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

Table of contents :
Introduction
Acknowledgements
Contents
Ferdinand Tönnies and Georg Simmel
1. Preface
2 . The Sociological Thinking of Tönnies
3. The Philosophical and Sociological Thinking of Simmel
4. Conclusion
Notes
Georg Simmel and Max Weber
1 . Preface
2 . Methodic Relativism and Methodic Individualism
3. Logic of Fluid Transition and Understanding of the Types
4. “Numerical Calculability” and “Calculability”
5. The Pluralistic View of Society and Social Diagnosis
6. Conclusion
Notes
Georg Simmel and Emile Dürkheim
1 . Preface
2. Simmel*s Methodic Relativism and His View of Sociology
3. Durkheim s Methodic Rationalism and His View of Sociology
4 . The Problems of the Sociology of Religion
5. The Confrontation with Karl Marx
6. Conclusion
Notes
Bibliographical Notes
Index of Names
Subject Index

Citation preview

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

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

à Dobunkan

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

in in Si Ém

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

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

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

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

D O B U N K A N

P U B L I S H I N G

CO., L T D .

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

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

G.

S i m m e l

F. Tönnies,

M .

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

a n d

É.

with D u r k h e i m

Introduction

In the period

f r o m the e n d of

the

19th century

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

to the 20th century,

which

differ c o m p l e t e l y

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

advocate such n e w

G e o r g S i m m e l

as well as

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

(1858-1918) a n d M a x

Émile D u r k h e i m

W e b e r

(1858-1917)

in

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

S i m m e l

in c o m p a r i s o n

(1864-1920)

France

are

es­

I h a v e dealt with

with the views of the

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

and

G e o r g

Simmel,”

I have

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

and

sociological

the time

in w h i c h

S i m m e l and M a x

of S i m m e l

thinking of t h e y lived.

W e b e r , ”

S i m m e l A n d

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

in the s e c o n d

chapter,

presupposing the m e t h o d i c relativism

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

I h a v e dealt with

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

the former

and

“ calculability”

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

by

t h e latter,

t h e pluralistic v i e w of

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

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

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

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

their

confrontations

and

I h a v e dealt with the character­

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

Karl M a r x

(1818-1883).

I have

here

en­

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

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

that

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

the sociological theories t h e m ­

vi

Introduction

W h e n

I look back upon

first-year a s had

an

m y

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

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

interest in S i m m e l .

I found

in the s u m m e r

his n a m e

in

the time of of

m y

1931 that

th e story,

The

I

Youth

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

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

I t o o k interest

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

w h o experiences

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

in this respect,

and

especially his w o r k s

after

about the

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

1933

I k n e w

about

the existence

and

the significance of

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

written b y the G e r m a n

existential philosopher, K a r l Jaspers.

T a k i n g this opportunity,

I studied sociology at the Faculty of Letters,

University of T o k y o f r o m

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

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

the importance of

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

the sociological

I k n e w

from

theories of

H e r e

Tönnies

I also and

of

the comparative methods such as Tönnies'

the c o m m u n i t y

(Gemeinschaft)

through the as­

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

fluid t ransition o f

ideal types

and

as they w e r e in

the types,

D u r k h e i m ’s m e t h o d

each

in a w a y

the elucidation of

little r e f e r e n c e

W e b e r ’s l o g i c o f

B y

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

Besides,

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

this respect,

t o this.

of

fluid transition of t h e

b e c a u s e at

the way,

I wrote,

that time there

w a s very

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

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

Webers

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

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

Georg Simmel and M a x

Weber

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

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

three chapters

original

of

are

extracted

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

from

“ Ferdinand

t h e latter Tönnies

two. and

T h e

G eorg

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

Introduction

ed

book

S i mmel

(1979).

T h e

and M a x

Japanese

W e b e r , ” and

original

of

the second

chapter,

vii

“Georg

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

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

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

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

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

by

the

assistance

of

m y

thanks to them.

Grant-in-Aid

for

Finally,

Publication

t h i s is p u b ­ of

Scientific

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

Yoshio Atoji Tokyo, Japan

viii

Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements

T h e r e

are

m a n y

English

translations a m o n g

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

see

suggestions

W e b e r

and Émile Durkheim.

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

Without

mentioning

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

the w o r k s of

Ferdinand I n this c o n ­

T h e s e translations g a v e

individually

the n a m e s

of

the

thanks to t h e m

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

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

a n d Sociology

and

Mr. Takeshi O g a n e

of D o h t o University

have

been

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

and

G e o r g S i m m e l ”

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

“G e o r g S i mmel

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

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

I a m

grateful

for

the permission

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

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

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

the interpretation

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

own.

y. A

re­

Contents

ix

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

1

1.

Preface

3

2.

T h e

Sociological T h i n k i n g

3.

T h e

Philosophical

4.

Conclusion

31

Notes

41

a n d

of T ö n n i e s

10

Sociological T h i n k i n g

ofS i m m e l

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

21

45

1.

Preface

47

2.

M e t h o d i c

3.

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

60

4.

"Numerical

68

5.

T h e

6.

Conclusion

Relativism a n d

Met ho di c

Calculability” a n d

Pluralistic V i e w

Individualism

"Calculability”

of Society

a n d

Social Diagnosis

51

76 87

Notes

Chapter Three : Georg Simmel and Émile Durkheim 1.

Preface

2.

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

3.

D u r k h e i m ’s M e t h o d i c

97 99 105

Rationalism a n d

of theSociology

His

V i e w

ofReligion

of Sociology

113

4.

T h e

Problems

5.

T h e

Confrontation with

6.

Conclusion

143

N otes

152

KarlM a r x

121 132

Bibliographical N o t e s

156

I nd ex of N a m e s

157

Subject Index

160

Chapter O n e Ferdinand Tönnies and Georg Simmel

3

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

T h e

'/

JlI' / ’ J

alienation of m a n

temporary

is

a

p h e n o m e n o n

social situation, a n d

it is o n e

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

M a n

heim, with

w h o

b y

M a r x

received b y t h e m

birth,

Fritz P a p p e n ­

of the books

w h i c h deals

this b o o k

is

not k n o w

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

Tönnies. I d o

professional sociologists

w a s

themes

T h e Alienation of M o d e r n

is o n e

T h e "subtitle o f a n d

of the important

sociologist of G e r m a n

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

this t h e m e .

based on

a

today.

peculiar to the c o n ­

or intellectuals

in A m e r i c a .

A s

A n

or

Interpretation

to w h a t

e x t e n t it

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

of

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

in Science

a n d

( Su mm er ,

Society

1961),

but

b e y o n d

that

I

not k n o w .

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

incorporated

century.

M a r x

into

sociological

centered

his

theory

in

the

interpretation

of

t h e capitalist

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

y e a r s later,

it h a s

almost a “ catchwörd.”

T hi s

c o m e m a y

N o w , to

P a p p e n h e i m

Manuskripte

(1887). T h e “ has

refers

(1844) a n d real reason

contributed

m u c h

to K .

that era

approximately one

the fore

well b e

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

of

the concept b e c a m e almost

followed.

again

4 0 ’s

due

a n d

has

b e ­

to the years

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

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

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

h e

took u p

T ön n i e s ’ b o o k

the understanding

of

i s t h a t it

the relationship

4

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

b et w e e n h e i m

m a n ’s a l i e n a t i o n a n d

treats this b o o k

well to note T h e

h o w

with

I have

Later

w e

but

T ön n i e s ’

sophical a n d specially

i n t h e 8 0 ’s w a s

born

Jove A m m o n e

this point.

the

1855,

scher a n d

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

philo­

against the background

of the

It is b e c a u s e

he

wrote

a

dissertation

Consequently

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

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

1881) (1890).

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

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

of their births, a n d published,

it i s n o t t o o

G e m e i n ­

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

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

entitled

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

W e s e n

h i s first b o o k ,

that w e

S i m m e l ’s

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

and

9 0 ’s o f t h a t c e n t u r y .

a n d

dissertation entitled “ D a s

philosopher

of his contemporaries.

thinking

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

a

closely c o n ­

19th century,

a n d

1877)

alienation

third of the

quaestionum

versity of T üb in ge n ,

o n e

in t h e last o n e a n d

in

m a n ’s

a G e r m a n

w a s

sociological thinking

social context

mentioned

with

w h o

sociological

G e r m a n

“D e

also

Simmel,

shall elaborate o n

understand

T önnies

just n o w

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

Tönnies, G e o r g

it is

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

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

this reason, P a p p e n ­

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

he

reason w h y

nected

society.”1 F o r

they

though

m u c h

w e r e

both

this m a y

to say

that

thirty-two

be w e

as well as

b et w e e n

w h e n

a coincidence. can

those

their b o o k s A t

a n y

rate,

find the starting point of

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

a n d

of the

t h e 9 0 ’s , i s t h e p e r i o d

19th century,

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

social c o n t e x t of

thinking, touch

s p e c i a l l y t h e 8 0 ’s a n d

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

briefly o n

G e r m a n y

b y

doing

those so, a t

the G e r m a n

at that time

w a s

thinking. Accordingly, in the

days the

the last o n e third

w e

s a m e

m u s t time,

social t h o u g h t

understand w e

their

shall c o m e

to

of those days.

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

f ro m w h a t

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

a

firm footing

a n d

G e r m a n

capitalism

w a s

rapidly

turning

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

into

monopolism.

Catholic church

L oo k i n g a n d

b a c k

u p o n

socialism with

the

w h i c h

1 8 7 0 ’s ,

it

Bismarck,

w a s

5

the

w h o

exer­

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

is t o s a y ,

the G e r m a n

Catholic church

its p a r t i n t h e

struggle b e t w e e n

a n d

of G e r m a n

the p o w e r

Bismarckian group

a n d

influence country.

a n d

those

group

Engels,

Particularly socialism

as soon into

a n d

the Liebknecht M a r x

as

both

groups

the G e r m a n

B is ma rc k

(Kulturkampf)

larger in opposition to

belonging

to

the

Lassalle

under

the

w h o

f r o m

this

w e r e to

banished

have

no

themselves

a n d

Party.

is

L a b o r

the anti-Socialist

1878, in order to put d o w n

played

led labor m o v e m e n t s

c a m e

united

Socialist

introduced

C h u r c h

socialism g r e w

coïïseryatîsm,

of

State a n d

tenaciously

It

l a w

small

strength,

w e r e

organized

w e l l - k n o w n

that

(Sozialistengesetz)

s u c h socialistic p o w e r .

in

It is a l s o w e l l -

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

a n d

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

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

spite

G e r m a n

this

strong

socialistic

larger a n d up

of

power,

oppressive rather

larger. K[e t h e n

policy

than

ability

insurance,

In order

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

relating

these laws,

he

took

scholars belonging to the Ver ei n

ation

for

Social

Policy),

founded

Lujo

Brentano

mentions

in

Gustav

the “Preface

Gemeinschaft

socialism),

a n d

u n d

the

w h i c h

idea

stress o n class.”

a n

w a s

the

Gesellschaft the

w h i c h

für Sozialpolitik, a i m e d school

to

as

forms

g r e w

necessary to take

hfnt

as

dis­

insurance.

f r o m

the

views

für Sozialpolitik (Associ­ the

organization

such

Schmoller. S e c o n d

as

Adolf

A s

of

Edition” (1912) keynote

of

the

W a g n e r ,

T önnies

Kathedersozialismus the

the

also of

his

(Academic the

Verein

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

under

t h e flag

of “ lai^sèz faire,”

,

“ ethical motive...in favor of the

V*

weaker,

retirement a

socialists) v o n

for

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

a n d

of the

Kathedersozialisten (Academic

Bismarck,

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

accident insurance,

to enforce

b y

b e c o m i n g

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

S i m m e l

o w i n g w a y :

a n d

W e b e r

both grasp

It m a y

(J a h r b u c h

f ü r

Thus,

both be

by said

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

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

Geistesleben”

(Leiter),

in the g r o u p

their ideas coincide.

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

das

In spite

of thinking

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

(Verband). But,

tfu

6 5

W e b e r

a n d purely person'**1

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

hand,

;n

M a x

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

Thirdly, a n d

as “ specially w o r l d l y

a n d

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

difference of

S i m m e l

S i m m e l

Großstädte 9,

Gehestiftung,

t h e city in

1903)

u n d

S i m m e l

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

the psychological

basis o n

w h i c h

“ the

type

to

of metropolitan

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

this results f r o m

inner

impressions.

discriminating m a n

O n

this occasion,

creature.”

is s t i m u l a t e d

a n d

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

by

T h a t

is

to

the difference

the one w h i c h preceded

he

understands m a n

say,

b et w e e n

it. T h e n ,

the

as

“ a

consciousness

of

a present

impression

he says: “ W i t h each cross­

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

small

t o w n

a n d

rural

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

life T h e

with

reference

to

the

metropolis exacts f ro m

sensory m a n ,

as

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

the small t o w n

i m a g e

of

r h y t h m . ” 30

a n d

life

has

a

In

this

w a y

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

character of metropolitan life

of

the

sentimental

small

t o w n ”

m o r e

S i m m e l

the

sensory

habitual

indicates

a n d

“ the

a n d

spiritual

m o r e

e ve n

intellectualiste

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

relations. T h u s ,

h e

rests

m o r e

u p o n

emotion

understands “ the mental

and

life” be-

66

G e o r g

t w e e n

S i m m e l a n d

the

A n d

small

S i m m e l

M a x

t o w n

W e b e r

a n d

metropolis

compares,

too,

the

relations b e t w e e n

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

is ‘ f r e e ’ i n a

the

pettiness

Because

a n d

the

thickest

pendence that

refined sense,

w h i c h

h e m

he

c r o w d

of

the

in l a r g e circles,

of

the

big

i n d i v i d u a l . ” 31

is h i m s e l f a

city

as

Thus,

narrowness

the

circumstances,

counterpart

of

o n e

n o w h e r e

metropolitan crowd. seat of

the metropolis

international t o w n

In

is,

feels

small t o w n

s t r o n g l y in of

reveals he

the the

m a k e s

freedom lonely

i f,

lost

said that

in w a v e s

to

a

wide,

of

life

a n d

certain

as

in the

for h i m “ the

be

“ self-contained

it i s o b v i ­

under

a n d

sphere

feeling

“ the spiritual

it c a n the

inde­

thinks that “ the

the metropolis w a s

w hereas

main,

result

a n d

m an .

are the conditions

according to him,

as

T h e n ,

extends

sphere,”

in the

the

space”

this

this w a y

cosmopolitanism.”

life o f

of

m e t r o ­

in contrast to

felt m o s t

S i m m e l

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

are

metropolitan m a n ,

bodily proximity a n d ously

in t h e

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

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

the

as follows: “ T h e metropolitan

spiritualized a n d prejudices

as quite different.

