n t h e t i c s o c i o l o g y , t h a t is, “ a s c i e n c e

to exist”

an

a

sociology.”

that

“S i m m e l

effort to trace the

A n d

he

finds

this

limits

kind

of

e f f o r t o n S i m m e l ’s p a r t , i n t h e t w o a b o v e - m e n t i o n e d a r t i c l e s t r a n s ­ lated

into F r e n c h

e x a m i n e

and,

b y

r e f er ri n g t o t h e s e articles, h e

tries to

S i m m e l ’s s o c i o l o g y .

D u r k h e i m genious.

d e s c r i b e s S i m m e l ’s i n v e s t i g a t i o n s

H o w e v e r ,

after

h e

considered

“ it

as

subtle

impossible

a n d to

in­ trace

the m a i n

d i v i s i o n s o f o u r s c i e n c e a s S i m m e l u n d e r s t a n d s it i n a n

objective

m a n n e r , ”

a m o n g

the questions

h e

says, to

“N o

w h i c h

connection S i m m e l

d r a w s

can the

be

discovered attention

of

G e o r g S i m m e l a n d

sociologists;

they are

topics of meditation

to a n integral scientific s y s t e m .

É mi l e

147

D u r k h e i m

that have

n o

relation

I n a d d i t i o n , S i m m e l ’s p r o o f s g e n e r ­

ally consist o n l y o f e x p l a n a t i o n s b y e x a m p l e s ; s o m e facts, b o r r o w e d f r o m t h e m o s t d i s p a r a t e fields, a r e cited, b u t by

critical analysis,

and

they are not preceded

t h e y often offer

us

n o

a s s e s s t h e i r v a l u e . ” 75 D u r k h e i m s e t s t h u s a h i g h

idea of

h o w

to

v a l u e o n S i m m e l ’s

sociological investigations, b u t h e criticizes t h e sociological m e t h o d on

w h i c h

they

are made.

H e n c e

merit

the n a m e

from

“philosophical variation”

chosen

m o r e

single w a y

or

w h i c h

S i m m e r s

w e

society

sociales

have

there

d ’e t r e )

D u r k h e i m

to

the

leanings of

to pose

the

problem

logical

s o l u t i o n ”—

fro m

problem, his

“the

social

mentioned, social

“ the social former

D u r k h e i m

w h i c h

social it

his

a n d

sociology

general

he

he

v i e w ­

consists

sociology,

of and

(les

manières

m o d e s

of

d o i n g ”

(les

manières

p h e n o m e n a

has

for

to think sets

up

its o b j e c t . that

“ the science that has

material

f o r m s of society.” A n d

viewpoint

says,

taking

that

term f o r m

“ after

general

w h i c h

S i m m e l ’s

opinion

(le m o t f o r m e )

w h o the

which,

sociology

as

the study holds

other used

h a s o n l y a m e t a p h o r i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e , is h e r e e m p l o y e d has

of society.”

for his o w n

It m a y

is u n d e r s t o o d

be by

task “the study

noted S i m m e l

here and

as

as

a

in opposition to

f o r its o b j e c t

D u r k h e i m

But,

analysis,

Especially, c o n c e r n ­

considers this science,

as

term f o r m

criticizes

being”

is m o r p h o l o g i c a l

Simmel,

forms

the

of

principle

for synthesis,”

he

is

w a y s

physiology

his

ing social m o r p h o l o g y ,

s e n s e , ” 76 a n d

in a

morphological

science w h i c h synthesizes particular sciences.

“the

this

a

h a s f o r its o b j e c t , a n d t h e l a t t e r is p h y s i o l o g i c a l

m a k e s

t h e r e is n e e d

a

social p h y s i o l o g y

a n d

social m o r p h o l o g y

is

s o c i a l life,

himself poses.

already

are

aspects of

according

thus his o w n

s o c i a l e s d e faire). T h e p h e n o m e n a

d r a w

of sociology

social m o r p h o l o g y , in

to

posed

view

A s

us

certain

is n e e d e d

D u r k h e i m

After having point.

“W h a t

permits

problem

o n

less at r a n d o m

individual. that

h e asserts that, “ for s o c i o l o g y to

o f a s c i e n c e , ” it m u s t b e s o m e t h i n g q u i t e d i f f e r e n t

that o n e

fast to this w a y

around,

b y

Simmel,

i n its p r o p e r

of the a n d

D u r k h e i m

of the

material the

in

s a m e

the t w o

148

G e o r g S i m m e l

a n d

É m i l e D u r k h e i m

quite different senses. A s

w e h a v e m e n t i o n e d in t h e b e g i n n i n g of this section, t h e c o m ­

parative study of S i m m e l i a n

sociology a n d D u r k h e i m i a n

sociology

h a s n o t b e e n m a d e s o m u c h of until n o w . In v i e w of s u c h c i r c u m ­ stances of study, w e h a v e h e r e a t t e m p t e d to m a k e , w i t h the b ac kg ro u nd

of

the

relation

b e t w e e n

S i m m e l

a n d

D u r k h e i m

as

c o n t e m p o r a r i e s , the c o m p a r a t i v e s t u d y of their sociological theories. A s

everybody

knows,

the

related

to eac h

other.

outline of the difference a n d Firstly,

about

methodic stood

S i m m e l ’s

rationalism.

the position

nected

with

w e of

affirmed that his

that

his

w h o

holds

rationalism

p hysics” of C o m t e Cartesianism.

In

I w o u l d

theories

already so

and his

case,

A s

it m a y

the

has

been

noted

S i m m e l

closely c o n ­

m u c h

of

inter­

principle of recog­ O n

the contrary,

rationalism,

f ro m be

D u r k h e i m ’s

is

m a d e

that of Spinozism.

Spencer.

a n d

mentioned,

“ relativism as a

different

have

like to give the

w h i c h

he

fast to m e t h o d i c w a s

that w e

of their views.

relativism life,

to m e

relativism

have

methodic

n i t i o n , ” a f t e r all, a p p r o a c h e s Durkheim,

So,

agreement

his philosophy

actions and

seems

methodic

A s

of

it

sociological

exhausted the principal points of the v i e w s of b o t h of t h e m are

But

their

nearly they

fields.

of

extremely

as

wide

contents

cover

emphasized

“ positivistic stated, that

m e t a ­

it l e a d s t o

his m e t h o d

is

c o n s i d e r e d i n d e p e n d e n t o f a l l s o r t s o f p h i l o s o p h y . T o p u t it d i r e c t l y , therefore, b e t w e e n

there the

positions, t w o ;

both

methods.

is t h e o p p o s i t i o n o f S p i n o z i s m

two.

there

H o w e v e r , is

of t h e m T o

the

in spite of

following

c o m m o n

grasp society through

repeat,

this

in sociological

a n d

Cartesianism

difference

feature

b e t w e e n

their o w n

investigations

in their the

comparative S i m m e l

finds

t w o c o u r s e s : first, t o “ f o l l o w t h e l o n g i t u d i a l d i r e c t i o n o f a p a r t i c u l a r d e v e l o p m e n t ”; a n d second, lar d e v e l o p m e n t s , ” a n d m e t h o d a n d be

in w h i c h

the

to “ lay a cross-section t h r o u g h particu­

he attaches importance

cross-section consisting of the vertical axis

t h e h o r i z o n t a l a x i s is u s e d w i t h called

“ a great master

social recognitions. O n

to the comparative

the

skill. H e n c e S i m m e l

of cross-section”

w h o m a y

unites historical a n d

other hand, D u r k h e i m

considers

“ the

G e o r g

S i m m e l

a n d

É m i l e

149

D u r k h e i m

c o p m a r a t i v e m e t h o d ” as “ the p r e - e m i n e n t i n s t r u m e n t of sociological m e t h o d ” and, in this connection, h e regards “ the m e t h o d comitant

variations” as “ the p r e - e m i n e n t instrument of sociological

investigation.”

