258 66 4MB
English Pages [175] Year 1984
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