“ the

inner

national of

the

or

small

self-sufficient.” M o r e ­

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

this effect reacts a g a i n

a n d

responsibility to metropolitan In Chapter

Six,

“T h e

of

a n y

pations

are

“ all t h e s e pending of

of occupations

objective f o r m

except point

m a k i n g around

w h i c h

such

Attending to these

L e b e n s ) of people

activity,

has

n o

a n d

these

w h i c h

live b y

definite c o n t e n t

people,

circulates S i m m e l

a

occu­

trading agents,

t h e a bs ol ut e entity,

activity

in

d o not have

a n d

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

M o n e y , their

and

notices that there are

in l a r g e cities,”

systems,

m o n e y .

Stil d e s

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

decisiveness of

chance. “ F o r

importance,

refers to “ uprooted

certain categories of general

teleological

s c o p e . ” 32

(Das

cities. H e

intermediate people

on

their

or

Life”

S i m m e l

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

weight,

life.

Style

his Philosophie des Geldes,

gives

is

with

observes

or de­ w e b

for

t h e m

the

fixed

unlimited that

here

G e o r g

arises

a

peculiar kind

is u s u a l l y

of

characterized

laborers” w h i c h

S i m m e l

“ unskilled labor” as

m e r e

physical

a n d

M a x

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

of

6 7

W e b e r

with

w h a t

“ the

lowest

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

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

bankers.

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

but

such

give

can

persistently

In the

case of bankers m o n e y

is n o t

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

prescribed

as

directions,

particular relations of

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

character.

former,

m o n e y

But

have

in t h e

strayed

o r affinity. A n d in general.” the

middle

ers, a n d

fro m O n

the

so the

routes to

t h e first t i m e former

In this w a y

f ro m

is t h o u g h t

S i m m e l

the a n y

of as

therefore he

such

an

unity

metropolitan

viewpoint

of a metropolitan

m a n

develops the theme. of cities.” H e the

in his

20th

as a

century

Berliner.

nichtlegitime H e r r ­

Chapter

Wirtschaft u n d

seen

Nine, “Sozi­ W e b e r

Gesellschaft

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

seeks

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

w e s t e r n city

Occidental

m an .

observation of types

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

ologie der Herrschaft”

the time

objective

i n l a r g e cities a s

indicates three types of

great credit to s h o w

the contrary, in Subsection Seven, “ D i e

b etween

goal of

“ uprooted people

defines t h e m

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

“ T h e

ultimate

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

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

for

the

a n d

the

non-western

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

b e i n g shall b e

our only concern—

w a s

city,

as

follows.

city, w h i c h for

not only e conomi­

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

s w o r n

V e r b r ü d e r u n g ).” 3 3 A s

the

Occidental

particularly

w e

city

for the

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

as

see here, “a

s w o r n

W e b e r

emphasizes

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

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

are

distinguished fro m

Asian

the

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

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

cities. T h a t

the caste, o r

especially he

seeks

cities w h i c h

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

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

the clan.

6 8

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

M a x

W e b e r

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

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

mentions countries

o f city. a n d

T h e

it w a s

city,

h e

princely city

city in w h i c h

western

following s h o w s

Asian a

the

index of the distinction b e ­ restraint

the index. T h e

a n d

seeks a n

for w h e t h e r

by

the oriental

cities

his understanding of the types

says,

is

“ a

fortress of

(Fürstenstadt).

the purchasing

p o w e r

A

the

prince,”

similar type

of large consumers,

is t h e such as

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

fixed industrial m a n a g e r s

such c onsumers

are various, but

a n d

of merchants.

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

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

city

is

called “ a n is “ a

“ a producer

city"

Firstly,

o n

the contrary,

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

it

is

also

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

merchant

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

specialization of concepts,” a n d h e

indi­

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

they

predominant medieval

can be

e co no mi c

“ agrarian

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

cities”

H o w e v e r ,

W e b e r

(Ackerbürgerstädte)

as

a

recognizes premise

of

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

or

“ the

that the transition f r o m fluid.”

But,

o f cities.” at

“ the

in the

mer ch an t

this w a y ,

social

be

he

recognizes

W e b e r

of

a n d S i m m e l

the city”

observed

w e r e

also

t h r e e is “ e n t i r e l y

attaches importance

though

psychology

c i t y , it m u s t

a n d

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

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

city,”

to

“ typology

having

equally

a

try

interested

that their w a y s of understanding

t h e city a r e different.

4. “ N u m e r i c a l A s

Calculability”

a n d

“ Calculability”

w e

have

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

e c o n o m y

m a d e

possible

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

the

w e w o u l d

ideal of

“ numerical

calculability”

in

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

G e o r g S i m m e l

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

a n d

M a x

69

W e b e r

regards “ the essence

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

as

“ the internal

changeable s u m i n g

uniformity

that

m a k e s

each

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

this

point,

h e

writes

at

piece

ex ­

measures.” Pre­

the b e g i n n i n g of

Chapter

Six,

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

of m e a n s

a n d

content

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

as the subjective Since

every

emotional critical

the

length of their

representative

m e a n s

as

such

of is

the

series w h i c h

objective

completely

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

point of action

w h o s e

for m

world

o r d e r . ” 34

indifferent,

so

tied to the ends,

attainment

radiates

n o

the

all

to the

longer

on

our

activity but o n l y o n

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

the

m o r e

w e

such

termini

have

in

practical

life,

will b e

the function

S i m m e l

notices “ the impulsiveness a n d emotional

are

seen

the

stronger

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

in primitive people,

a n d

he

thinks

intensity” w h i c h

that

this

is

surely

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

the “ vocation” (Beruf)

the

life w o r k

rather

the

end

directness

p e r v a d e s life.

primitive people

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

attained T h e

of

w h i c h

a

simple

a t all, of

they

effort

to

h a d

series of

did

an

almost continuous

Especially today,

so with

obtain

portant contributing factor which, b y

n o

roundabout

lies

m o r e

b e y o n d

the

say, m o n e y

usually b e y o n d

the series creates a

be

series

can

the

w a s

a n

elements, if t h e y

few

means.

especially

i m ­

a n d

preparations

S i m m e l

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

b y

and,

moreover,

thinks

m o n e y .

that

T h a t

this is

central interest for o th e r w i s e

to u n ­

different series s o that the

the preparation

objectively quite unrelated. But, the

for

endless, the goal of the

individual.

c o m m o n ,

b e c o m e

A n d

that m o m e n t ,

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

interests.

w a y s

m o m e n t

of

of

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

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

extension

cohesion relatively

food

the m o m e n t s

of

the contrary,

multi-linked series of purposes.

w h e n

horizon

O n

for a n o t h e r crux

w h i c h

m a y

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

7 0

G e o r g S i m m e l

general

a n d

fact that

an

omnipresent

element

means.

means,

O n

the

“ with

ship, “ a w e b

of objective

is s i m i l a r a n d

to the

Moreover,

has

processes a n d the they

objects a n d for m

ference

natural l a w This

w e

replaced

connection

since

w e b

no

measures

it d e t e r m i n e s

a n d their relation­ with

emerges

its c o n t i n u o u s

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

by

as

every

by

the

emotional

interpretation of

a n

natural

objective intelligence,

practical world,

inasmuch

w h i c h they

of sequences to

a

appears

only

c om p l e x

so as

teleological

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

that previously terminated

in a u t o n o m o u s

of

not

relative

elements,

of

is

only

structure of m e a n s

is— f o r

ation— a

connection viewed

fro m

increasingly

of

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

since the w h o l e too,

the

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

transformation causal

“ at

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

practical counterpart

“ Or,

w h i c h

since m o n e y

c o s m o s

the

our

utilize t h e s e b y

ing transformation

world,

in

a s p e c t s o f life”

view,

f r o m

connections of

emotions,

In this w a y

the

of our existence are

a n d

personal

S i m m e l ’s

b ee n

terminal points.” A n d

a n d

i t s e l f is

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

of

purposes

a n d

disappeared

has

since m o n e y

value.

to follow

accentuation

thereby

teleological n e x u s last. A n d

and

are

of things so e x p o s e d

strict c ausality.

all-pervasive m o n e y

themselves

various elements

merciless objectivity,”

of the value

cohesion

in

the contrary,

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

m ea s u r e

w h i c h

really e n d s

in the all-embracing

all o b j e c t s the

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

that are

to m e r e

thus placed

W e b e r

m o n e y

countless things degraded

M a x

b e c o m e s

our

the

present

front,

a problem

of

the

the

“the nature

Rather, consider­ practical

intelligence.

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

b e c o m e

objectively

rational

relationships, a n d

emotional selves to

a n d

accentuations

subjectively calculable (berechenbar),

in so d o i n g progressively eliminate the and

decisions

the turning points of

S i m m e l considers our

as m e a n s

purpose,

a n d

of

w h i c h

only

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

p o s e s . ” 36 T h u s , a n d

or

time

emotion

b y as

attach

t h e m ­

t o its f inal p u r ­

the index of m o n e y well as

intelligence.

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

and

he

time

notes

that

b e c o m e

In

the representative

this w a y

S i m m e l

character of a “O n e

system

spiritual

the world

individual

a n d

events

cognitive

a n d

of n u m b e r s

of

a n d

in

that

(ein g r o ß e s

tive,” a n d

the calculative nature

In

arithmetical

recognized

at re­

Rechenexempel),

the qualitative distinction mostly

n u m b e r s ” are

used

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

are

h ug e

are

states:

c a l c u l a t i v e (r e c h ­

as

in o u r time

“ a

he

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

spiritual f u n c t i o n s ” in

rationalistic

T h e n ,

functions

Z a h l e n ) . ” 37

thereby

“ the

system.

v o n

also

our

the style in o u r t i m e

(ein S y s t e m

but

in

a n d intellect h a v e “ a that

social— mostly

arithmetical p r o b l e m

to conceive

thinks

in t h e i m a g e

the

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

h u g e

he

the m o n e t a r y

characterize

lations— b o t h

a n d

final trait”

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

as a

elements of action

indicates that m o n e y

the influence of

m a y

71

Wetter

“ calculable, rational relationships.”

certain lack of character,” clarifies

M a x

of

a n d

things as a

Repeatedly,

“ the

regarded as “calcula­ is

not

p r o b l e m ”

only

a n d

indicated,

“ a

system

of

in s u c h “ spiritual functions.”

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

of our

time” stands

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

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

relationship

to

he

w h i c h

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

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

the

m o n e y

e c o n o m y . ”

H e

in a close

states,

“ T h e

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

and

our daily

absorbed

reducing the

in of

by

such

penetrating

of

m o n e y

determinedness a n d

determining,

the qualitative values

life,” 38 b e c a u s e m i n e

transactions.

by

T h e

weighing,

h a d

a

to

occur

all

values

“exactness, precision a n d

d o w n

to

the

people

calculating

m u c h

greater in

gauging m o n e y evaluation has

specify

m a n y

to quantitative ones.

evaluation

limit

lives of

the

riguor in the e c o n o m i c

T h r o u g h precision

contents

taught last

a n d

of

us to deter­

farthing.

Thus,

relationships of

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

a

ideal of

superior

system, tho ug h not exactly for the

s t y l e o f life.

numerical

calculability

Therefore, has b ee n

w e

can

m a d e

say

possible

that in

7 2

G e o r g

S i m m e l

a n d

M a x

W e b e r

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

S i m m e l

the

m o n e y

recognizes “ the

lations erected a b o v e

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

the qualitative reality,”

a n d

he

re­

notes that

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

disparity,

an

unambiguousness

in a g r e e m e n t s

a n d

arrange­

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

character of m o n e y ” has brought

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

of pocket

watches

abstract values by clocks” provides a rangements

a n d

has

spread. A n d

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

of

m o n e y ,

“ the determination of abstract time

by

s c h e m e

for the

measurements.

m os t S u c h

detailed a

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

regards

a n d

calculability” to

their practical

a n d

a n d

scheme,

the contents of Intellektualität)

these forms m a y

t h e m

w h i c h

intellectuality controls m o d e r n

cance

w h i c h

O n

the o n e touches

gives to m o d e r n

hand,

in

frequently

Rechenhaftigkeit). A t gische

s o m e

at least,

Thus,

his

in

of the energy

by

life.” T h e r e f o r e ,

t h e signifi­

u n d

Gesellschaft

“ the calculability”

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

Grundkategorien

des

by

the

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

Wirtschaft

o n

“ the

e m b o d i e d

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

spread of watches also

life,

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

derive from

the

otherwise unattainable

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

definite a r ­

receiving

C hapter T w o ,

Wirtschaftens,”

W e b e r

(Berechenbarkeit,

he

“ Soziolo­

r e g a r d s “f o r m a l

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

as

“ the extent

w h i c h

quantitative

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

In this case, a n a l ’”

of

according

(R e c h n u n g )

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

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

the degree

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

expressed

w h i c h

calculation

in w h i c h

the provision

rational e c o n o m y ,

for

needs,

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

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

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

expressed. sense

T hi s concept

that expression

is

thus

in m o n e y

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

“ material

w h i c h h o w

f o r m

yields

of

with goods

is

groups

shaped

cally oriented social action u n d e r

by

s o m e

at least O n

Rationalität)

given

73

W e b e r

in

the

“ the highest degree

(Rechenhaftigkeit).”

(m a t e r i a l e

the provisioning delimited)

“ unambiguous,”

M a x

is

the contrary, “ the degree (no

to

of

persons

matter

the

nature of e c o n o m i ­

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

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

the nature

of

these

ends."