In his case,

“ the comparative c o m i n g

it

is

m e t h o d ” alone

w o r t h y

of

special

is t a k e n a s

notice

that

the only m e t h o d

be ­

to sociology.

Secondly, about the systematization of sociology. to say

that S i m m e l

considered D u r k h e i m

advocated formal

“ the study

of

the

H e r e

It is n e e d l e s s

sociology a n d that D u r k h e i m

material

forms

of

society.”

term f o r m ” e m p l o y e d

tried to u s e “ the

its p r o p e r s e n s e . ” t w o

of c o n ­

w e

m a y

find

b y S i m m e l

the difference

s c h o l a r ’s s o c i o l o g i c a l s t a n d p o i n t s .

But

both

A n d “ in

b e t w e e n

hav e

the

a c o m m o n

feature in that they established a

microscopic sociology w h i c h

quite different f r o m

sociology such as

Spencerian m a y

encyclopedic

o v e r c o m e

besides

a macroscopic a n d

t h e difficulties o f

the pure

or formal

w h o l e

parts.

system

O n

the

D u r k h e i m saying

i n o r d e r t h a t it

set u p

Moreover, general and

t w o parts of sociology a n d constructed

sociologies

other hand,

also built s u c h

morphology, out

of

the Comtian-

t h e latter sociology.

sociology, S i m m e l

philosophical sociologies as the

synthetic sociology

is

w h i c h

dealing a

with

system

consists social

w h i c h

of

these

facts

three

objectively,

is c o m p o s e d

of social

s o c i a l p h y s i o l o g y a n d g e n e r a l s o c i o l o g y . It g o e s w i t h ­ that their sociologies differ in their c ontents. But,

from

the viewpoint of the intention to systematize sociology, both have this in c o m m o n . W h e n

w e

It is k n o w n

t h i n k o f it, S i m m e l that h e

wrote

that I shall die w i t h o u t he

expected

m a n y

intention w h a t e v e r f o r m e d

in his

a

“ spiritual heir.”

" p o s t h u m o u s diary,” as “o n e

heirs.” H e n c e

of forming

school

a

“I k n o w

s p i r i t u a l h e i r s ( a n d it i s g o o d s o ) . ” 7 7 A n d

t h a t h i s e s t a t e is s u c h

tributed a m o n g h e i m

did not h av e

a

w h i c h

it i s n a t u r a l t h a t h e

school.

intentionally.

of cash

O n

T h i s

the contrary, is

called

is d i s ­ h a d

n o

D u r k ­

“ the Durk-

heimian school” or “ the F r e n c h school of sociology.” T h e following w e l l - k n o w n Mauss,

Henri

savants Hubert,

belong

to

this

school,

D u r k h e i m ’s

n e p h e w

M a r c e l G r a n e t , in t h e s ociology o f religion,

150

G e o r g

S i m m e l

a n d

Paul Fauconnet,

É m i l e D ü r k h e i m

in the

sociology of moral, G e o r g e s

Davy,

in the

sociology of law, François S i m i a n d a n d M a u ri ce H albwachs,

in the

sociology of e c o n o m y , guage,

Halbwachs,

there w a s guishes

A ntoine

in the sociology

a school

or not forms

D u r k h e i m

from

Thirdly, about

Meillet,

in

the sociology

of knowledge.

of

Thus,

lan­

whether

o n e of the features w h i c h

distin­

Simmel.

the attempt at a n establishment of the sociology

o f r e l i g i o n . S i m m e l a n d D u r k h e i m , a s e a r l y a s t h e 1 8 9 0 ’s , h a d i n t e r ­ est in the sociology of religion a n d p r e s e n t e d S i m m e l ’s c a s e , r e l i g i o n h a d all h i s life, a n d

it w a s

e x a m i n e d

the sociology of religion the

philosophy

the

religion of primitive

sociology of

religion

with

namely, grasps

moral

wanting them,

been

independent of

religion,

the

so

with

i n D u r k h e i m ’s c a s e , kept in m in d,

so the

the philosophy

of

re­

t h e priest in particular,

the differentiation a n d

high

as closely c onnected

the contrary,

priesthood

In

b e t w e e n secular

the

religious

status

appeared

the secularization o f religion. I n striking contrast to S i m m e l ,

D u r k h e i m or a

exclusively as

regarded

views.

at the center of interest

the priesthood or

that

the

been

societies h a d

w a s

with

considers

status,

w a s

o f religion. O n

ligion. In d e a l i n g S i m m e l

always

their o w n

priests

a n d

believers

as m e m b e r s

of

c o m m u n i t y a n d c onsiders that this c h u r c h

in

magic.

If this d i f f e r e n c e

it is t h a t t h e

former

devotes

in

views

himself to

a

is n o r m a l l y

appears the

church between

study

of high

religion, a n d t h e latter k e e p s religion o f p r i m i t i v e societies in m i n d . A n d i n S i m m e l t h e r e is t h e p h i l o s o p h i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n of religion

in w h i c h religion, n a m e l y , “ t h e subjective attitude of m a n ”

is r e g a r d e d a s

m a d e

the sociological lation

a m o n g

ological

religiosity a n d

viewpoint O n

m e n . "

viewpoint

“obligatory”

b y

a n d

w h i c h

w h i c h its

h e

origin

viewpoints

in c o n s i d e r i n g

religion

they

in c o m m o n

that

hav e

sociologically.

is

It is c e r t a i n

s o c i o l o g i c a l l y , if a n y t h i n g ,

D u r k h e i m

considers in

has

t h e r e is

Their

thus

different.

of

that S i m m e l

“a re­

the

soci­

religious belief

society.

are

each

time

b e l i e f is t a k e n a s

the contrary,

f r o m finds

fro m

at the s a m e

t h e m h a d

a little e a r l i e r t h a n

sociological But

considers dealt

as

with

Durkheim,

w h a t

religion religion so w e

G e o r g S i m m e l

can

regard

h i m

Fourthly,

as a

about

a n d

151

É m i l e D u r k h e i m

p r e c u r s o r o f t h e s o c i o l o g y o f religion.

the

confrontation

with

M a r x .

It

is

without

q u e s t i o n t h a t S i m m e l ’s P h i l o s o p h i e d e s G e l d e s w a s w r i t t e n , b e a r i n g M a r x ’s D a s i t.