It

goes

without

saying

that

this

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

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

Aufsätze zur

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

barkeit) in m o d e r n

capitalism. W h a t

h e calls “ capit al i sm peculiar

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

Bc/rfe&skapitalismus)

of free labor." T h i s intensively

b y

with

its

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

“ the

development

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

rational

organization

the beginning clearly a n d

of

possibility.”

technical

essentially restricted b y

Its

“ the calculability

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

T h a t

is

to say,

it

is r e a l l y

restricted

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

interests

separable m o d e r n

relation

of

b e t w e e n

in the s a m e

is

still

science

as

true. well

T h e as

close a n d

technology

capi­ in­ and

part, W e b e r

refers t o “ calculability” in

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

has

technical m e a n s tration

such l a w

A n d

in his

nee d

of labor

according

used in

the s a m e

stimulated decisively b y

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

Moreover, l a w

a n d

them, w a s

O n the

a n d

Part One, Wirtschaft

to

the

of

not

only

but

also

“calculable l a w

formal

rules,”

administration

for

Chapter Three,

“ Die

u n d

he

Gesellschaft

calculable a n d

only

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

(berechenbar) a n d

adminis­

the

Occident

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

that

Herrschaft,” the n ee d

for

7 4

G e o r g

S i m m e l

a n d

“ calculability a n d

a n d

M a x

W e b e r

reliability in t h e

functioning of the legal o r d e r

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

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

w a s

the two,

required

in “ rational capital­

“ calculable function b y

b y

“ the

the rational rules

general administration of

m a r k e t

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

in

the

marketing

of

systematization of law,

commodities

rationality

preconditions

understood

for

the

to signify o n e

e co no mi c

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

style

w h i c h

other hand, “ the administration” w a y

he

the legal

need

produced

characterizes

the

well as administration B y

the way,

schaft

“ the

“ safety

of capitalistic

transaction.”

historically

connection

a n d

of

m a n a g e ­ O n

the

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

for constant,

w a s

the

of the m o s t

continuative

ment,

requires

a n d

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

function of judgment,” are important

the

by

capitalism.

b et w e e n

In this

calculable

law

as

capitalism.

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

W e b e r

treated

technically

bureaucracy

purest

type of

(Bürokratie).

T o

legal domin at i on . ”

h i m

In a

it

is

word,

it

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

of

ordination,

reduction

personal

t h e files,

c o s t s ” 44

continuity,

of

are

friction

m e a n s

to dispose

of m a n . cy.

according

to

by

unity,

e c o n o m y public

of

strict

sub­

material

servants.

a n d

T h e

“ o b ­

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

rules,”

regardless

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

But,

in

addition

to

(Patrimonialbürokratie). pointment

this T h e

there

is

patrimonial

essential of

the

bureaucracy

former

is

“the a p ­

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

inconvenient

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

jective

competence,

within

the

the

a n d

performed

jective” (sachlich) disposition b y

discretion,

according

to

the

formal

function

with

bureaucratic

o b ­ w a y

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

f o r m e r case.

According developed power,”

o n a n d

to

W e b e r ,

the it w a s

Oikos, seen

patrimonialism that

is,

o n

(Patrimonialismus)

“ differentiated

in a ncient E g y p t ,

Russia,

w a s

patriarchal

China,

medi-

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

eval Europe,

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

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

an

is

“ the

formation but,

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

authoritative position.

there

t h e field o f

t h e r e is n o

of

such

75

W e b e r

stability

patrimonialism

(Unberechenbarkeit).

Indeed,

the

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

“ incalculability.”

bureaucracy m o d e r n

In the case

incalculability”

big c o m m e r c e

with

M a x

there

m a k e O n

is

c o m p r o m i s e

the contrary,

“ calculability.”

comparatively

in the case

A n d

the

of

easily m o d e r n

rational

rules

of

bureaucratic administration offer “ calculability indispensa­

ble to

the development

of

capitalism”

to

W h e n

capitalism b e c o m e s

the typical f o r m

the

organization

of

labor

a n d

is b a s e d

o n

“ the possibility of secure calculation.”

the

m o r e

is

it

w h i c h

capital-intensive

of

this.

has and,

industrial

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

of

especially,

it s i g n i f i e s

large

selling, A n d

yet,

the m o r e

fixed

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

be

able to expect the continuity a n d objectivity

function in l a w

order, a n d

the

rational “ principally calcu­

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

W e b e r

cracy but W e

“ numerical plied.

N o w ,

follows.

It

“ numerical early w o r k : m a d e

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

also in m o d e r n

have

in the administration.

taken

u p

capitalism as

cases

calculability” a n d as w e is

clear

h av e that

well as

to w h i c h

in m o d e r n

the concepts

of

S i m m e l ’s

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

c o m p a r e d S i m m é l

both, m a d e

w e use

can of

s u m m a r i z e the

concept

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

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

law.

in c o n n e c t i o n

with m o n e y

a p ­ as of

in his that h e

e c o n o m y a n d

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

as well as m o d e r n

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

“ calculability” u s e d

of the

b y

both coincide fundamentally

contextual differences in w h i c h

they

are

used.

in spite

7 ö

G e n r g S i m m e l

5. T h e Both M a r x

a n d

V i e w

S i m m e l

W e b e r

a n d

the

o w n

Probleme

T h a t

of

a n d

regarded

the

their

methodic

Social

early

days.

relativism,

h e

w h o

considers

of qualitatively different k i n d s of

history

against

Simmel,

criticizes

(2nd

Geschichtsphilosophie

Diagnosis

confrontation

his psychologistic, relativistic

der

is t o s a y ,

o f Society

thesis since

position

materialism fro m D i e

W e b e r

Pluralistic

as their

takes

M a x

historical

viewpoints

ed., as

w h o in his

revised,

“a n

1905).

interweaving

event-sequences” contends

that

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

events are

e co no mi c

criticizes

that

eco no mi c

general”

a n d

the

to that of S i m m e l ,

a n d

it i s s e e n

events

events.”

are

“ the

In other

symbols

words,

of

he

history

in

“ functions of inde­

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

adopts a

similar v i e w

in

T w o ,

typically h u n g e n

Part

der

Chapter

Gemeinschaften

allgemeinen”

in

his

T w o ,

“ Wirtschaftliche

(Wirtschaft

u n d

Bezie­

Gesellschaft) It

Wirtschaft u n d Gesellschaft.

begins

im with

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

something

to d o

(Gemeinschaften)

termined

are

that

extremely

widely. “ A b o v e mination

with e c o n o m y . ” T h a t are

rare,”

economically

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

deter­

action (Gemeinschaftshandeln) b y economic

to

istic c o n c e p t i o n

h i s t o r y . ” 46

of

but the degree

d e ­

varies

of c o m m u n a l

s h o w s

s o m e h o w

of this c a s e

m o m e n t s — contrary W e b e r

not

is t o s a y , “ c o m m u n i ­

the assumption It

is

of

the

clear

so-called

that

in

this

material­ sentence

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

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

it f r o m

his point of view,

“even

the

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

can

historical generalization,”

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

interdependence,

the

“ laws of in a

given

causes.

because

their o w n , ”

a n d

case, a l w a y s

forms

even

of

apart

n o t b e justified a s a n as

an

c o m m u n a l fro m

be codetermined

by

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

this fact,

follow

they m a y ,

other than economic

G e o r g

S u c h

a

vie w

of W e b e r in his

M a x

77

W e b e r

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

of historical materialism. already seen

S i m m e l a n d

D i e

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

der

S i m m e l ’s o p i n i o n

and

Geschichtsphilosophie,

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

is

Accordingly,

w e

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

both.

In

methodic city”

his

Philosophie

relativism,

S i m m e l

e co no mi c

structure

the

des

h a d

(1900),

Geldes

understood

a n d

the

depending

on

“ in infinite r e c i p r o ­

ideal

structure,

a n d

five

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

recognized

“a

meritorious n ee d of

historical material­

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

heuristic principle (heuristisches Prinzip) w i t h

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

the conclusion

u n d

der

))Geist«

of

des

his

Thi s

treatise:

m a y “ Die

Kapitalismus,”

I,

H

the

also

constitutive

be

noticed

protestantische (A r c h i v

f ü r

in

Ethik Sozial­

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

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

he

says

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

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

investigation,” but as “ the

not

serve as “ the preparation

conclusion,”

accomplish

equally

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

support

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

if t h e “ p r e p a r a t i o n

of an

w e

corresponds

can

very

say

that

interesting

to

here that

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

the

w ay ,

T h e s e

w h a t

the both

or the

are mainly

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

with

history.

does

I n this case,

a n d

of

the opinions of

both

hav e

opinion

the

to

the “ conclusion” of the

“ constitutive principle”

also

do

time he

investigation” of W e b e r corresponds

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

at the s a m e

s a m e

coincide.

materialistic conception

social dia gn os e s of

t h e latter,

S i m m e l

concerning of history. a n d

W e b e r

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

of

It is

society.

are, T o

7 8

G e o r g

S i m m e l a n d

take u p

W e b e r

their diagnoses

S i m m e l ’s . w h i c h

M a x

In

his

a b o u t capitalism,

Philosophie

des

Geldes,

let

u s first

he

notes

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

Arbeiters

M a r x

a n d

yet about “ the division of labor”

he

says,

“ In

t h a t it

organize a n d

is

the

seinem

Arbeitsmittel)

function of

allocate the m e a n s

the

his m e a n s

{ T r e n n u n g does

v o n

deal

with

process of labor”

in

the w a y

(Arbeitsteilung)

t h e capitalist to acquire,

of labor, these m e a n s

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

for h i m

acquire a w h o

w o r k s

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

fundamental

separation

conditions of

labor.”

there w a s

psychological

N o w ,

n o

of

A n d

the

w h e n

subjective

both

reason

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

a n d

w e r e

for a

in

the

objective

the s a m e

separation.

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

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

for

the

further emphasized themselves

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

“ all t h e m o r e

so as labor

A n d a n d

e m p h a ­

it m u s t

the materials

their present polarity

its c o n t i n u i t y

a n d

counterpart

all t h e m o r e

are

found

in

noticeable.” t h e fact that,

“ in addition to the m e a n s

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

the

is

“ the significance

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

that labor p o w e r

modity.”

in

laborer.”

F o r

T h a t

is

this to

say,

the m e a n s

this case,

of

the

has b e c o m e

the laborer

of labor, but also f r o m

H o w e v e r ,

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

ownership

misery,

w o u l d

of

w h i c h

in a

is

completely

v a t i o n . ” 48

In other w o r d s

ration

the

of

personal

considered

laborer

different

it c a n

from

his

be

said

m e a n s

c o m ­ only

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

his m e a n s of labor,

the focal sense

point of appear

that in this of

a

is n o t

f ro m

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

from

p h e n o m e n o n

estranged

the

be

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

proximity m a k e s A n d

hands,

labor”

social

as a “ the

signifies

sal­ sepa­ “ the

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

objective conditions in w h i c h

the techniques of production placed

h i m . ” Moreover,

according to Simmel,

w h e r e

the

laborer w o r k s

with

G eo r g

his o w n

M a x

79

W e b e r

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

personality,

a n d

rated f ro m

him.

only b y But,

of another person his labor

for a

m ar ke t

the

is

n o

possibility

price a n d

m o m e n t

i s it s e p a ­ for utilizing

thus

separates

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

himself

T h e

fact

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

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

there

finished products

the laborer places his labor at the disposal

fro m

that labor n o w

selling the

w h e r e

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

S i m m e l a n d

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

signifies that l a b o r h a s

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

this

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

as

soon

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

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

for S i m m e l ,

only o n e

“ Finally, p o w e r

side

the of

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

fact that labor b e c o m e s a

far-reaching

in their products.

t h e capitalist e r a

character,

with

its

else

objective organization of labor. process

the result of this fate o f the

is s h o w n

labor in m o u s

quantity of

accurately, to a n

is a n o w n

m e a n s

T h e

of

of labor a n d

of

a

is

differentiation.

fact that

object with laws

a c o m m o d i t y

labor

the product of

decidedly autono­

mot io n

a n d

a

character

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

it.” 49

Thus,

to b uy

S i m m e l

his o w n

emphasizes

capitalist e r a

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

estrangement

of

cated

the laborer

here. T h i s

s h o w s

(3 vols., 1 8 6 7 - 1 8 9 4 ) b y “ a

general

s c h e m e

wage-laborer,” w or k i n g

that S i m m e l Karl

h e

fro m

M a r x .

the

of labor.

w h i c h also

w i s h e s to

laborer T h e

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

recognizes

the m e a n s

that

if h e

his products of

of development

a n d

person

f r o m

product

he

in

situation of l a b o r is i n d i ­

in D a s notes

Kapital

t h a t it is

is v a l i d f a r b e y o n d “ the

the

separation

of

the the

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

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

in

another

place

in

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

capitalism

the e co nomi c

a n d

his

Philosophie

a s is s h o w n

des

Geldes

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

the time of guilds as follows:

individualization

S i m m e l

that corresponds

be ­

“Capitalism to

it h a v e ,

8 0

G e o r g S i m m e l

a n d

M a x

W e b e r

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

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

t o o !—

m u c h

insecure

a n d

m o r e

accidental circumstances than

w h e n

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

m u c h

stricter

a n d

r h y t h m

t h e y e a r . ” 50

dominantly

to

A n d

rhythmical

to the m o r e

fact

character, work,

a n d

Well, touches

does

of

his

of

guilds

conditions of

during

labor in

a ccompanied

the

the

day

a

pre­

h a d the

by

also

case

of

songs,

but

individualization of labor” Thus,

“ labor as a

time

imparted

life

particularly

a g a i n lost.

o n

W e b e r

S i m m e l

w h o l e ”

of the guilds, a n d

diagnose

G e s a m m e l t e

“capitalism

follows: In m o d e r n talism

existed at the time

referred

b e c a m e

m u c h

the content

of

unrhythmical.

h o w

duction”

m a n y

w a s

a n d

in capitalism

insecure t h a n at the

labor b e c a m e

to

other contents

character w a s

that

it

laboring

“ the perfection of tools

this r h y t h m i c a l

subordinated

formerly the content of

primitive co-operative with

hav e

capitalism?

Aufsätze

peculiar

to

zur

that developed

n o w h e r e

the

“ Intro­

Religionssoziologie

the

times the Occident

In

m o d e r n

k n o w s

Occident,”

he as

“ the kind of capi­

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

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

capitalism,”

a n d

is r e a l l y a n d

Occident.” This

truly “ capital­

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

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

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

istic

m a n a g e m e n t ”

b e c a m e

elements of development; a n d

m a n a g e m e n t ”

a n d

possible

the

assumption

of

t w o

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

“ rational

since precise calculation

o n

bookkeeping.”

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

Besides,

the ground

indeed of “ free

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

ism

is

also

science

a n d

Moreover, spot

seen

in the m o d e r n

closely

a n d

technology, he

uses the

calculation,

a n d

Occident.

inseparably but

also

he

connected

with

twin concepts recognizes

A n d

law of

a n d

capital

“ the

m o d e r n capital­ not

only

with

administration. calculation

a nt in om y

of

a n d

formal

G e o r g

rationality w h i c h

a n d

material

has c o m e

rationality”

f r o m the formal

S i m m e l

in

a n d

M a x

capitalism

81

W e b e r

as

the

result

rationality of capital calculation.