Also,

with

w e

the

have

already

intention

materialism.” this

to

A n d

Philosophie des

refuses

in m i n d ,

Kapital

f r o m

a

pointed

out

that

w rote

this b o o k

“ construct a

n e w

storey beneath

historical

while D u r k h e i m a n d

Geldes

sense of opposition toward

speculation,

finds he

cuttingly

i n it

S i m m e l

finds socialism

only

considers

“socialism

“ socialism

of a small g r o u p ”

attention m a k e

in

a

to this respect,

“ the

role of the

criticizes

“ bastard

a

is “ i n teresting,

perfect small

large g r o u p ” he

it

as

possible.

group,

and

a n d

only

D u r k h e i m

pays

impossible W h i l e

criticizes that S i m m e l

numerical

a n d

both S i m m e l a n d D u r k h e i m v i e w s of socialism. First of

in

as

S i m m e l ’s

speculation”

nevertheless says

a n d in places, suggestive.” Further, confronted M a r x t h r o u g h their o w n all,

h e

factor”

w h o

tries to

not

d e m o n ­

clear does

strate this role in “ a consistent m e t h o d . ” Besides, S i m m e l a p p r e c i ­ ated

for the present “ the m e r i t of historical m a t e r i a l i s m ”

forms

t h e f u n d a m e n t a l principle o f scientific socialism,

not

in a g r e e m e n t

w i t h this. O n

ed

socialism as “a

it

the “ object of science,”

the other hand,

social fact” a n d but

he

points out that “a n entire theory

theory

as

this

of value

in

in

S i m m e F s

materialism,

roughly

D u r k h e i m regard­

it n e c e s s a r y

disliked

c o n s e n t i n g t o i t.

of value

to m a k e H e

is e s t a b l i s h e d t h e r e (in

c a n find nearly

severe criticism

his Philosophie des Geldes,

the criticisms of both of t h e m

w hich he w a s

thought

M a r x ’s D a s K a p i t a l ) i n a f e w l i n e s . ” W e indication

but

of so

the s a m e

M a r x ’s l a b o r in

this respect

o n scientific s o c i a l i s m o r historical

speaking, coincide with each

other.

Finally, w h a t gives u s a n intense i mpression t h r o u g h o u r con si d ­ eration there

about w a s

toward

the

only

relation b e t w e e n a

cism

or appraisal,

that

h e

Simmel,

one-sided

the former. did n o

not doubt,

S i m m e l but

it

S i m m e l

criticism mus t

is

strange

refute D u r k h e i m considered

h av e

or

a n d D u r k h e i m appraisal

k n o w n a n d

a t all.

refutation

the

latter

a b o u t s u c h a criti­

b e y o n d W e

of

is t h a t

m a y

comprehension p r e s u m e

that

as quite inconsequential

152

G e o r g S i m m e l

a n d

a n d

tried to g o

sociology

his w a y .

a n d

T h e a

at

the University

of

Strasbourg,

f ro m

h e died just prior to t he e n d of the First W o r l d

location of his university,

of G e r m a n y b e c a m e

In this connection, h e tau gh t philosophy,

ped ag og y

1 9 1 4 to 1918, a n d W a r .

É m i l e D ü r k h e i m

after the w a r b e t w e e n

w h i c h

h a d

been

a

Prussia a n d France,

territory of F r a n c e b e c a u s e of

territory

n o w again

the defeat of G e r m a n y .

I r o n i c a l l y , it w a s a l e a d e r o f “ t h e D u r k h e i m i a n s c h o o l , ” H a l b w a c h s , w h o

taught

bourg

sociology

w h i c h

w a s

a n d

p e d a g og y

rebuilt b y

the

at

Fre nc h

the University

of Stras­

g o v e r n m e n t

1 9 1 9 . 78

in

Notes 1.

O f

the

fact that D u r k h e i m

letter to B o u g l é , S e e 2.

A .

3.

C.

96,

also S.

L uk e s,

Fouillée,

L e

3rd ed., Bouglé,

ed.,

translated this article of S i m m e l ,

1897, in É.

É m i l e D u r k h e i m ,

m o u v e m e n t

1920, p.

revised,

1912,

p. 43.

M o r e o v e r ,

science” (une

science sociale) w h i c h

Bouglé,

5.

H .

Bouglé,

influence of

h e

D u r k h e i m

D u r k h e i m ’s y e a r s o f In

S i m m e l

Giddens,

b e as

É.

r e m e m b e r e d

“ social

proposed

18

forms,

1978,

pp. “ L a

1925,

Bouglé

(«formes as

their

school.

1907, 5 th ed.,

H i s Sociology,

D u r k h e i m ,

1896, 3rd

that "a

so­

social

effect

a n d

I n this respect, pp. 3-32.

p. 44.

Allemagne,

a n d

f o r m s ” sociology

o bs e rv e s “ social

1939, 2 n d ed., 1961,

a pp r en t i c e s h i p , cf. also G .

D u r k h e i m ,

thi9 respect, see

m on d e,

L e conflit d e s m é t h o d e s ,

m a y

a n d

Q u'est ce q u e la sociologie?

Alpert, É m i l e

his

p. 413.

1973, p. 404.

W o r k ,

b elonged to the D u r k h e i m i a n

L e s sciences sociales e n

p. 7 ; A .

it

“relationships linking individuals”

their cause,” t h o u g h

see

1975,

232.

the

cf. C .

H i s Life a n d

Textes, 2,

positiviste et la conception sociologique d u

ciales») u n d e r

4.

D u r k h e i m ,

L e s sciences sociales e n A l l e m a g n e .

considered

6.

himself

25. O c t o b e r

D a v y ,

p. 32.

O f 1919,

É m i l e D u r k h e i m ,

11-14. science positive d e

la m o r a l e

e n

Alle­

m a g n e , " R e v u e philosophique, 24, 1 8 8 7 ; “ L a p h i l o s o p h i e d a n s les universités alle­ m a n d e s , "

R e v u e

é c o n o m i q u e 7.

In this É m i l e f ü r

d e

international

M .

respect, D u r k h e i m ,

Gesetsgebung,

1898.

see G .

S i m m e l ,

l'Enseignement,

u n d

“ L ' A n n é e

tou c he s o n

excellent article o n lation of

the

the the

the

to the readers of

P r e m i è r e

t w o

pages,

année, i m

in

significance of

L ’A n n é e

point

a nn u al

that

prohibition of

r e p o r t e r ’s s t u d y the

o n

the

1887 ;

Sociologique,

Volkswirtschaft

I n c i d e n t a l l y , t h i s is less t h a n

D u r k h e i m ,

13,

d ' é c o n o m i e politique, 2,

Professor in B ordeaux, V e r w a l t u n g

after hav i ng alluded to

k n o w n

d e

Schâffle," R e v u e

this

incest a n d

w h i c h

p r o g r a m m e

hera us g eg e be n Reich,

S i m m e l ,

its g r o u n d s ,

“the a n d

social

X XI I ,

h ow e v e r ,

f o u n d e d

sociologique,

contains

1045.)

v o n

1896/97," Jahrbuch

Deutschen

self-preservation of

a n n u a l . ” ( Cf . ibid., p .

“L e

1888.

by

publisher's the

group,

trans­ well-

G e o r g S i m m e l

8.

É.

D u r k h e i m ,

9.

A .

M a m e l e t ,

D e L e

a n d

É m i l e

t r a v a i l social, 1 8 9 3 , 5 t h

la division d u

relativisme philosophique chez

G e o r g

153

D u r k h e i m

ed,,

1926, p. 9. 1914,

S i m m e l ,

pp.

154-

155. 10.

S o

far as I k n o w ,

m e l " H .

w e

(in J a p a n e s e ,

M or i ,

h a v e only the following : K . O d a k a ,

G r e a t B o o k s at

Sociological Analysis (in J ap a ne s e,

(in J apanese,

D u r k h e i m

“ D u r k h e i m

1969),

H . N a k a ,

Social T h e o r y o f

1979).

11.

G .