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

can

find

here

differing f r o m B y w e o n

the

his

essential

understanding

S i m m e l ’s v i e w p o i n t

way,

w h a t

are

their

about

capitalism,

in his criticism of capitalism.

diagnoses of socialism?

A t

first,

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

three types

from

his a r g um en t s.

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

for

anarchism

nation

a n d

subordination

formal

motive

lies in

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

a n d

m o d e

of

m easure o n

thought of

than

sentiments

by

w h i c h

of

takes

the m o t e

persons, m o r e

a n d

that entitle

a n

m o r e w o u l d

necessary,

subordination”

oppression,

they

absolute

ideal

or

a n d

superordi­

w h e n

material o n e

such

motive

a n d

to be

itself

institution of c o m p l e t e

suffering

that a

social o r d e r in

the

to c o m ­

claims

freedom

“a

the

based

be

“ no

equality”

degradation

a

within

person

S i m m e l

w o u l d

w e r e

if not

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

surely

reflect

clarity” a n

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

m e a n s

rejection of

the degree of

socially

based o n

possessed

themselves, that

a

conditions

everything o n e

his Philosophie

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

connected with the former. theories

hostile

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

superordination

w o r s e

the

b e t w e e n

replaced

differences in h u m a n

in

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

motive

is

F i r s t o f all,

the

for r e m o v i n g certain

categorical

with

awareness

regard of

for themselves imperative,

but

the

to fact

n o t a t all only

the

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

certain feelings of well-being.”

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

society

to accomplish

its g o a l s .

Y e t

it r e f l e c t s

the

intrinsic

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

with

mation,

super-subordination

all

c o m m a n d i n g

a n d

other

individuals.

obeying

w o u l d

B y

dissolving

(Obenb e c o m e

u n d

this

a m a l g a ­

Unterstehen),

merely

a n

all

external

82

G e o r g

S i m m e l a n d

M a x

W e b e r

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

u p o n

a n

could t h r o w

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

all f e e l i n g s o f

a n d

development,

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

pragmatically

“ super-subordination” T h a t

is t o s a y ,

h e

“ super-subordination”

their necessity.

b e c o m i n g

“ a

the

neither light n o r

in

society,

indicated m e r e

a n d

S i m m e l and

by

it

grasps

recognizes

the effectiveness of

external

technique

of

institution.”

But,

he

expedient

notes

that

aspects of

today,

w h e n

the

external

the social hierarchy

are

a n d

the

m e r e

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

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

can

sake

of

call for a n

abolition of that hierarchy

the above-mentioned

feelings

S i m m e l

thinks

“ this

a n d

organizational

its

that

through

technical advantages

conditions”

of the

of

in general

for the

suffering.

In this case,

objectivation of

performance

o n e

could

hierarchy” a n d

preserve

avoid

“ all

the

“ the neglect of

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

extent, of socialism. T h e n

“ the direction of

culture

for

w h i c h

he

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

m o n e y

e c o n o m y

paved

the

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

in his

s a m e

b o o k

S i m m e l

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

results partly m o n e y . ”

fro m

For, by

a

socialist ideal s e e k s o w n

group

w h i c h

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

with m o n e y ,

reaction to

declaring

refers to

w a r

and

“ the complete u p o n

the

the

form

of

p o w e r

thinks that

of it

heartlessness of

m o n e t a r y

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

“ the

system,

isolation f r o m

purposive

the his

association,

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

dividual. According to Simmel, “a

rationalization

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

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

a n d

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

a n d

characteristic

calculations of

affinities w i t h t h e “ v a g u e

residue of times long

towards

elements

reason.

But,

communistic

b y

the control

the

legitimate

it h a s a t

the s a m e

instincts” that, a s t h e

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

in the recesses

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

of the

soul.

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

posed

psychic

roots.

developmental o n

O n

product of

the other

it

a n d emotions.

is

the

have

the

o n e

hand,

the

rationalistic

e m b o d i m e n t

of

M a x

diametrically o p ­

socialism m o n e y

the

83

W e b e r

m os t

is

the

final

e co no my ,

a n d

basic

instincts

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

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

as well as

in the reaction

to

r a t i o n a l i s m . ” 54

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

contrary,

the

m o n e t a r y

system

spectively to concentrate u p o n leaves only friends,

the

closest

leads

the

himself and,

individual

as objects of personal

o n

relations,

a n d

in

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

individual the

such

emotional

Writing

o n e as

retro­

hand,

family

devotion,

and,

it and on

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

a n d

reaction

the

in general.

m o n e t a r y

T h u s , grasping contrarily social­

system,

h e

finds

“ rationalism”

a n d

to rationalism” in socialism.

Moreover,

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

small book:

G r u n d f r a g e n

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

formerly

discussed socialism

in his

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

“a

goes

to e x t r e m e s

it w i t h m o d e r n

discrepancy.

t h e possibility

acquisition of

position

he had

According

position a n d personality” s o m e ­

in social status

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

Soziologie (1908).

der

a n d

in guilds

society w e cannot w h i c h

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

in f o r m e r find such

generally permits the

with

ability

increases

ex ­

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

the

m a i n

thing

difference b e t w e e n depends Herein,

u p o n

here

is

only

personal quality

either d omination

S i m m e l

b y

the separation

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

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

original

chance

personal

position

of

the

w h i c h

o r s u b m i s s i o n . ” 55

considers socialism.

requires “ hierarchical institutions

o n

a n d

T h a t

is t o s a y ,

administration”

socialism w h i c h

are

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

84

G e o r g

-ed,

S i m m e l

a n d

of in

tainment

order

m o r e

that

that

states,

in

“O n

all a c c i d e n t a l

O n

the

other hand,

i t.

It f o l l o w s

this the

execute

than

hierarchy.

o n e

hand,

chance

w o u l d

a be

decides the at­

it f i n d s

the position

in socialism

subordinates,

c o m m a n d s . ”56

equally

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

that

that

priori,

T o

there

m o r e

would

persons

this idea of

w h o

S i m m e l ’s

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

order the

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

m o r e

than

m a k e s

a n d

pyramid,

in

w h i c h

the superordinates, a

the is

subordinates

b e c o m e

really impossible.

diagnosis of socialism f r o m

In

m a n y

this w a y

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

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

O n

the

o n e

hand,

important

in

Part

One ,

Chapter

Three,

“ T y p e s

of

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

D o m i n a t i o n ” in his the

S i m m e l

‘ f r e e l y , ’ t h a t is,

with

than

whatever

a

individual qualification alone

superordinates

c o m m a n d

he

position

postulates

of positions.

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

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

a n y

talent d e v e l o p e s

the

that

occupying

eliminated, a n d

be

W e b e r

his f o r m e r b o o k

socialistic

a n y

M a x

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

capable N o w ,

a n d

m e a n s

of

bureaucratic

administration

is

“ special

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

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

m a n a g e m e n t

is

tration. T h i s

absolutely

of

so

technical

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

far as effect,”

bureaucracy

supply

indispensable

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

the

the it

or

is all t h e m o r e

to

whether

the supply

organization

that

the

that special

bureaucratic

socialistically

socialistic signifies

for g o o d s ”

for g o o d s

organized. “aim s

m e a n i n g

adminis­

at

T h a t

is

the sam e

of

professional

important. Herein W e b e r

t h i n k s that,

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

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

irrationalities,”

t h a t is, “ t h e a n t i n o m y

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

Vortrag,

“ o n e

of formal

rigid formal

of those great rationality

a n d

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

in W i e n , Juli

1918):

“ Especially this ines­

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

G e o r g

n o

m o r e

than

the thing

w h i c h

separation of laborer f rom istic

mottos

w h i c h

standing on

such

is

lies

behind

quoted

very

a viewpoint

W e b e r

has

course, here

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

w h o

85

the

motto

of

‘the

f r e q u e n t l y . ” 58

general

finds “ hierarchic

W e b e r

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

“ inescapable

W e b e r

M a x

S i m m e l a n d

bureaucratization

In

this

way,

clearly a n

insight

socialist

society.”

in

Accordingly,

into O f

S i m m e l w h o

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

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

in socialism,

and agree

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

a n d

the arts a n d

W e b e r

also

hav e

society.

This

is

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

h a d

clear f ro m

fact that

the

Ethnological Studien

wissenschaft,

13, 1882). o n

touches

“ the

Eight

y ea r s later

contrasts r h y t h m

ing.

to say,

space,”

is

r h y t h m

rhythmical inversely, b e c o m e s

the a

consideration

S i m m e l

the

order to i m b u e a n d

order

Thus,

the

creative

a n d

s y m m e t r y

s y m m e t r y

r e m o v e d of

the

thing T h a t

connect

in

If o n e

systematically, t h e m

paint­

in the quickest, m o s t

of

both

are

s h o w s

symmetric, o n l y “ dif­

with

rhythm,

a n d

materials, r h y t h m

e y e . ” 59

organize

m a n

of merely visible a n d

in

motives.”

proportionately

p o w e r

of

symmetric. A n d is

is,

(1890)

“ r h y t h m

w h i c h

s y m m e t r y

is f o r t h e

as

into time.”

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

fundamental

does

chaos

a n d

m e a n i n g

T h a t

is t o s a y ,

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

w h o l e

is r e g a r d e d

explains

conception.

s y m m e t r y

t h e m

contingency a n d

It is

“ Psychological

historical

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

for the ear w h a t has to f orm

o n e

of the s a m e

Moreover,

First

i n h i s first b o o k

a n d

in m u s i c

b y d ra w i n g

rhythmical

ferent f orms says, “ A t

if

is “ s y m m e t r y

motion

here.

Völkerpsychologie u n d S p r a c h ­

psychological

r hythm,” and T h a t

related to

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

Zeitschrift f ü r

he

it u p

relation

since his early period.

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

Studies on

in t h e

also indirectly

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

interest in m u s i c

über Musik,

interest

the parts

around

w h e n

a

within

central

confronted

is in one the

point.

with

the

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

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

T h e n of

s y m m e t r y

rationalism.”

86

G e o r g

O n e

S i m m e l

example

a n d

M a x

of this

W e b e r

is

indicated in

the

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

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

In this w a y

S i m m e l

does

c o m b i n e

s y m m e t r y

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

in m a n y

spheres, a n d

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

d a y

in

r h y t h m

general

gives the example

the

institution of

r h y t h m i c a l l y . ” 60

that “ only at a

regular meals

Therefore,

divide

s y m m e t r y

a n d

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

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

a n d

that

W e b e r

h a d interest in t h e arts, especially

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

logischen G r u n d l a g e n

the “ sociology of

der

music.”

M u s i k

D i e

rationalen u n d

(1921). T h i s

Besides,

in

sozio­

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

the “ Introduction”

of

his

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

force of our m o d e r n

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

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

is

regarded as o n e

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

its g a i n s b y

m o d e r n

“ rational

h a r m o n y

m u s i c ”

a n d

calcu­

w h i c h administrates calculatively

bookkeeping.

peculiar to the Occident,

w i t h capital

It is o b v i o u s

the s a m e

w h i c h

is

that this o n e

is

thing applies also to the

m en tioned

by

him,

t h a t is,

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

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

ing, a n d

w e

this w a y

W e b e r

as a n

can

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

m u s i c ”

a n d

deals

with

i s m ”

a n d

musical s y m m e t r y

notation,

a n d

is s e e n h e

as well as r h y t h m

“ rationalistic-systematic

i n t h e O c c i d e n t . ” 61

a diagnosis of

index of the rationality w h i c h

b o o k k e e p ­ society

in “ rational h a r m o n y

agrees as a n

principle.”

m o d e r n

In

with

S i m m e l

w h o

index of “ rational­ H o w e v e r ,

w e

can

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

b et w e e n

them.

G e o r g S i m m e l

a n d

M a x

87

W e b e r

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

w e

have

to m a k e

a

mentioned

comparative

at

the

beginning,

w e

have attempted

investigation b y looking at the aspects of

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

T h e

the m a i n

marize

thing

w h i c h

w e

have

points of their views. H e r e

tried w e

to d o

w o u l d

here

like

refers

to

s u m ­

the differences of their views.

Firstly, methodic

about

the

methodic

relativism

individualism of W e b e r .

of

S i m m e l

Standing o n

a n d

the methodic

the rela­

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

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

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

indivudualism,

W e b e r

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

H e

individual a n d

‘ m e a n i n g , ’”

Therefore

it is,

the

the role

persons” as

least unit,” a n d

l o o k i n g at this

of course,

clear that

fro m

they

are

also attaches importance to the

individual in society

concepts

o n

the one

h a n d

while W e b e r

a n d

difference

therefore

a n d

also of

in

ideal

the

are

use

types.

S i m m e l

handles

both

“ distancing” as a concept

therefore

he

agrees with

of

handles “objectively valid

“ subjectively

different. the

H o w e v e r ,

concepts both

of operation

intended

Moreover, of

b y

of

w h e n

this connection,

h e w e

developed can

say

his theory

cal t h e o r y

the

m u c h

use

a

the of

influenced

understanding.

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

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

a n d

is

in order to u nd erstand the w a s

Simmel,

in

‘m e a n ­

there

types

agree

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

c a m e

to

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

is c o n c e r n e d , i n g , ’”

“ individual

his a ction” as “ the

different. But, S i m m e l

action of the

only

importance

bearers of meaningfully oriented action, a n d h e

sociological standpoint,

W e b e r .

sees

interpretive sociology.

remarkably

the contrary, standing o n

attaches

presupposing the

In

sociology sociologi­

of Simmel.

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

a n d

the

understanding

88

G e o r g

S i m m e l

a n d

M a x

W e b e r

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

W e b e r .

B o t h

agree

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

in their techniques

in spite of

the

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

w h e n

is,

a n d

the tattoo

w h i c h

exist

S i m m e l the

a m o n g

treats the

metal,

primitive people,

mediate,

a n d

W e b e r

prophet,

a n d

t h e priests as

relation of the three, that

as well as

treats the

the

a n d

clothing

relation of

the

stone

a do rn me n ts as the

inter­

the magician a n d

intermediate.

Meanwhile,

the

as

to

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

viewpoints. In

discussed though both

the

sociology of

both

is

try

found

psychology

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

to

in the

of the

domination

grasp

the

city,” w h i l e

earlier

types of

fact that

the the

noted that S i m m e l than

cities,

former

W e b e r .

a i m e d

latter a i m e d

A n d

the difference of at “ the

at

“ the

social

typology

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

former,

ideal

of

a n d

“ numerical

admits

a n d

in these concepts

W e b e r

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

that

calculability”

t h e latter.

through

S i m m e l

S i m m e l

calculability”

has

the m o n e y

that “ calculability”

“ calculability.” m a k e s

use

It of

admits early that the

bee n

m a d e

eco no my .