S i m m e l ,

Ü b e r

sociale D i f f e r e n z i e r u n g ,

12.

G .

S i m m e l ,

“ D a s

P r o b l e m der Sociologie," J ah r b u c h f ü r Gesetzgebung,

tung

13.

Loc.

14.

O f

u n d

a n d S i m ­

47, D u r k h e i m a n d S i m m e l , 1968),

the W o r l d ,

Volkswirtschaft i m

Deutschen

1 8 9 0 , p . 4.

Reich,

XVIII,

1894, p.

V e r w a l ­

1303.

cit.

the sociological s ys t em

ziologie,

1917,

C h a p .

15.

S i m m e l ,

“ D a s

P r o b l e m

16.

Ibid-, p.

1306.

17.

Loc.

18.

Ibid., p.

19.

É.

20.

It is c o n n e c t e d

of

S i m m e l ,

cf.

G ,

S i m m e l ,

G r u n d f r a g e n

der

S o ­

1. d e r Sociologie,” p.

1305.

cit.

1307.

D u r k h e i m ,

Les

tist o f F r e n c h

1895,

règles d e la m é t h o d e sociologique,

w i t h

this respect

that

birth, called D u r k h e i m

H en r i “ the

Peyre,

7th

ed.,

A m e r i c a n

Descartes

of

1919,

VIII.

cultural

sociology.”

scien­ (Cf. H .

Peyre, " D u r k h e i m : T h e m a n , his t i m e a n d his intellectual b a c k g r o u n d , ” in K . H . Wolff 21.

In

, É m i l e

D u r k he i m,

this respect S i m m e l

inclined to think

states

t o its

as

e x t r e m e

18.)

“ Relativism

opposite—

S pinozism—

is

closer

w i t h

than

its

o n e

is

all-embracing

1900, 3rd ed., 1920,

Philosophie des Geldes,

84-85.)

22.

D u r k h e i m ,

23.

Ibid.,

24.

Ibid.,

p. 127.

25.

Ibid.,

p. 35.

op.

cit., p .

175.

p. 6.

study of h e

p.

follows.

substantia sive D e u s . ” (G. S i m m e l , pp.

1960,

1 8 5 8 - 1 9 1 7 ,

In this c o n n ec t io n

socialism

says, “ W e

understand

as "a

D u r k h e i m

social fact.”

envisage socialism as a

it.” ( É .

D u r k h e i m ,

L e

applies this w a y e xa m p l e ,

thing,

as a

socialisme,

É.

D u r k h e i m ,

L e suicide,

É.

D u r k h e i m ,

“Sociologie et sciences sociales,” in

phologie sociale,” 28.

D u r k h e i m ,

29.

Ibid., p. 325.

ed., 1967,

10th ed., 1920,

p. 320.

L ’A n n é e s o c i o l o g i q u e , v o l . 2 ,

of

grasp

to

p o s t h u m o u s

reality, a n d

26.

1909,

in his

1928, p.

27.

ences, First Series,

1897, 2 n d

F o r

w e

the w o r k

e nd e a v e r

to

11.)

p. 354. D e

la

m é t h o d e d a n s les sci­

S e e also É. 1899, pp.

D u r k h e i m , “ M o r ­

520-521.

"Sociologie et sciences sociales,” p. 321.

30.

Ibid.,

31.

D u r k h e i m ,

L e s règles d e la m é t h o d e sociologique, p p .

32.

G . S i m m e l ,

“ Z u r S o z i o l o g i e d e r R e l i g i o n , ” N e u e D e u t s c h e R u n d s c h a u , 9, 1 8 9 8 , p.

116.

p. 330. 159-160.

154

G e o r g

S i m m e l

33.

Ibid., p.

34.

L o c . cit.

G .

36.

Cf.

G .

p.

110.

37.

G .

S i m m e l ,

38.

Cf.

39.

Ibid., p. 64.

40.

S i m m e l ,

41.

Loc.

S i m m e l ,

ed.

b y

ed.,

M .

4th

L a n d m a n n ,

revised,

sociale D i f f e r e n z i e r u n g , C h a p .

Ü b e r

1912,

ed.,

1957, p.

1922, 105,

p. 174. p.

108,

p. 23.

II, C h a p .

III.

D i e Religion, p. 35.

cit.

1899,

41

42.

la d é f i n i t i o n d e s p h é n o m è n e s

L e s f o r m e s é l é m e n t a i r e s d e l a v i e religieuse, 1 9 1 2 , 2 n d ed., 1 9 2 5 ,

M o r e o v e r ,

as D u r k h e i m

44.

D u r k h e i m ,

L e

45.

D u r k h e i m ,

“D e

46.

Ibid., p. 21.

47.

D u r k h e i m ,

48.

Ibid., p. 65.

49.

Ibid., pp.

50.

S i m m e l ,

religieux," L ' A n n é e sociologique,

p. 9.

Cf. É. D u r k h e i m ,

É.

Tür,

1906, 2 n d

D i e Religion,

S i m m e l ,

d h i s m

51.

Brücke u n d

É. D u r k h e i m , “D e

pp.

D u r k h e i m

P r o b l e m e d e r Geschichtsphilosophie, 1892,

D i e

S i m m e l ,

vol. 2, 43.

É m i l e

113.

35.

42.

a n d

M a x

a n d

W e b e r

also refers to as Oldenberg's

v i e w

of

B u d ­

S i m m e l .

suicide, p p . 3 5 2 - 3 5 3 .

la d éf i n i t i o n d e s p h é n o m è n e s

religieux," p.

1.

L e s f o r m e s é l é m en t ai r es d e l a v i e religieuse, p. 53.

65-66. Philosophie des Geldes, VIII.

D u r k h e i m ,

“ S i m m e l

(Georg.).—

Philosophie

g e n t ) , " L ’A n n é e s o c i o l o g i q u e , v o l . 5 ,

52.

S i m m e l ,

op.

53.

Ibid., p.

128.

54.

D u r k h e i m ,

55.

Ibid., p.

1902,

p.

des G e l d e s

(P h i l o s o p h i e d e l ' a r ­

141.

cit., V I I .

o p . cit., p .

142.

144.

56.

L o c . cit.

57.

S i m m e l ,

58.

D u r k h e i m ,

59.

S i m m e l ,

o p . cit., p.

169.

o p . cit., p . 1 4 4 .

o p . cit., V .

60.

D u r k h e i m ,

61.

G .

S i m m e l ,

62.

E.

D u r k h e i m ,

sociological

o p . cit., p .

D u r k h e i m ,

64.

Ibid., p. 4.

65.

Ibid., p p . 5 -6. Ibid., p. 6.

67.

Ibid., VIII.

68.

S i m m e l ,

69.

G .

“ S i m m e l

f o r m

63.

66.

145.

Soziologie, 1908,

L e

of the

3rd

(Georg).— G r o u p , "

ed., 1923, p. T h e

32.

n u m b e r of

m e m b e r s

as determining

L ’A n n é e s o c i o l o g i q u e , v o l . 7 ,

1904,

the

p. 648.

socialisme, VII.

Philosophie des Geldes, p. 476.

S i m m e l ,

Die

P r o b l e m e d e r Geschichtsphilosophie, 1892, 4 t h ed., 1922,

pp. 212-

G e o r g S i m m e l

a n d

É m i l e

155

D u r k h e i m

213. 70.

É.

D u r k h e i m ,

F o r m e n .