O n

possible

in

the contrary,

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

with

law

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

concepts

used

b y

both

in spite of the contextual differences Fourthly, about referred

to the

the

up

the

severely.

This

point that

both

is

M a r x i a n

labor

theory

v a l u e . ” 62

A n d ,

they are

w h e n

feature used.

have already

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

of

value,

a n d

criticizes

it

the paradoxical logic s h o w n

in

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

ethically

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

S i m m e l

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

perhaps

in w h i c h

as their o w n

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

a c o m m o n

pluralistic v i e w of society. W e

confrontation against M a r x takes

have

groundable

one S i m m e l

in

the

statement

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

W e b e r

that

t h a t is,

criticized at

of the

G e o r g

s a m e

time the

tion of

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

history in

1905,

S i m m e l

S i m m e l

a n d

M a x

89

W e b e r

the materialistic c o n c e p ­

sharply

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

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

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

T h e

principles are

an

t w o

investigation”

insisted.

a n d

eco no mi c

pluralistic v i e w M a r x ’s

D a s

a n d

ideal

events

a n d

W e b e r .

T hi s

of society. S i m m e l (3

vols.)

the m e a n s

here

capitalism,

W e b e r ’s

differs f r o m sees

a n d

admitting

nation,

he

standpoint,

w h i c h

h e

material

m a k e s a n d

“a

for

diagnosis of

criticizes

it. O n

has a n

separation

W e b e r

“ the

rationality.” of

they

agree

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

a n d

society, a n d

in the respect

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

though

of

see it

S i m m e l

in socialism. super-subordi­

fro m

his

liberalistic

W e b e r

sees

the

inescapable general

bureau­

b o t h differ in

try to understand

the

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

W e b e r

consider

the relation b e t w e e n

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

that S i m m e l

w e

of

into t h e socialistic o r g a n ­

in that t h e y

as

a diag­

M ea nw hi l e,

the contrary,

insight into “ the

product

Therefore,

existence

socialism

diagnosis

a n t i n o m y

capitalism,

the

“ capital­

the

also m a k e s

recognizes

the

of

“alien” to the

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

socialism

related

reaction to rationalism”

reason

a

a n d

in m a k i n g is

understanding

a n d

the

inter­

without

l a b o r itself w h i c h

penetration of professional bureaucracy ization, a n d

the

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

“ rationalism”

A n d ,

clearly

A n d ,

capitalistic e r a

essential

capitalism

is

of labor a n d

in

reciprocity

take

with

criticizes capitalism.

rationality

both

w h o w a s well acquainted

of his labor, formal

W e b e r

their

in the

of

points

to

that the laborer nosis

in

recognizes

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

w h i c h

independent variable.

social diagnosis of

Kapi t a l

laborer f ro m

preparation of

their similar viewpoints,

events as the

S i m m e l

o n

“ the

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

Fifthly, a b o u t the by

with

events

taking economic m a d e

“ the conclusion”

In connection

the position of the pret

respectively equal to

tends

t ow ar d

tends t o w a r d the

the

B u t , t h e y differ

the philosophy

sociology of music.

of

the

9 0

G e o r g S i m m e l

W e a n d

hav e paid

M a x

W e b e r

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

W e b e r .

w h o

a n d

N o w ,

w e

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

attention to their relations.

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

with

thing

in the

Dilthey

T h e r e

is a l s o

of the ideal types o n

a n d

Tenbruck.

the opinions of m e n

Simmel,

“ T h e r e

like a

m a n

w h o

a production

G e r m a n

of

sociologist,

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

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

a

goes

w h i c h

b e y o n d

the

s h o w s form

the general

germinated

in

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

s e e m s

to stand

o n

such

a

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

Fol­

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

J. B e c h e r ,

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

h e

types

said, “ W e b e r

at the

s a m e

of form.

W e b e r

clarifies t h e

designed

by

is t o s a y ,

Becher to

Bec he r

W e b e r

tensive parts, a n d up

of

the

ideal

‘typical ’ thing he

w a s

it.” 64

T h a t

of the

ideal

of the types. that

S i m m e l

his c o n c e p t

well as with is

w h i c h

strengthens

t h a t W e b e r ’s c o n c e p t

thinks

“ It

i n S i m m e l ’s c o n c e p t

stimulated

of interaction a n d with

his intuitive faculty

s u r e l y t o W e b e r ’s

and, at the s a m e

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

nections

b et w e e n of

of

this w a y

Simmel.

in e x ­

credit to h a v e

social

time,

interaction t hrough

to have

m o r e

his c oncept of

Becher appreciates W e b e r m o r e

there

is

S i m m e l ’s action,

no

doubt

concept a n d

again

of

sharply

that there

highly than

are close c o n ­

interaction b et w e e n

social

a n d

W e b e r ’s

S i m m e l ’s

formal

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

a n d

concern

to S i m m e l

w h i c h

the

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

a c t i o n . ” 65 I n

concept

socially

with

as

says,

pretive ’ sociology, grasped

fictious e l e m e n t

S i m m e l ’s c o n c e p t

his sociological f o r m s taken

W e b e r ’s c o n c e p t

at that time, a n d

this,

sociology of M a x

time,

understands

types strengthened Previous

a n d

clearer the relation b e t w e e n

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

tive, a n d

S i m m e l

m a d e

has

s o let u s t a k e

a proper

a n d

it u p .

W e b e r ,

H e

said,

to confirm

“ It w a s

a

matter

a n d of

sociology as a science

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

G e o r g

S i m m e l

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

English-French

utilitarianism a n d

of science ology as

in w h i c h a n

repeat,

a n d

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

is d e s c r i b e d

W e b e r

the situation

strove to establish

science at w h a t

is

called

“ the

soci­

turn of

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

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

S i m m e l

91

W e b e r

philosophy of culture a n d

course, here

S i m m e l

independent

the century” from H o w e v e r ,

O f

M a x

in the center of G e r m a n

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

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

a n d

criticized

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

encyclopedic

b e t w e e n

a n d

both.

synthetic

T o

sociology

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

a n d brought forward formal sociology ; on

the other

later d e v e l o p e d

In

this

hand,

W e b e r

connection,

t w e e n

S i m m e l

W e b e r

inherited a

f rom

a n d

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

n e w

S i m m e l . ” 57 T h i s

in

interpretive

w h o

the

handled

year

1957,

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

that S i m m e l

the

touch the

of

religion.

A n d

o n this point. T h a t

Protestant

ethic

so,

it

is

in

the year

1905,

“ E v e n

M a x

‘sociology of religion’ is a

still

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

relation b e ­

said,

forerunner

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

sociology.

of the

is t h e f o u n d e r

m o r e

necessary

to

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

a n d

7 years before

that

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

Deutsche

has

considered

above schen

is

Menschen).

merely

L a n d m a n n

thought like M a x

b et w e e n

For a

a

essential relation

the

a m o n g

substance

m e n

of

religion,

(ein V e r h ä l t n i s

z w i ­

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

low-level

or

declining

touches

o n

the difference of the s c h e m e s

w h o

S i m m e l

a n d

W e b e r ,

wrote

theoretical

o p i n i o n . ” 68

as follows:

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

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

thing. A s

“A

of

m a n

into a n e x a m p l e

to S i m m e l

of the general

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

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

a n d

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

out tracing the a n y

the

all, a p p e a r s a s

never

A n d

as

a n d

thought

W e b e r .

W e

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

a n d m a y

history

is i n v e r s e

in the

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

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

at the s a m e

9 2

G e o r g

time

S i m m e l a n d

M a x

W e b e r

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

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

w o u l d

S i m m e l

like to t o u c h a n d

W e b e r .

not afford to overlook,

them.

W h e n

referred to A n d

about

to Mrs. near

a n d

t w o

this

is

a

with Gertrud

thing

the

that w e

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

Simmel,

she

W e b e r

states

that

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

m o n t h s

W e b e r

Indeed,

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

her friendship

husband

the friendship b e t w e e n

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

in

“ m y

o n

before

his death

d a t e d July 4th,

S i m m e l wrote

1918, f r o m

Strasbourg

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

in a letter w h i c h

w a s

is n o l e c t u r e .

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

the

Mrs.

W e b e r

ful a n d a

other hand,

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

regards

Mrs.

elegant, noble

refined N o r d i c

S i m m e l

w o m a n , ”

w o m a n

as “a

a n d

with a

tall a n d

“ blue-eyed

tender face.”

slender, grace­ with

T h e n ,

blond she

hair, writes

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

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

Rut,

w h a t

does

m o s t

brilliant m a n ?

H e

well

as

h u m a n e

his

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

mild,

W e b e r gave her frank

enchanted

us

matter w o m e n

f r i e n d l i n e s s . ” 72

impressions

in the case

of M r .

by In

a n d

of

his insight this

Mrs.

w a y

a as

Mrs.

Simmel.

S h e

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

W e b e r

S i m m e l

a n d

b et w e e n

both

w a s

Mrs. a

S i m m e l

w o m a n

W e b e r ,

w e

w a s

social

should

not

a

w o m a n

scientist. ignore

philosopher, W h e n

the

w a r m

w e

and

discuss

friendship

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

Notes 1.

K .

G a s s e n u n d

M .

L a n d m a n n

(eds.), B u c h

des D a n k e s a n

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

G e o r g S i m m e l

pp.

a n d

M a x

W e b e r

93

24-25.

2.

Ibid., p.

102.

3.

Ibid., p.

127.

4.

M a r i a n n e

W e b e r ,

M a x

W e b e r :

1926,

ein Lebensbild,

N e w

edition,

1950,

p.

408. 5.

Cf. M a r i a n n e

6.

M a r i a n n e

7.

P.-E.

8.

E.

9.

Cf.

W e b e r ,

W e b e r ,

Schnabel,

W e b e r :

ein Lebensbild,

M a x

W eb e r.

W e r k

u n d

11.

G .

S i m m e l ,

Ü b e r sociale Differenzierung,

12.

G .

S i m m e l ,

“A n f a n g

Kritik d er reinen

M .

L a n d m a n n

M .

W e b e r ,

m a n n , M .

Simmels, 1974, p. 102.

G e o r g

1964,

Person,

p. 626.

1781,

Vernunft,

1956, ed.

1890,

p.

b y

R.

S c hmidt,

p. 259.

13.

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

(eds.). B u c h

Wirtschaft

des D a n k e s

u n d

a n

1921-1922,

Gesellschaft,

1958,

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

1964,

ed.

u n d

p. 9. b y

J. W i n c k e l -

p. 3.

W e b e r ,

1913,

“ Ü b e r

einige K ategorien

der v erstehenden

Soziologie,”

Logos,

4,

p. 263.

15.

W e b e r ,

16.

G .

S i m m e l ,

Philosophie des Geldes,

17.

G .

S i m m e l ,

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

18.

375-409.

ibid., p. 614.

I. K a n t ,

14.

pp.

p. 542.

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

B a u m g a r t e n ,

10.

13.

1948,

Lebenserinnerungen,

M a x

Wirtschaft

u n d

Gesellschaft, p. der

I.

G .

u n d

Aufsätze,

u n d

Tür,

F r a g m e n t e

3rd

ed.,

1920,

p.

543.

1910, p. 36. C f .

Philosophie,

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

S i m m e l ,

14.

1900,

ed.

b y

G .

G .

S i m m e l , G r u n d ­

K antorowicz, 1923, 2 n d

ed.,

1 9 6 7 , p. 8. 19.

Cf.

20.

W e b e r ,

21.

M a r i a n n e

22.

Cf.

G .

Brücke

Wirtschaft u n d

M .

ed. b y 23.

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

W e b e r ,

W e b e r ,

24.

Cf.

S i m m e l ,

25.

W e b e r ,

26.

Cf.

27.

Cf. G .

G e s a m m e l t e

28.

Cf.

29.

W e b e r ,

30.

S i m m e l ,

31.

Ibid., p. 237.

32.

S i m m e l ,

33.

W e b e r ,

Aufsätze

pp.

u n d

G e s a m m e l t e

zur

u n d

u n d

1908,

3rd

Religionssoziologie, vol.

ed.,

Gesellschaft, p. 38.

p.

228.

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

34.

S i m m e l , Loc. dt.

36.

Ibid., p. 483.

p. 484.

949-950.

Philosophie des Geldes,

p. 5.

p. 346.

Aufsätze z u r

Tür,

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

p. 499.

Gesellschaft,

Soziologie,

Wirtschaft

35.

1957, pp. 129-140.

Religionssoziologie, vol. 1, 1920,

zur

ibid., p. 1 02 . Brücke

L a n d m a n n ,

93-94.

Philosophie des Geldes,

Wirtschaft

S i m m e l ,

M .

Gesellschaft, p. 3.

G e s a m m e l t e Aufsätze

W e b e r ,

b y

op. dt., p. 355.

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

M .

ed.

p. 481.

1923,

p.

509.

1, p.

257.

94

G e o r g

S i m m e l

a n d

M a x

W e b e r

37.

Ibid., p.

498.

38.

Ibid., p.

499.

39.

Ibid., p.

500.

40.

Cf.

W e b e r ,

o p . cit., p . 6 0 .

41.

Cf.

W e b e r ,

G e s a m m e l t e Aufsätze

42.

Cf.

ibid., p.

43.

Cf.

W e b e r ,

44.

Cf.

ibid,,

z u r Religionssoziologie, vol. 1, p.

10.

11. Wirtschaft u n d

Gesellschaft, p. 220.

p. 7 1 6 .

45.

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

46.

W e b e r ,

47.

S i m m e l ,

48.

Ibid., p. 3 6 5 .

49.

Ibid., p. 515.

Wirtschaft

Gesellschaft, p. 259.

u n d

p. 514.

Philosophie des Geldes,

50.

Ibid., p. 559.

51.

Cf.

52.

S i m m e l ,

53.

Ibid., p. 364.

54.

Ibid., p. 376.

55.

Cf.

56.

G .

S i m m e l ,

57.

Cf.

W e b e r ,

Wirtschaft

W e b e r ,

G e s a m m e l t e

W e b e r ,

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

G e s a m m e l t e

S i m m e l ,

p.

Soziologie,

G r u n d f r a g e n

58.

M .

59.

S i m m e l ,

60.

Ibid,, p. 558.

61.

W e b e r ,

179. 1917,

d e r Soziologie,

u n d

Gesellschaft, p.

2 n d

ed.,

1920,

p.