“S i m m e l

(Georg).—

U e b e r

( Le s projections spatiales d es

vol. 7, 1904, 71.

Loc.

72.

Ibid., p. 647.

73.

Loc.

74.

É .

p.

räumliche

f o r m e s

sociologique,

cit.

D u r k h e i m , “ L e

pre m ie r C o n g r è s

D u r k h e i m ’s t h o r i e s o f

1977, pp.

a ll e m a n d

D u r k h e i m ,

76.

Ibid., p.

77.

G .

p.

cf.

E.

K o n a u ,

Sociologie.— p. 26. R a u m

C o m m u n i c a t i o n s

B e s i d e s , o f S i m m e l ’s u n d

soziales H a n d e l n ,

“ L a b y

sociologie A .

et s o n

Quvillier,

d o m a i n e

1953,

p.

scientifique,”

in

Oit v a

la soci­

186.

190.

S i m m e l ,

1967,

space,

d e 1913,

15-64.

ologie f r ançaise?

78.

L ' A n n é e

socialer

cit.

a n d É.

sociales),”

(sic)

646.

e t d i s c u s s i o n s , ” L ’A n n é e s o c i o l o g i q u e , v o l . 1 2 ,

75.

Projektionen

F r a g m e n t e

u n d

Aufsätze,

ed.

b y

G .

Kan t or o wi c z,

1923,

2 n d

ed.,

1.

H a l b w a c h s (1919-1935).

p r o d u c e d m a n y excellent a c h i e v e m e n t s d u r i n g his stay at Strasbourg A c c o r d i n g

to J o h n

E.

Craig,

h o w e v e r ,

h e

possessed

neither the

e l o q u e n c e of D u r k h e i m n o r “ the brilliance of S i m m e l . ” Cf. J.E. Craig, “ M a u r i c e H a l b w a c h s p. 288.

à S t r a s b o u r g , ” R e v u e f r a n ç a i s e d e sociologie,

vol.

X X ,

no.

1,

1979,

156

Bibliographical Notes

Bibliographical N otes

A s

f a r a s this b o o k is c o n c e r n e d ,

m e n t i o n should be

m a d e

o f t h e fol­

l o w i n g English translations a m o n g the w o r k s of F e r d i n a n d Tönnies, G e o r g Simmel,

M a x

W e b e r

a n d

Émile

Durkheim.

F. T ö n n i e s , C o m m u n i t y a n d Association, translated b y C h . P. L o o m i s , 1955 (London). F. Tönnies, O n Sociology : Pure, Applied, a n d Empirical, edited a n d with a n T h e

Introduction b y W . Sociology o f G e o r g

J. C a h n m a n

a n d

R. Heberle,

translated,

Simmel,

edited,

1971 (Chicago).

a n d

with

a n

Intro­

duction b y K. H. Wolff, 1950 ( N e w York). G . S i m m e l , Sociology o f Religion, translated b y C. Rosenthal, 1959 ( N e w G.

Y ork). Simmel, with an

O n

b y

D.

N. Levine,

Oakes,

M .

P. Etzkorn,

1968 ( N e w

York).

edited a n d with a n Intro­

Social For ms,

1971 (Chicago).

Sociologist a n d

(London). G. Simmel, T h e

European,

ed.

b y

P. A.

Problems o f the Philosophy o f History,

1977 ( N e w

G. Simmel,

K.

Individuality a n d

G e o r g S i m m e l :

Culture a n d O t h e r Essays, translated,

Conflict in M o d e m

introduction b y

G. Simmel, duction

T h e

T h e

Lawrence,

1976

translated b y

G.

York).

Philosophy o f M o n e y ,

translated

b y

T. B o t t o m o r e

D. Frisby, 1978 (London/Boston). W e b e r , T h e Protestant Ethic a n d the Spirit o f Capitalism,

b y T. Parsons, 1930 (London). M . W e b e r , E c o n o m y a n d Society,

2

vols.,

edited

b y

G.

a n d

translated

R o t h

a n d

C.

Wittich, 1 978 (California). É. D u r k h e i m , T h e E l e m e n t a r y F o r m s o f the Religious Life, translated b y J. W .

Swain,

É. D u r k h e i m , son, É.

1915 ( N e w T h e

1933 ( N e w

D u r k h e i m ,

T h e

York).

Division o f L a b o r in Society,

York), Rules

1964 ( N e w o f

translated

b y G.

S i m p ­

York).

Sociological

Method,

translated

b y

S. A.

S o l o v a y a n d J. H . M u e l l e r , 1 9 3 8 ( C h i c a g o ) , 1 9 5 0 ( N e w Y o r k ) . É . D u r k h e i m , S u i c i d e , t r a n s l a t e d b y J. A . S p a u l d i n g a n d G . S i m p s o n , 1951 ( N e w York). É. D u r k h e i m , Socialism a n d Saint-Simon, translated b y

Ch.

Sattler, 1 9 5 8

(Ohio). D u r k h e i m

on

Religion, edited

b y

W .

S. F. Pickering,

1975 (London).

Index

o f N a m e s

I n dex of N a m e s

Alpert, H., Bachofen,

102, J. J.,

Bastian,

A.,

23

B a u m g a r t e n ,

E.,

Becher,

15

H .

Bendix,

J.,

41, 9 0 , 9 4

A.,

R.,

Bergson,

Fouillée, 51-52,93

7

B el lebaum,

H .

H .

Bismarck,

O .

von,

A.,

Böhringer, Bouglé,

H.,

Brentano, Bücher,

Christ,

K.,

92-94

7

Geo r ge ,

S.,

4-5,7,52

Giddens,

von,

J.,

A.,

Goet he ,

J. W .

G o g h ,

V .

13 von,

van,

23, 3 7

37

E.,

48

M . ,

149

G rü n d e r ,

K.,

41,43

Guillain,

A.,

100

G.,

42

126 14,28,37,53,91,106,112-

Coulanges, C r a i g , J.

F.

E.,

H a l b w a c h s , H a m p e ,

de,

13

Heberle, Hegel,

155

D a r w i n ,

Ch.,

G „

G.,

Descartes, R . ( Dilthey,

W „

Dreyfus,

H o m a n s ,

G .

39

Hubert,

H.,

153

H u g h e s ,

E.

Jacoby,

142

É.,

Meister

E.,

F.,

Th.,

v - v i , viii, 9 7 , 9 9 - 1 5 5

3,27

13-14 15 C.,

41,43

149 Ch.,

E.

6

J.,

35

G.,

Jaspers, K., J a u r è s , J.,

Eckhart,

40

W .

42

25,52,90,105

A.,

D u r k h e i m ,

R.,

G .

150,152,155

48

Höffding, H.,

23,48

150,152

Greef,

M . ,

K.,

H o b b e s ,

Engel,

152

von,

Gurvitch,

40

33

O .

Granet,

113,117,119,148

D e

139

37

Gierke,

Gothein,

103

C o m t e , A.,

D a v y ,

Ch.,

Th.,

5-6,9

W .

38,42

S.,

Geiger,

62,126

C a h n m a n ,

Freud,

Gassen,

99,100-101,152

K „

B u d d h a ,

100,152 M .

33

41,43

L.,

A.,

H.,

37

C.,

150 3

Fourier, F.

Freyer,

22,25,48

Berlepsch,

Böcklin,

P.,

40

42

H.,

5,15

Fichte, J. G . ,

A.,

A.,

F.,

F a u c on n et ,

13

Baltzer,

Bebel,

Engels,

152

Jehovah, Jhering,

40 vi

142 127

R .

von,

13, 3 9 , 1 0 1

157

158

Index of N a m e s

K an t ,

I.,

4,8-9,23-24,27,31,35,53,

93,105 G.,

42,93,155

K an t or o wi c z,

H.,

145

K a utsky,

K.,

O.,

K o n a u ,

7

F.,

Lazarus,

M . ,

L e o n a r d o Levine,

D .

92-94 23,101

Vinci, N.,

Liebknecht,

7

33

v o n

F.,

F.,

B a d e n ,

G „

48

32,36-37,42

Lukes,

S.,

152

Maier,

H.,

48

153

Quvillier,

A.,

146

M a i n e ,

H .

F.,

145

R e m b r a n d t ,

23,37

Ricardo,

D.,

Rickert,

Heinrich,

Rickert,

Sophie,

Rodbertus, Rodin,

14

M a r x ,

S a l o m o n ,

S.,

13-14

A.,

K.,

104

v, 3 - 5 , 8 - 9 , 1 4 - 1 5 , 2 6 , 3 2 - 3 4 ,

A . M . ,

33

R.,

42

Schmoller, Schnabel,

M . , A.,

M e r t o n ,

R .

J. S.,

M i t z m a n ,

37

A.,

M o o r e ,

W .

E.,

L.

H.,

150

42 13

Gertrud,

S i m m e l ,

H a n s ,

Smi t h,

A.,

S om b a r t ,

W . ,

Spencer,

H.,

Mori,

O.,

vi

Spengler, Spinoza,

62

Sprott, H.,

Nietzsche,

F.,

K „

153

14,28,37,113,148

B. W .

15,34

de,

Stoltenberg, Th.,

30,114,137,148

J. H . , F.,

Steinthal, H., 9,11,17,23,48,52

S to r m, O d a k a ,

7,50

O.,

Staudinger,

153 52

47, 50, 92 39,41,43

14

153

N a p o l e o n ,

v-viii, 1, 3 - 4 3 , 4 5 , 4 7 -

S i m m e l ,

H.,

N a k a ,

9,11,17,23,48,52

40

G eo r g,

Mori,

M u h a m m a d ,

A.,

95,97, 99-155

40 37

5-6,9,23,102

41,51,90,93-94

M . , F.,

S i m m e l ,

119

C.,

Simiand,

139

102,152

von,

S h i m m e i ,

M o n e t , M o r g a n ,

G .

S c h o p e n h a u e r ,

41,43

F.,

P.-E.,

150

Michelangelo, Mill,

E.

139,141-142,149

K.,

de,

37,42

Scheler,

142,151

Meillet,

C.-H.

Schäffle,

38,76,78-79,88-89,132-133,138,141M a u s s ,

6

37

A.,

Schmidt,

4 8-49, 52, 58 49

K.,

A.,

Saint-Simon,

M a m e l e t ,

3-4,16,32-33,41-42

11,13,38-39,42

H.,

Ratzel, 37

94-95

W . ,

Litt, T h . ,

125-126,154

139

5,7

da

Lukâcs,

Peyre,

M . ,

Lassalle,

R.,

Paulsen,

155

L a n d m a n n ,

O w e n ,

41 H.,

P a p p e n h e i m ,

42

E.,

Luise

K.,

Oldenberg,

K an t or o wi c z,

Klose,

Okoc hi ,

41 8,33

101 H . 11

L.,

16

I nd e x oj N a m e s

T e n b r u c k ,

F.

Tönnies,

F.,

Tröltsch,

E.,

H.,

90, 9 4

v - v i , viii, 1, 3 - 4 3 , 5 0 , 1 4 5

Wie s e,

L.

W i l l i a m

von,

II,

W i n c k e l m a n n ,

145

W i n d e l b a n d , Vierkandt,

A.,

33,35

Wolff, K . W u n d t ,

W a g n e r ,

A.,

M a r i a n n e ,

W e b e r ,

M a x ,

47, 50, 9 2 - 9 4

12,27,45,47-95,154

H „

W „

Zoroaster,

J., W . ,

62

93 4 9, 5 2

4 2, 1 53 102

5-7,9,101

W e b e r ,

33,35

4, 7, 2 2 , 34, 3 6 , 1 0 6

159

160

Subject

Index

Subject Index

Abstract

art,

A c a d e m i c

Bureaucratization,

37

socialism (Kathedersozialis-

mus),

Calculability,

5-6

A c t i o n

(Handeln),

Administration, Administrative

Calculating

5 4-55,70,87

60,73,75,80, 83,85, 88 staff ( V e r w a l t u n g s s t a b ) ,

A d o r n m e n t , Alienation

Calculation,

A n a r c h i s m ,

3 -4 ,18,133

81-82

A n a t o m y ,

Capital calculation, 78

Capitalistic differentiation, Cartesianism,

obligation),

128

80-81,86

4,58,73,75,77-80,86,89

Capitalistic order,

116

obligation (une

Caste,

113,137,148

67-68

5

C harisma,

Appl ie d

2 0

Charismatic domination,

sociology,

Art, A

C h u r c h ,

25,57-58

social thing

(une

chose

City,

social things ( c o m m e sociales),

des

choses

(Gesellschaft),

14,16-18,

Association

for Social

Policy,

things ( c o m m e s w o r n

Axial

Civil capitalism o f m a n a g e m e n t {burger^

Clan,

des

confraternity,

choses),

37 60

Clothing,

110 114

60,88

C o l l e c t i v e c o n s c i o u s n e s s (la c o n s c i e n c e collective),