95.

165.

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

1924,

p. 498.

p. 556.

Philosophie des Geldes,

G e s a m m e l t e Aufsätze z u r

Religionssoziologie, vol.

1, p. 2.

62.

S i m m e l ,

63.

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

64.

H .

65.

Ibid., pp.

90-91.

66.

Schnabel,

o p . cit., p p .

67.

M .

u n d

op.

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

Sozialpsychologie,

J. B e c h e r ,

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

L a n d m a n n ,

m a n n , 68.

cit., p .

1, p. 7.

p. 363.

Philosophie des Geldes,

H e f t

4,

1958,

D i e G r u n dl a ge n

p. 609.

seiner Soziologie,

1972, p. 91.

107-108.

“ Einleitung,” in

G . S i m m e l ,

Brücke u n d

Tür,

ed. b y

M .

L a n d ­

1957, x i n .

G .

S i m m e l ,

p.

116.

69.

L a n d m a n n ,

70.

M a r i a n n e

71.

G a s s e n

72.

M a r i a n n e

73.

Afterwards,

“Z u r

Soziologie der

op. dt.,

W e b e r ,

u n d

Deutsche R un dschau,

(eds.), B u c h

o p . cit., p p .

a n

essay “ G e o r g

in

it h e

b o o k

1898,

382.

des D a n k e s

a n

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

Soziologie w a s

S i m m e l

p.

135.

375-376.

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

S i m m e l ’s g r e a t

9,

X V H - X V I I I .

I^ebenserinnerringen, p.

L a n d m a n n

W e b e r ,

Religion,” N e u e

published

in the

year

Levine, just after

1908,

W e b e r

w ro t e

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

criticized severely a s

follows.

“ In particular, crucial

aspects of

m et h -

G e o r g

odology his

of S i m m e l

manuscript.

those

d a y s

to

F o r

are unacceptable.” h e

publish

t h o u g h t his

Sociologist,” Introduction b y

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

But,

that

manuscript. D o n a l d N .

it

h e

S i m m e l

withheld

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

a n d

a n

M a x

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

unfavorable W e b e r ,

W e b e r

to

“ G e o r g

Social Research,

9 5 of

S i m m e l

of

S i m m e l

as

vol. 39,

no.

Chapter Three Georg Simmel and Émile Durkheim

9 9

Georg Simmel and Emile Dürkheim

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

G e o r g

only

m e n t e d

that the

w o r k s

of a

S immel,

w e r e

early translated

that, o n

his essay,

b y “D a s

but also the F re nc h

G e r m a n

fact that

sociologists

P r o b l e m

der

philosopher a n d soci­ into French.

his w o r k s should

Sociologie”

be

w e r e

A n d

early c o m ­

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

{Jahrbuch

f ü r

Gesetz­

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

1894), in w h i c h

h e

asserts positively

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

t h a t t h e r e is “ t h e

sociology

o n

the

sociology

forms

of

re­

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

synthetic sociology, w a s

problème

de

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

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

M é t a p h y s i q u e

et d e

Morale,

2, 1894). I n t h e

s a m e

year the translation of selected passages

his

Ü b e r

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

first

book,

that

“L e

is,

of “ L a

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

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

caractères

des

Sociologie,

1, 1 8 9 4 )

Célestin Bouglé a

F re nc h

sociétés” w h o

also

n o m b r e des

{Annales

appeared.

called himself

d e

u ni t é s sociales s u r les

l'Institut

international

T h e

latter w a s

“ a n

independent

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

a n d

translated b y disciple” of

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

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

Bestimmtheit

T h e

first v o l u m e

der

les f o r m e s sociales se

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

de

in

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

original of this e ss a y w a s

“ Die

Selbsterhaltung

der sozialen

100

G e o r g

S i m m e l a n d

É m i l e D ü r k h e i m

G r u p p e ” (J a h r b u c h

f ü r

schaft

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

i m

eighth

Deutschen

chapter

of

Gesetzgebung,

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

translated b y

sophique,

subtitle s h o w s ,

this F r e n c h

contains

to

his

gie des

in

the

can

w h o

18.90's.

P r o b l e m

der

rendered

into F r e n c h

conception

because

translation of “E x k u r s

in the

here o n e

sociologist,

w o r k s

S i m m e l ’s e s s a y s

(1911),

K u l t u r

its not

it a l s o

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

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

A s

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

s e n s , ” t h a t is, t h e

Meanwhile,

Volkswirt­

published in 1912.

translation contains

Philosophische

his essay

u n d

Contribution à la culture philo­

A. Guillain, w a s

relating to his philosophy correspond

V e r w a l t u n g

ninth

m a k e

paid

H e

m ention

in

sociologique

d u

“a

of

Alfred

Fouillée,

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

o n

t w o

in his book,

considers sociology as

chapter of his Soziologie.

c o m m e n t e d

Sociologie,”

über die Sozio­

L e

S i m m e l ’s

years

sociological essay,

“ D a s

it

been

had

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

(1896).

m o n d e

after

a

In

special science”

this

a n d

b o o k

Fouillée

recognizes

that

it

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

w h o l e

of

sociology o n

science

the

w h i c h

this w a y

opinion

sociology seems

to reduce

itself

to abstractification

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

In short. Fouillée falling

into

reality of sociology the

abstract

one

goes

so far as

be discovered

history.

H e

science”

w a s

o n e

only

to

hold

the

b y reason, a n d

b e written a priori."2

of

w h i c h the

destroys

first

the concrete

critics o f

S i m m e l ’s

in France. s a m e

time

w h e n

F o u i l l é e ’s

of Bouglé,

w h o

graduation

f ro m

N o r m a l e

T h e

abstract

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

“a n

m o n o g r a p h Les

to a n

in

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

that their constitution or their evolution c a n

A t

this m a t t e r , ”

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

this m a n n e r , O n

the

Ecole

sciences sociales

subtitle of

en

w e n t

w a s

to G e r m a n y Supérieure,

A l le m a g ne .

this b o o k ,

b o o k

Les

Les méth o d e s

published,

to study

w a s

méthodes actuelles,

the

after his

also published: actuelles

w a s

(1896).

rewritten

G e o r g S i m m e l

a n d

entitled

(1912).

It

“ L e

conflit

des

f ro m

the

is c l e a r

that the G e r m a n

this b o o k

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

a n d

moral

science, toward

assumption

the

that

takes

considers

points out “ A n

to a b a n d o n Thus,

science a n d kind of

“a

w h o

itself,

a n d

looks

former B y

forward

morality.”4

should w ay ,

in

a

E i n ­

w h i c h

moral

in

Simmel's

science,

H e r e

u p

away,

c o n ­

o n

the

science

Steinthal”

concede to

its

is and

A n d

the birth

finds

as everybody

w h e r e

of

a

positive

taking

moral

part

in a n y

its t u r n a n y

at

the

f ro m

Bougie,

the

it h a s

the evaluation of

judging

a n d

applying

place to observation.

formulating in

o n e

overlooked

b y

to the point

S i m m e l ’s a t t e m p t

D u r k h e i m

have

Lazarus a n d

pushed

without

science.

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

of

early work,

moral

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

value o n

b e t w e e n

the

be

it m u s t

prepares the

of a positive m o r a l relation

a

of l a w

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

recognition of morals,

sets m u c h

with Moritz

m en t i o n

sciences,

disciple of

m u s t

of imperative, a n d

positive

into consider­

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

thought

S i m m e l

taken

S i m m e l ’s

of

social

the principal a i m

criticism of

revised

the third edition”

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

establishing

S i m m e l

abstract

b ee n

ed.,

J h e r i n g ’s p h i l o s o p h y

note of

“ o f all t h e

perhaps the m o s t H e

3rd

to

century. M a k i n g

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

tributed

its

101

D u r k h e i m

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

19th

Bouglé

É m i l e

Bouglé deals mainly

Rudolf v o n

latter half o f t h e

in

“ Introduction

“ Methodenstreit” h a d

ation at that time. In

the

m é t h o d e s ”

a n d

is

kind

Bougie

establishment

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

that the

t h e l a t t e r ’s v i e w s ?

kno ws ,

both

D u r k h e i m

a n d

S i m m e l

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

1917, a n d

t h e latter in

1918.

Consequently,

the

though

of

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

the other of a

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

Jewish H e

in Lorraine,

w a s

merchant. b or n

N o w ,

at Épinal,

the eastern province of

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

A n d

after

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

he

studied

at

L y c é e

Louis-le-Grand

in

Paris,

a n d

then

102

G e o r g S i m m e l

entered

École

graduated c a m e

a n d

É m i l e D u r k h e i m

N o r m a l e

f r o m

École

N o r m a l e

a professor of

Saint-Quentin

Supérieure.

a n

w e r e

A m e r i c a n

philosophy

twenty-one

w h e n

1879. After graduation, a n d

taught

in L y c é e s

he

he

of

be ­

Sens,

to the University of

sociologist,

H a r r y

Bordeaux.

Alpert,

According

for D u r k h e i m

“ these

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

debut.”5 absence a n d

in

w a s

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

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

H e

Dur in g in

these

years,

1885-1886,

the second

D u r k h e i m

took

t h e first h a l f o f

half in G e r m a n y .

a

w h i c h

y e a r ’s

he

In G e r m a n y

leave

spent

of

in Paris,

h e called at several

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

Leipzig,

chology

he

of

views

of

deeply

W i l h e l m the

W a g n e r

w a s

a n d

W u n d t .

A c a d e m i c Gustav

semester

did

m e e t

not

wrote en

a

Well,

w h o

it

personal

wrote

is

the

given

not

he

experimental took

Albert

notice of the such as

Schäffle,

a n d

of

lectured

as a

pri­

University of Berlin

from

the

1885.

S i m m e l

psy­

But

it s e e m s

that

D u r k h e i m

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

“ L a

science positive d e

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

m a n y

clear

as

suggestions to

w h e t h e r

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

b e t w e e n them,

la m o r a l e

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

ten

these m o n o g r a p h s

not

there

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

scientific c o n n e c t i o n

only

at the

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

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

a

A n d

A l l e m a g n e ” (1887)

Bouglé,

In those days

in the year

him.

the

(Kathedersozialisten)

Schmoller a n d

(Privatdozent)

s u m m e r

by

In addition,

socialists

v o n

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

impressed

w a s

s o m e

but there w a s

because S i m m e l entered not

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

founded

by

D ur kheim,

but

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

also introduced

world, as

soon

as

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

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

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

Simmel. translated Gruppe,"

For, as

had

e ve n

has already bee n

S i m m e l ’s

essay,

into F r e n c h

a n d

“ Die

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

mentioned,

D u r k h e i m

Selbsterhaltung

published

it

in L ' A n n é e

der

himself sozialen

sociologique.

G e o r g

S i m m e l

a n d

É mi l e

103

D u r k h e i m

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

them.

A n d

(1890)

r u n g

works. w h o

that

t w o

to b e

started

S i m m e l ’s

D u r k h e i m ’s

Ü b e r sociale Differenzie­

first

interest

in

on

D e

this b o o k

la division

in the

notes

of the

“Introduction"

travail social (1893):

d u

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

have

c o m e

of M r .

S i m m e l

of

division

the

to o ur attention.

First,

(Leipzig, VII-147p.), of

labor

“Since

1893,

have appear­

Sociale Differenzierung

in w h i c h

specifically,

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

S i m m e l ’s

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

c o m m e n t e d

of his boo k, ed

it a p p e a r s

but

it i s n o t a

of

the

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

question of

process

in­

o f K a r l B i i c h e r ’s ,

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

Entstehung

French

under

(1901),

in w h i c h

economic

“ several

labor.”

T h a t

chapters is t o

say,

are devoted D u r k h e i m

to the

division of

considers

S i m m e l ’s

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

1893.” But,

a s it w a s

in t h e y e a r

1890

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

w a s

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

any

Ü b e r

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

individuation”

is

found

in S i m m e l .

a

m a t c h

Furthermore, after a n d

treated.

articles b y

in

H e r e

while D u r k h e i m

his h a v i n g

writing. O f ed

as the b o o k

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

G.

m a y

at B o r d e a u x ,

L ' A n n é e

sociologique

Simmel,

he

F o r m e n ”

L ’A n n é e

sociologique,

that D u r k h e i m

reviewed

besides

being

had

of Paris

m a n y

books

e ng a g e d

in

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

Philosophie

des

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

socialer

say

“ the process of

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

taught

S i m m e l ’s b o o k s

h im :

w e

in w h i c h

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

f ü r

Geldes

(1900)—

räumliche

Sozialwissenschaft,

vol. 7, 1 9 0 4 ; G .

Simmel,

“T h e

L ' A n n é e

Projektionen 6,

1903)—

N u m b e r

of

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

Jour n a l

vol. 7, 1 9 0 4 ; “ L e

of Sociology,

8,

premier C ongrès

1902/3)—

L ' A n n é e

allemand de

sociologique,

Sociologie.—

Corn-

104

G e o r g

S i m m e l

a n d

É mi l e

D u r k h e i m

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

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

w h i c h

he

expressed

s everely criticized

his

o w n

conception

t h a t o f S i m m e l ’s .

But,

of

sociology

let u s t o u c h

u p o n

and this

later. Further, w e w h o

wrote

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

a

b o o k

o n

S i m m e l while

S i m m e l lived : a professor of

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

S i m m e l b o o k

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

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

are

based the

because

S i m m e l ,

the

o n

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

S i m m e l ’s

conception

Einleitung

relativity of m o r a l

in

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

value, k n o w l e d g e

sociological

relativism,

in general

aesthetical

in this

ideas being

Moralwissenschaft:

die

of total relativism a n d

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

the points treated

second,

that

and

is, t h e

historical

relativism,

and

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

a n d

the

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

relativism h e

said, “ T h e

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

notion

the

by

sociology of

to S i m m e l

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

the theory

prerogatives

science.

T hi s

S i m m e l i a n of

the

been

to be

the

e n d

by

virtue of

fact causes

in

all o t h e r

establishment of

of

very

in p a r ­

a n d reciprocity of action,

applied

philosophy

of k n o w l e d g e

a n d

sociology as a

a t all,

metaphysics

their c on nection

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

scientific

but,

o n

the

r e t a i n i n g all

with

w h i c h

this n e w

separate the

sociological conception f r o m the sociological conception

contemporary

positivists.”9

S i m m e l ’s s o c i o l o g y

is n o t

also his philosophy

of

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

H e r e

only connected

life lies a t

the

the above,

it

is

with

pointed

that

his relativism, but

nature

differs f r o m

specially that of

it i s c l e a r

out

root of his sociology,

that his sociology of such

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

S i m m e l ’s s e e m s

of the correlation

has already

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

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

the directive ideas of his relativism,

notion

w h i c h

all, a b o u t

that D u r k h e i m

and the

D u r k h e i m ’s . during

his

G e o r g

life-time define

had

the

bee n

closely

relationship

S i m m e l

associated

b e t w e e n

a n d

with

S i m m e l

É mi l e

Simmel.

a n d

105

D u r k h e i m

In order

D u r k h e i m

in

to the

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

taking

by

D ur kheim.