67

rotation ( A c hsendrehung),

134

114

C o l l e c t i v e life, C o m b i n a t i o n s

Bankers,

C o m m a n d ,

67

B eh a v i o r (Verhalten),

Biology, B u d d h i s m ,

Bureaucracy, Bureaucratic

C o m m u n a l

126 125-126,152 74 administration,

75,84

65 76 relationship ( V e r g e m e i n ­

schaftung),

76

C o m m u n i s m ,

13

C o m m u n i t y

110

action (Gemeinschafts­

handeln),

116

B r a h m a n i s m ,

C o m m u n a l

116,139 (Vereinigungen),

64

C o m m a n d e r ,

54-55

91,122,127-128,150

Belief {Glaube),

73

67-68

Clothes,

5

Associations (Associationen),

A

136

17, 6 5 - 6 8 , 1 4 4

Classicism,

20,33,55

A s

117,130-131

lieber Zirtrie&skapitalismus),

114

Association

64-65

124-126

Circulation,

sociale),

117,128 A s

61-62

Christianity,

56

78,89

84

Anti-Socialist law, A p p r ox i ma t io n ,

72

72-73,75,80,82

Capitalist,

60-61 (Entfremdung),

60, 68,72-75, 8 8

intellectuality,

Capitalism,

65

A n

84-85,89

(Gemeinschaft),

16-18,

Subject

20-21,33, 73,76,112 C o m p a r a t i v e

history,

C o m p a r a t i v e

m e t h o d ,

E x e m p l a r y 118 112,119-120,

148-149 sociology,

Competition,

Expressionism,

Family,

24-25

Constraint

Fiduciary 77,89

(la c o n t r a i n t e ) ,

Content,

114

109

Co-operative

55 m o n e y ,

(Genossenschaft),

108,147,149

F o r m a l

rationality,

Coquetry,

8,

socialism,

7-8,12

F o r m a l F o r m

36

sociology, a n d

F o r m s

Counterpoint,

27-29, 35, 54-55, 63,

content,

F r e e

labor,

28,35,37,54,110,

80

Futurism, D e m o c r a c y ,

54

of sociation,

120

86

10, 2 5-27, 7 7 , 1 3 4

37

146

Dialectic

of

Distance

(Distanz),

Distancing

life,

27,36

G at hering

57-58,66

(Distanzierung),

Divination,

Gene ra l 56-57,87

62

D o m i n a t i o n ,

( Z u s am m en s ei n ),

sociology,

2 8,78,103,125

37, 64, 74, 83

D o m i n a t i o n

b y

a

D o m i n a t i o n

b y

one,

D o m i n a t i o n

b y

the

64

28,109

Association

G e r m a n

minority,

65

62

60

for Ethical

8

Association

R e f o r m ,

64

interpretation,

G e r m a n

Culture,

plurality,

107

20, 29,109,116,

118,147,149 G e o m e t r y ,

of labor,

for

Social

7

G e r m a n

Catholic

church,

5

G e r m a n

Social D e m o c r a t i c

Party,

7 ,1 2,14,34

E c o n o m i c

action,

E c o n o m i c

history,

72

E c o n o m i c

individualization, life,

Empirical

sociology,

Encyclopedic

79

30 20

a n d synthetic sociology,

28,37,91,99,107,112,121,146,149

sciences,

of

(Evidenz),

Sociological Society,

G o d ,

62-63 61,126

G r o u n d s

of legitimacy,

G r o u p ,

138,143,145

Guilds,

79-80,83

H a r m o n y

music,

Heuristic principle, 62

Hierarchy, 58

Party,

64

110

the special social

29

Ethical prophecy,

Socialist L a b o r

G e r m a n

G o d s ,

E p i s t e m o l o g y of society, E pi s t e m o l o g y

G e r m a n 50

111

E c o n o m i c

E vidence

72-73,80-81,84,

87, 9 0 - 9 1 , 1 0 9 , 1 2 0 , 1 4 9

Co-operative

Division

135-136

F o r m , 89

18-19, 33

Culture,

114

17, 28, 8 3 , 1 0 8 , 1 4 4

Feudalism,

9,37-38

Constitutive principle,

Dress,

58

37

119-120

10,28,108, 111

o f life,

Conflict,

D r e a m

62

(erklären),

E x t e r n a l i t y ( l ’e x t é r i o r i t é ) ,

C o m p a r a t i v e C o n c e p t

prophecy,

Explanation

161

Index

86 77, 89

9, 82, 8 4 , 1 0 8

Historical jurisprudence,

13,16

5,7 12,38,

162

Subject Index

Historical

materialism,

76-77,89,91,

132,143,151 Historical

m e t h o d

historique),

119

Historical school Historicism, History,

(la m é t h o d e law,

14

law,

13-14

H u m a n

alienation,

H u m a n

c o n d u c t (la c o n d u i t e h u m a i n e ) ,

133

Leader,

138,151

65

domination,

Liberalism,

64,74

10

(Leben),

Literature,

23-27,134 37

L og i c

of

L o g i c

o f fluid transition o f

fluid transition,

types,

113

L o g i c

60,63,87 the

ideal

vi, 6 0 - 6 1 , 6 3 , 8 8

of

fluid transition

of

t h e types,

vi, 6 0 - 6 1 , 6 3 , 8 8

H u m a n Ideal

60,73,80,88

Life

16

134 of

group,

L a w , L eg a l

of

11, 21, 30, 7 6 - 7 9 , 9 1 , 1 0 0 , 1 1 9 ,

History

L a r g e

estrangement,

type

3

(Idealtypus),

L o w e s t 56, 60, 63, 8 7 -

88, 9 0 Imitation,

28, 108 35,37

Incalculability,

75

Individualism,

Institutions,

28 75

82,85,117

71,134

Intellectuality, Interaction,

a m o n g

the

Interpretation,

m a n , 108

individuals,

69

59

55, 63, 87, 9 0-91

8,35

rationality,

M e a n i n g

{Sinn),

of

73,81,84,89

55-56, 58-59, 87

labor,

78-79, 82, 89

interaction a m o n g

individuals,

Metal,

60,88 m o n e y ,

135

M e t a p h y s i c s

o f life,

M e t a p h y s i c s

of society,

M e t h o d i c

30, 35 29

individualism,

v, 5 1 - 5 2 , 5 5 ,

6 0,87,106-107 rationalism,

v, 1 1 3 - 1 1 4 , 1 2 0 ,

relativism,

v, 10, 3 6 , 5 1 , 5 3 ,

55, 57,60,76-77,87,105-106,113-114,

78, 82,85, 89

L a b o r

m e a n s ,

85

L a b o r

p ow e r,

78-79

L a b o r

theory of

L a b o r

value,

L a r g e

city,

120,132-133,137,148 M e t h o d

value,

34, 8 8 17

of history,

137,148

78-79,88-89,142

Laborer,

conception

3 0,76-77,89

M e t h o d i c Labor,

40

Material

M e t h o d i c K a n t i s m ,

61-63, SS, 1 31

73-75,80

28-29, 36, 53, 55, 8 7 , 1 0 6

sociology (verstehende

Soziologie),

61

Material,

Metallic

Interchangeability,

62,131

(le m a g i c i e n ) ,

M a r g i n a l

M e n t a l

28, 5 4 , 1 0 6 , 1 1 0

Interpretive

action,

M e a n s

69

53-54, 90,108

Interaction

M a g i c

Materialistic

capitalism,

Intellect,

114

22

Individualistic realism, Industrial

(la m a g i e ) ,

M a n a g e m e n t ,

consciousness,

67

M a g i c

M a g i c i a n

Impressionism, Individual

laborers,

of c oncomitant

variations,

vi, 1 1 9 - 1 2 0 , 1 4 9 34, 88, 142

M e t h o d

of h a r m o n y

Metropolis, Metropolitan

b y

chord,

65-66 m a n ,

66-67

86

Subject Index

M o d e r n

bookkeeping,

M o d e r n

bureaucracy,

M o d e r n

capitalism,

M o d e r n

law,

M o d e r n

natural law,

M o d e r n

society,

M o n e t a r y

M o n e y

Philosophical

o f art,

60, 7 3,75,80, 88

Philosophy

of culture,

Philosophy

of e c o n o m y ,

Philosophy

of

history,

Philosophy

of

life ( L e b e n s p h i l o s o p h i e ) ,

13,16

7 1,82-83,86