S im melian a n d have

into consideration the above-mentioned W e

nee d

D u r k h e i m i a n

scarcely m a d e

to

c o m p a r e

sociology

such a n

all

w e

w a s

already

appointed

fro m as

have

Ecole

it w a s

years, a n d H e

years

Supérieure

in

the years

in 187 9.

the University

that D u r k h e i m

after his graduation

If w e

take

this period

of

B o r d e a u x

as

his m i d d l e

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

S i m m e l

w a s

a sociologist a n d

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

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

A n d

after

studied at

graduating the

f r o m

Faculty

of

Philosophy,

w a s

twenty-three

h e sent in a dissertation o n

three articles lectured his

ethics

for

A l m a in

a n d

the

w h e n

s u m m e r

in

course

w a s

after

year

h e

1885

born.

of

Berlin.

in t h e y e a r

b e c a m e a n d

w a s

G y m n a s i u m ,

degree of Doctor

semester of that year.

professor

H e

he H e 1881,

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

the

years, the

D u r k h e i m

University

finished the

obtained

M a t e r

extraordinary

h e

thirty

w h e n

Friedrich-W e r d e r

a n d

a n

1887

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

born

of

in

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

heim,

H e

w e

V i e w o f Sociology

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

his years of apprenticeship, that

consider the

because

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

mentioned,

N o r m a l e

investigate

the m o r e

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

a n d

w o r k s

with

of Philosophy. a

Privatdozent

lectured

on

K a n t ’s

In

he

b e c a m e

(außerordentlicher

1900

Professor),

which

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

with senior,

S i m m e l

W i l h e l m but w a s

its a

Dilthey m a i n

J e w

w h o

cause

as w a s

w a s

w a s that

D ur kheim,

twenty-five he the

w a s

years a

Jew.

fact that the

106

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

former

continued

s e e m s

to

country

be

of

France

to be

due

to

Prussia

under

affair at “ t h e

E m i l e D ü r k h e i m

unfortunate the

in c o m p a r i s o n

difference

under

the

b e t w e e n

turn of

the

the affairs

reign of William

the Third Republic w h i c h

w i t h the latter

II

a n d

w e n t through

century” fro m

the

in

the

those

of

the Dreyfus

19th century to the

20th. A s to

S i m m e l

1918,

taught

the year

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

at

w h e n

the University of Strasbourg

fro m

the

ended,

the period

little o v e r

four years.

First W o r l d

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

be

w a s

W a r

only

divided

a

into

the early years

1914

(1881-

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

these years

his

studies

covered

a

very

wid e

range

of

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

sociale D i f ferenzierung

a n d

Philosophie

G e l d e s (1900)

des

in

his early

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

years,

Soziologie

d e r Soziologie (1917)

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

w e

will treat his m e t h o d i c

only

briefly here.

had

established

different f r o m

In w h a t the

the

relativism.

microscopic

sociology

macroscopic sociology

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

A n d

S i m m e l ’s a i m interaction

dividual-society” concept

of

is t o a p p r o a c h

a m o n g

mention

by

having

w h i c h

h a d

b ee n

since C o m t e .

it

A s

quite will b e

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

society

the individuals,

problem

interaction

w e

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

seen the

N o w ,

first o f

microscopically through

t h a t is,

to treat

g oo d

c o m m a n d

a

(Wechselwirkungsbegriff)

as

the

the “ in­ of

the

“ mental

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

Accordingly,

istically b y

Simmel,

w h o

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

w hich

considers the society as a

w h i c h

considers the

precursor m e r e

understands

of the

functionalist.

functional­

rejects social realism

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

individual as a

functionalistic

society

substance.

sociological

I n S i m m e l ’s s o c i o l o g y

Although

theory,

he

t h e r e is t h e

he is

is a not

a

functional-

G e o r g

istic v i e w

as

S i m m e l

a n d

Émile

well as the psychological m e t h o d

historical a n d ethnological

materials. H e r e i n

w h i c h

there

107

D u r k h e i m

manipulates

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

relativism. Simmel,

in his distinguishing sociology as

beginning”

f ro m

other sciences

sociale Differenzierung,

relativism has

and

thinks

“ the general

w a y

fro m

the

o n

the

that sociology

w h i c h

material

takes “a

but

task of sociology as

follows:

scribe

the

the

1890

forms

“a

science

is

o n l y just

h i s first w o r k ,

position of

of

f r o m

n e w the

“a

n e w

this

Ü b e r

methodic

science”

w h i c h

of a group, a n d groups

m a y consider

this a s h a v i n g a

form.

A n d

h e

task of

starts

sets u p

sociology

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

is a m e m b e r

as

standpoint” w h i c h

“ It is t h e

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

of sociology

in

point of view, the unity of ultimate purpose, the

of study” a n d

not

stands

in

of

the

to

d e ­

m e n

a n d

the individual, insofar a s

he

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

taken a step t oward the establishment

special science.

S i m m e P s

essay

in

1894,

“ D a s

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

of

sociology

note, t h o u g h

it h a s

u p o n

“ the

as a

science of the

special science. seven

Thi s

pages.

In

essay

it h e

is w o r t h y

of

insists

positively

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

sociology

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

to m a k e

independent science as against the Comtian-Spenceri-

encyclopedic

sociology

only

sociology as a

sociology a n a n

as a

a n d

is a l r e a d y

synthetic sociology. T h e r e sketched

roughly,

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

a n d

his conception

is d e v e l o p e d

d e r Soziologie.

of

later in

S i m m e l , in this

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

in

a n d

by

sociation

(Vergesellschaftung),

as

the

subject

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

such,”

t h a t is,

w h a t

is c a l l e d “ t h e

specifically social”

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

of special sciences, traces “ a T o

put

the

as a science

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

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

sociology

as

n e w

one.”

it m o r e

concretely,

S i m m e l

in

following:

according

the

through the realm

finds t h e to

subject

him,

m at te r of

society,

in

its

108

G e o r g

broadest

S i m m e l a n d

sense,

É m i l e D u r k h e i m

“ is p r e s e n t

interactions.” F r o m in t ak in g a

w a l k

the

Middle

Ages,

kind

a n d

aims,

a s it w e r e ,

h e

of

special by

ately

the

association with of

never

the pursuance interaction,

of

of

s a m e

society

f o r m

m o s t

m o s t

varying

takes place,

these aim s

or

a

form,

the

s a m e

material

forth,

t h i s is

the

the entire existence

rests u p o n

a n d

varied

call

sociation, the

of scientific abstraction. F o r

the

the

“ T h e particular causes a n d

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

place in the

others

material of t h e social process ; that the

a n

science

enter into

unity of a family or a guild of

sociation naturally

body,

m e a n s

that

individuals

recognizes “ sociation

their bearers, in w h i c h

take

to the complete

these causes,

f o r m

f or m

the purely ephemeral

w h i c h

the

results of

a

several

degree,” a n d goes o n to say:

without

a m o n g

w h e r e

isolation of

this

it t u r n s o u t i m m e d i ­

kind

a n d

of

sociation

for the m o s t

can

diverse

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

such

taking

as “a

or

the “ sociation”

causes a n d

this f o r m

as

aim s its

o n

w h i c h

“f o r m ”

is

called

the other hand, a n d sociology,

subject

matter,

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

parts,

t h a t is,

based

o n

a

sociation

the

c o m e s

into existence

Kantian

w h i c h

viewpoint.

constitutes

trust a s well a s in a in a

family, but s a m e

school

forms

of

in a

b a n d

o f art, in a

not only

also,

of such

sociology in a

influence,

in a

public gathering as well unions. F o r

superordination

a n d a

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

themselves,

the

of conspirators,

the formation of

vidual in relation to groups, external

finds

example,

h e

subordination,

of

hierarchy,

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

in parties, groups

S i m m e l

is

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

competition, of imitation, b od im en t

A n d

the sociation (form),

the subject matter of

configurations a n d developments the

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

material (content) a n d

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

finds

its

special science of society.”

Needless

as

as

a n d a n d

the h e

the

o n

the division

restriction of

interaction

definite goes

or

forms to say:

a n d of

the e m ­ the

indi­

stratification of reaction

“Thi s

against

similarity

of

G e o r g

form

a n d

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

S i m m e l a n d

in spite of

É m i l e

109

D u r k h e i m

the case of

groups often

with

the m o s t

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

re­

veals

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

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

that of sociation as s uc h

a n d

the study

of

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

relatively

their s u m

the abstraction— social

groups

f o r m s ” c o m e

independent

m a k e s

u p

m a y

be, w e

can

It g o e s

social

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

are

of or,

d e m a n d s

a

forms

m a k e s

saying

as

such

w h e r e v e r

u p

A n d

to him,

not,

at

content.” be

in

w e

each

the s a m e

A n d

its

individuals thing of

find t h e

subject

its f o r m s ” o r

particular

time,

this c o n t e n t

of a

subjective

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

c o m p a r i n g

“deals with

historical

a

constitution

m a y

nature.

be

of a n

or o b ­

A c c o r d i n g to

unification of content a n d

forms

in his w o r k

sociology

the m e r e

that sociology should

sociology”

deal

f or m

which,

with

“ sociation as

T h i s

find t h e middle

years,

of

his sociology

p a r t s , t h a t is, “ f o r m a l

sociology” or “ pure

“sociology

as

Soziologie.

soci­

A n d w e

d e r Soziologie,

w h i c h

a

a n d

of this “ for ma l

consists of

in find

three

sociology” (reine Sozi­

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

such

is h i s “ f o r m a l

maturity

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

results

ac­

spatial f o r m s of bodies,” h e

of sociation.” of the

to g e o m e t r y

the large-scale s y s t e m

sociology

a n d

the concrete

that h e r e

m i x e d

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

these

heterogeneous

content a n d “ sociation a n d

it m a y

its f o r m s ” o r “ t h e

the

“ sociation

and

designate by

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

separation. cording

find

contact,

w e

sociology.

a n d

however,

w e

find

in reality

social

development

w h i c h

w h i c h

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

jective kind, Simmel,

basis of such

thing

their s u m

to Sim me l,

forms

can

without

matter of S i m m e l i a n

is

w e

into contact, a n d

A cc ording

the

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

in t h e m ,

“ society.”

of

that concrete

m e t h o d

“ philo­ general

(Soziologie

als

Methode),” philosophical sociology corresponds to the philosophical

110

G e o r g S i m m e l

a n d

É m i l e D u r k h e i m

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

w a s not for me d

already

W o r l d b o o k

W a r

been

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

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

published

well

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

built u p

during the

could

war.

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

H o w e v e r ,

he

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

T o u c h i n g here,

he

o n

.the subject

thinks

that only

matter

a s the First

of

m us t

have

k n o w n

in his m i d d l e years.

S i m m e l ’s

sociology

associations (Associationen) a n d

again c o m b i ­

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

cooperation

or a

h a r m o n i c

connection,

never

belong

in “ so­

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

rather are relations, interactions a m o n g

the

individuals

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

the

of association s u c h

individuals” h e

finds n o t o n l y the

as associations a n d combinations, but

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

opposition by

a n d

the contact

competition of m e n

point

with

sources of their forces m u s t

each

be

to forces w h i c h other.

studied

A n d ,

by

the

themselves

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

forms

sociology the

forms

T h e n , H e

o f relation.

proves to be w h a t

kind

to be

parative psychological

that

giving

help,

together, the

it

m o r e

“ the

S i m m e l

methods,

sciences. A t w h i c h

use

b y the

in his sociology ?

w h i c h s a m e

the b ot to m

the problems as

in all c o m ­

lie c e r t a i n

psycho­

n o science of history c a n exist at

concretely,

of love a n d

m e a n both

those of separation.

investigated,” are

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

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

of m e t h o d s did

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

T o

the

“ the forms of sociation” w h i c h

of association a n d

of sociation are

all.

Thus,

hate, of

the

p h e n o m e n a

avarice

a n d

of

seeking

pleasure

self-preservation of individuals with

and

in living

the s a m e

goals

Georg

through

competition

o n

the other, a n d

be

assumed,

may ,

existence only

b y

so on.

A n d

a n

selecting f r o m

trace b a c k

be

through

psychical.”

e c o n o m i c

to certain Likewise,

111

D u r k h e i m

combination events must

the occurrence

of relations of a n individual

the

s u m

history c o m e s

of

into

historical situations

needs physically induced, a n d “ there

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

a n d

Ém ile

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

formations of groups,

a n d

w h i c h

h a n d

a n d

a chain of other primary psychical

to the whole,

yet always

the o n e

so that w e

of sociations, of

“ those

o n

S i m m e l

is

within

a

science of

society

that historical c o m p l e x

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

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

explains certain

states a n d

actions” w h i c h

of individuals a n d ology

needs

reason

the

N o w ,

S i m m e l first

ment.” F o r

formations

find expression

of groups.

H e r e

psychological

m o r e clearly

follows

historical w e

in c o m p a r i s o n

“ psychical

in the m u t u a l

find t h e

method,

f r o m

but

reason

w e

relations w h y

shall

soci­

find

with the philosophy of

this

history.

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

the

longitudinal

example,

direction

of

a

particular

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

association of provinces

in G e r m a n y ,

develop­

tribe, o r

of the

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

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

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

s u m

ification of the

formation of a n

objective c o m m u n i t y

as over

against

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

the

social

g roup— appears

abstracted by

superordination a n d subordi­

f o r m in

the

through c o m p l e x

the quantitative p h e n o m e n a

changes

a n d

can

in be

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

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

a n d establishes b y induction that

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

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

a n d

differences in the

persons

in every

individual

formation

of

112

Ge org

S i m m e l

a n d

Émile

D u r k h e i m

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

period.

comparative

H e r e

method,

consisting of the shall

S i m m e l

write

or

by

understands using

vertical axis

a b o u t D u r k h e i m ’s

comparative

with

a n d

society skill

b y

the

using

cross-section

t h e horizontal axis.

attaching

importance

Later

to

method.

strictly f r o m

the philosophy of history. H e

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

P r o b l e m

w e

his o w n

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

the

a n d

h e

refers to the

D i e P r o b l e m e der Geschichts­

touches o n

der Sociologie.” A c c o r d i n g

S i m m e l ’s a b o v e is

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

“D a s

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

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

in

their

entirety,

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

u n d e r

general

sociology as

a

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

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

special a n d

to say, them.