56, 66-72, 79, 8 2 , 1 3 3 - 1 3 6

Philosophy

59,68-69,71-72,75,

M o r a l

Physical

71

124

More-t h an - Li f e M o r p h o l o g y , Music,

(Mehr-als-Leben),

25

116

37

N u m e r i c a l

17-18,20-21

58

N e o - Ka n ti a ni s m, N o n - w e s t e r n

105

116 of society,

23

Positivistic m e t a p h y s i c s ,

113

Possibility of obedience,

64

of c o m m a n d ,

P r a g m a t i s m ,

64

Priesthood,

67

Priests, P r o d u c t

calculability,

Productive

88

61-62, 126,131,150

61,125,131,150

61-62, 88,131

86 60,68,71,75,

P r o f a n e

of

labor,

79

powers,

things,

26

130

Professional bureaucracy, Objective

sociology,

Obligatory

Profit

114,120

beliefs (les c r o y a n c e s

obligatoires),

128

O b l i g a t o r y r e l i g i o n (la r el i g i o n obligatoire), 80

Opposition

(Gegnerschaft),

Oracle,

chances,

of sending,

Prophet,

62-63, 65,88

Psychologism,

P u r e

63

30 107

sociology,

20, 28, 54,109,120, 1 49

110

62

Rational

administration,

Painting, Patrimonial

135-136

bureaucracy,

Patrimonialism, P e d a g o g y , Personality,

Rational

57,85

m o n e y ,

74-75

32 79,83

capitalism,

Rationalism, 74

Rationality,

84

80

Rational bookkeeping,

P a p e r

84,89

68

P r o p h e c y

Psychology,

128

Occident,

117,123-128

10

P r i e s t (le p rê t r e ) ,

9,24

city,

76-77, 88-

83-84

P r a c t i c e s (les p r a t iq u es ) ,

(Nähe),-

Notation,

Position,

P o w e r

N a t u r a l will (Wesenwille), N e a r n e s s

m o n a d o l o g y ,

Positivism,

17

Naturalism,

110

89

25

50,85-86

Nation,

32,121,132,

of society,

Pluralistic v i e w

23,27,32,101

( M e h r - L e b e n ) ,

23, 27, 32 23,31,111-112

of religion,

Physiology,

science,

M o r e - L i f e

23,100

150 Philosophy

evaluation,

M o n k s ,

23, 32, 4 9 , 8 6 , 1 2 1

23-24, 31-32, 36,137,148

82-83,88,134 M o n e y

29,109

Philosophy

9,33,83,86

e c o n o m y ,

sociology,

60, 74-75, 88

75

system,

M o n e y ,

86

163

73-74,80

16, 83, 85-86, 8 9 74

Rationalization,

82,85

Rational

socialism,

80

Rational

will (Kürwille),

17-18, 20-21

164

Subject I ndex

R e d e m p t i o n

(Sich-Erlösen),

R e d e m p t i o n

f r o m

v o m

Leiden),

R e g i o n s Religion,

Socialism,

125 144

10,30,53-54,104,113,132

131,144

Social

Religious action,

religieuses),

127 R e l i g i o u s p r actices (les p r a c t i q u e s Resident,

128

20-21,48,88 of

the

city,

realism,

27, 5 3 , 1 0 6

Social

reform,

6-8,19,33-34

Social

science,

3,116,152

Social

sciences,

Social

system,

68,88

28-29, 33, 58,101 38

(Vergesellschaftung),

27,

107-110,112

62 85-86

life,

116-117,147,149

6

Social

Sociation

63

R h y t h m ,

physiology,

Social psychology

R e l i g i o u s facts (les faits religieux),

Revelation,

116,147,149 28, 53, 106

Social psychology,

117,128,130,150

religieuses),

m o r p h o l o g y ,

Social policy,

61

84

9,30,35,108,115-116

Social nominalism, Social

35,122-123,150

R e l i g i o u s beliefs (les c r o y a n c e s

R ur a l

85,89,138-142,151 S o c i a l life,

25, 3 5 , 5 7 - 5 8 , 6 1 , 9 1 , 1 1 7 , 1 2 1 -

Religiosity,

5,8-10,12-13,33,77,81-

Socialistic order,

(les districts),

Relativism,

125

suffering (Erlösung

Society,

65

4,18,27-29,36,52-53, 55,57,

82,85,87,106,109,112,

115,

118-119,

121,124,126-127,134,142,144,147 S ac r ed

t h i n g s (les c h o s e s sacrées),

129-130 Salvation, Science,

73,140 113 141-143,151

Sociology,

status,

124,131,150

t ow n ,

S m a l l

t o w n

Sociability, Social

vi, 1 2 , 1 9 - 2 1 , 2 3 , 2 7 - 3 1 , 3 3 -

113,115, 117-120, Sociology

as a

M e t h o d e ) , group,

action

138-139,151 65-66 m a n ,

66

35,145 (soziales H a n d e l n ) ,

54-

55,73,90

art,

of

conflict,

Sociology

of domination, of

e c o n o m y ,

of

k n o w l e d g e ,

Sociology

of

language,

of

Sociology

10

Sociology of

forming.

Social

hierarchy,

7 6 -77,89 111 82

9

Sociology

20

20,114-115,117-118,139

117

Sociology

conflict,

Social

109143,

m e t h o d ( S o z i o l o g i e als

of

biology,

facts,

107,

140-141,

29,109

Sociology

Social

Social

138,

Sociology

Social

Social diagnosis,

36

146-147,149,152

131

3, 2 6

S ma l l

of history, 29,118,147

34,48,51-56,58,90,99-100,

Self-alienation (Selbstentfremdung), Small

20,34

56

Sociological m e t h o d ,

37

Secularization of religion, Secular

casuistry (soziologische

Sociological conception

Scientific socialism, society,

(Soziographie),

Sociological Kausuitik),

62, 7 8 , 1 2 5 - 1 2 6

Scientific rationalism,

Secret

S oc i og r ap h y

Sociology

law,

117,134,150 150 117,150

117,150

moral,

of music,

Sociology of

63-64

religion,

117,150 86,89 61, 91,115,117,

121,124,127,132,149-151 Soul

(Seele),

123

Subject I nd e x

Space,

143-144

T h e

Special sociology, Spinozisra,

20

114,137,148

Spirits (les esprits),

T h e

126

Spiritualistic c o n c e p t i o n 8 0

7-8

(Fremde),

Structure

60,88

147

b e i n g (les m a n i è r e s 147

Space,

20

129 127,129 64

60,63,87-88

T y p o l o g y

o f cities,

67-68, 88

U n d e r s t a n d i n g

(Verstehen),

55,58-

59,87

Submission,

83 a n d

subordination

(Super-subordination),

of

labor,

U p r o o t e d

people

Value, 85-86

n u m b e r s ,

71

4 7, 6 9

W a n d e r e r

( W a n d e r n d e ) ,

W a n d e r i n g 29, 32, 5 2-53, 55, 57,

66, 6 9 , 8 2 , 8 7 , 1 0 7 , 1 1 4 - 1 1 5 of distance,

T h e

profane

T h e

rites (les rites),

T h e

s a c r e d (le sacré),

66-67

17

Vocation,

73

individual,

67 in general,

34,88,142

Village,

60,88

T e c h n o l o g y ,

Unskilled 28, 8 1 - 8 2 , 84,

89,108,111 S y m m e t r y ,

T h e o r y

(les

faire),

63

of culture (Kulturgebilde),

Superordination

T h e

a n d

T y p e s ,

25-26

Tattoo,

doing

Traditional domination,

a dornments,

Stranger

S y s t e m

T i m e

T o t e m i s m ,

28,55,144

State socialism, S t o n e

social w a y s of

T o t e m ,

calculation,

State,

of

sociales d e

s o c i a l e s d ’ê t r e ) , of history,

29,77 S p o t

social m o d e s

m an i è r e s

165

W a t c h , W e s t e r n

57

Will

(le p r o f a n e ) , 117 129

129

to

63

( W a n d e r n ) ,

63

72 city, the

67-68

life ( W i l l e

z u m

Leben),

17 W i t h d r a w a l W o r l d ,

(Sich-Lösen),

17,30

125