“ In

its i m m e d i a t e

sociology

A n d

he

m a y

complete

science...restricts

here S i m m e l

social p h e n o m e n a ,

logical interpretation” o n

concepts.

sets u p

prevent

psychological

emphasized

m u s t

itself that,

put a “ psycho­ “a

special

it f r o m

field”

in his sociology

in o r d e r that h e

“a m e r e

m e t h o d

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

c o m p l e x

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

thetic sociology. B y

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

of sociation, a n d

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

w h a t

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

this s e n s e ? m u s t

be

ception to g o o d clopedic n e w

to

to Simmel,

arrest

of sociology,

claims, in w h i c h

for the

“ the function

forms a n d developments.” In b y

having

“ in w h i c h

the confusion

and,

in

of course,

in

“a

special field” in

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

conventional

after h a v i n g

con­

a b a n d o n e d

its

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

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

conception of

A cc ording

able

high-flown

a

of

ending

so

that

h e

of sociology” w h i c h

sociology.

A n d

h e

will

give

m a y

a b a n d o n

“ the

conventional

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

boundary-secured

h o m e ”

to

G e o r g

this

n e w

a n d

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

In

sociology w h i c h

contrast

w h a t

to

deals

forms

S i m m e l

with

a n d

“ the

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

E m i l e

113

D u r k h e i m

function of

sociation,

developments.”

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

course, to a n s w e r

a n d

conception does

is t o m a k e

of

D u r k h e i m

this

kind,

s h o w ?

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

O f

stand­

poi nt clear.

3. D u r k h e i m s

Metho dic

Rationalism

a n d

H i s

V i e w

of

Sociology D u r k h e i m

writes his

about

chapter

of

later o n

he presents

short essay, 1889),

a n d

L e s

“ W h a t

règles d e

la

his o w n

“M o rphologie in his essay,

is

a

social fact?”

m é t h o d e

sociologique

conception

sociale”

in

the

first

(1895),

a n d

of sociology, also in his

(L ' A n n é e

“ Sociologie et

sociologique,

sciences

sociales”

v o l . 2, { D e

la

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

in the “ P r e f a c e ” to that

sociologique,

the

first e d i t i o n o f

neither

the

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

he a

can

is

conduite

to

h e

goes

extend

humaine).

past, w h e n

o n

It

can

règles d e

materialist

rather

n a m e .

saying,

scientific

of

but

accept as his only

n a m e ,

jective

n a m e

him,

Les

“ In

A n d

nor

“ that of

reality, o u r

s h o w n

analyzed, can be reduced

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

that

the

conduct

be

transformed,

of

the

b y a n equally

positivism

only

himself

to relationships of cause a n d

have

is

of

c o n d u c t (la

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

our

that

principal o b ­

logical operation, called

m é t h o d e

rationalist"

after giving

rationalism to h u m a n

be

la

o n e

certain

aspect

critics of

this

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

to say, here

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

A n d

w e

of

methodic

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

it i s c l e a r

Moreover,

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

this clearly differs f r o m

thodic relativism of S i m m e l ,

w h o

affirms

the

leads

ration­

of C o m t e

a n d

to Cartesian-

standpoint of

that “ relativism as

m e ­ the

114

G e o r g S i m m e l

a n d

É mi l e D u r k h e i m

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

the

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

“ Conclusion”

of

states that his m e t h o d

his

above-mentioned

is e n t i r e l y

that

“ our m e t h o d

is

related to the standpoint he

refers to the

second

o b j e c t i v e . ” 22 of

D u r k h e i m

independent of philosophy,

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

b o o k

“as things” ( c o m m e des

T h e s e

his m e t h o d i c

choses

views

sociales),

are

rationalism.

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

that

closely

Moreover,

in the “ P r e f a c e to the

edition” (1901) of his book.

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

sociology

gro un d

continuously.” A s

is n o t e w o r t h y

(la

sociologie w e

objective)

m a y

that h e considered

has

find also

kept

o n

gaining

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

it

his o w n sociology as “ objective

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

his sociology. m o m e n t ,

A n d

this m e t h o d

is

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

found,

in

ought

things.”

W h a t

is “ t h e

thinking,

a n d

is h e r e c a l l e d

social facts indicate

the

to be treated “as w a y s

remarkable

of acting, property

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

or

thought

are

n ot o n l y external to

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

at

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

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

particular,

the

of

types of

individual but

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

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

the s a m e

is a

chapter

social

fact?”, of

the above-mentioned

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

that social facts h a v e

is f o u n d

book.

w h i c h

says

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

tériorité) a n d

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

A n d

in the

to the second

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

“ Preface

that a social

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

it is,

o nc e formed,

of

another

nature

from

in-

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

dividual just as

consciousnesses,

exercises

can

chapter,

also then “Rules

“ s o c i e t y is n o t a formed

by

be

for

m e r e

found, the

constraint u p o n

s u m

w h i c h

has

w h e n

D u r k h e i m

explanation

of

of individuals,

their association, a n d

cific r e a l i t y

such a

its o w n

them,

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

are

states

social

but

in

the

facts,”

rather the

system

that

system

represents a

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . ”24

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

a

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

viewpoint fifth

a n d

115

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

spe­

Moreover,

he

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

t h i n g s . ” 25 Let

us

vidual.

n o w In his

turn

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

L e

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

u p

only

Durkheim,

a n

element

of

for example,

a

m o u s true

of the roads a n d

p r i v a t e life

the

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

is,

o nc e

express

to such

a n

w o r l d . ” 26 incarnated

it i s n o t

w h i c h

are

the state of

a n d

T h e

According

it w e r e ,

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

the outside. H e r e

b y

s a m e in

technique

is s h o w n

itself,

is “ a

autono­

thing holds

transport, of the instru­

e m p l o y e d

crystalized a n d this fact

to

in h o u s e s a n d

industry

at e a c h

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

life.

extent that

constructed, b e c o m e

of individuals.

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

machines

a n d

the external

which,

indi­

role in the c o m m o n

materialized

it i s i n p a r t

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

m e n t s

“ First,

determinate type of architecture

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

says,

the

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

play a n essential

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

b e c o m e s

D u r k h e i m

society a n d

fixed a n d

o n

or

in

m o m e n t the social

material

acts u p o n

us

sup­ from

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

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

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

relation to a

b e t w e e n

religion,

but

society

a n d

the

also to a law,

individual a

moral,

is a

applied

fashion,

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

not a

only

political

to “ e v e r y f o r m

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

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

treats these social facts ob-

116

G e o r g

S i m m e l a n d

jectivistically,

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

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

general

É m i l e D u r k h e i m

sociale),

sociology

social m o r p h o l o g y

s o c i a l p h y s i o l o g y (la p h y s i o l o g i e s o c i a l e )

(la s o c i o l o g i e g é n é r a l e ) .

In this respect h e

states in his article, “ S o c i o l o g i e et s c i e n c e s sociales” (1909): S o ­ c i e t y , c o n s i d e r e d f r o m t h e a n g l e o f “ its e x t e r n a l a s p e c t , " a p p e a r s to b e f o r m e d w h i c h

the m a s s of the population w i t h a certain density,

is d i s p o s e d o n

•condition is t o

b y

t h e soil in a c e r t a i n m a n n e r ,

in villages o r

in a

c r o w d e d

s a y , it o c c u p i e s t h e t e r r i t o r y

in s u c h a n d tory of the

such

m a n n e r

m o r e o r less e x t e n d e d ,

neighboring peoples. T h i s

territory,

of the population

surface, are naturally the “ important

its c o n ­

m o v e s

o n

its

f a c t o r s o f t h e s o c i a l life” a n d

brain

in a c c o r d a n c e

w h i c h

supports

with

the anatomical

i t,

so

the collective

the composition

of

the

to

there

place for a social science w h i c h a n a t o m i z e s

is a

this s cience h a s society, w e

f o r its o b j e c t t h e e x t e r n a l

propose

social m o r p h o l o g y only confine

substratum. a n d

“ Then, as

material for m

of

t o c a l l it s o c i a l m o r p h o l o g y . " 21 C h a r a c t e r i z i n g in this w a y ,

D u r k h e i m

t h a t it h a s

t w o aims;

base of the peoples

ganization,” a n d

of

vary

i t. A n d

t h i n k s t h a t it m u s t

itself t o a d e s c r i p t i v e a n a l y s i s b u t m u s t

explanation, a n d geographical

social

in­

composition

p h e n o m e n a

according

a n d

situated

to t h e terri­

its size,

w h i c h

T h a t

“ s u b s t r a t u m ” o f t h i s life. J u s t a s t h e p s y c h i c a l life o f a n

dividual varies the

in towns.

in relation to the sea a n d

figuration, th e c o m p o s i t i o n the

condition

in a dispersed

namely,

its d i s p o s i t i o n o n

also give a n

“ the study of the

i n its r e l a t i o n

“the study of the population,

not

to the

social o r ­

its s ize, its d e n s i t y ,

t h e soil.”

Subsequently, D u r k h e i m

r e c o g n i z e s that, besides t h e s u b s t r a t u m

o f c o l l e c t i v e life, t h e r e is t h i s life itself. H e r e h e f i n d s a d i s t i n c t i o n analogous ample, the

to that w h i c h

w e

observe in natural

sciences.

F o r

ex ­

in biology, w h i l e a n a t o m y (also called m o r p h o l o g y ) a n a l y z e s

structure of living beings, the m a k e - u p of their tissues a n d

their organs,

physiology

of these organs.

studies t h e functions of these tissues a n d

“ Likewise,

besides social m o r p h o l o g y ,

place for social p h y s i o l o g y

w h i c h

o f s o c i e t i e s . ” 28

s t a t i n g it i n t h i s w a y ,

But,

of

while

t h e r e is a

s tu di es t h e vital m a n i f e s t a t i o n s D u r k h e i m

also

G e o r g

recognized

that social physiology

S i m m e l

are

117

D u r k h e i m

is itself v e r y c o m p l e x a n d c o m ­

prises a great m a n y particular sciences, of physiological order

a n d É m i l e

for the social p h e n o m e n a

themselves e x t r e m e l y varied. W h a t

are

first g i v e n a s e x a m p l e s a r e t h e o b j e c t s o f “ t h e s o c i o l o g y o f r e l i g i o n " (la s o c i o l o g i e religieuse) ; r e l i g i o u s beliefs (les c r o y a n c e s religieuses),

p r a c t i c e s (les p r a t i q u e s ) a n d institutions. A

religion

social t h i n g ” (une c h o s e

it h a s

thing of a group,

t h a t is, o f t h e C h u r c h

the great majority are

even

sociale) b e c a u s e

of cases,

mingled.

certain divinities

Until b y

the

c er ta in state. I n a n y

the

recently,

m e r e

fact

a

that o n e

w a s

a

case, the d o g m a t a a n d

of

are

collectivity a n d

cordingly,

T h e

obligatory a

religion

the

for

all t h e the

belongs

in

believer citizen

the m y t h s

are c o m m o n

rites (les rites) a l s o a r e

the study of

bee n

the political society w a s

of beliefs w h i c h

a

a n d o n e

sisted of the s y s t e m s collectivity.

always

(l’ E g l i s e ) a n d b e c a u s e ,

C h u r c h

m o s t

is, i n e f f e c t , “ a

to

of a

have c o n ­

to the

whole

m e m b e r s

s a m e

of

of this

as these.

sociology,

A c ­

a n d

it

constitutes “ the object of the sociology of religion.” In the s a m e ject

of

the

"juridical

way,

the “moral

sociology

of

institutions”

ideas a n d

moral

are

the usages” are

(la s o c i o l o g i e

studied

b y

the

morale),

sociology

sociologie juridique). B o t h

are closely connected.

the sociology of e c o n o m y

(la s o c i o l o g i e é c o n o m i q u e )

with the “e co no mi c

the o b ­ a n d

of

the

law

(la

Besides, there w h i c h

is

deals

institutions.” D u r k h e i m considers these as the

“ principal b r a n c h e s of sociology.” F u r t h e r m o r e , h e recognizes the existence of the a n d B y f r o m

of the this “a

sociology of language

linguistique)

s o c i o l o g y o f a r t (la s o c i o l o g i e é s t h é t i q u e ) . analysis

sort of

thought, only

one

D u r k h e i m

very simple problem.”

o n , it i s i m p o s s i b l e f o r a of his science,” e a c h

of

judges science

that

sociology

w h i c h

takes

A ccording

to D u r k h e i m ,

the savants

m u s t

devote

different as

C o m t e

f r o m

n o w

the general conclusions w h i c h different the

himself

to

“a

this d o e s n o t m e a n that t h e r e

place for “ a synthetic sociology” w h i c h

sciences. H o w e v e r

in,

is

sociologist to possess “ the encyclopedia

special order of p ro bl em s . ” H o w e v e r , is n o

(la s o c i o l o g i e

strives to a s s e m b l e

a r e d r a w n f r o m all t h e s e p a r t i c u l a r social facts of diverse sorts f r o m

118

G e o r g

S i m m e l a n d

É mi l e

D ü r k h e i m

o n e a n o t h e r m a y be, t h e y a r e o n l y t h e species o f the s a m e g en us . “ T h e n , w e h a v e n e e d to search for w h a t m a k e s u p the unity of the genus,

w h a t

there

not

are

established

characterizes social facts in abstracto a n d w h e t h e r the very general

laws

of w h i c h

the

diverse laws

b y special sciences are o nly the particular forms. T h i s

is t h e o b j e c t o f g e n e r a l s o c i o l o g y . ” 29 S t a t i n g it i n t h i s w a y , h e i m

considers

this g e n e r a l

o f s c i e n c e . ” It is n e e d l e s s of sociology. “the

But,

since

sociology

to say “ the

this w o r k

“ the philosophical part

t h a t it is t h e p h i l o s o p h i c a l p a r t

value of

value of analysis” f r o m

advance

as

D u r k ­

w h i c h

synthesis”

it r e s u l t s , h e

depends

upon

thinks that “ to

of analysis constitutes the m o s t

urgent

task of

sociology.” Further, m é t h o d e et

D u r k h e i m

describes

sociologique)

sciences

in t h e

sociales,”

administration

a n d

following

c on o m i c causes

have

above-mentioned in

the

sixth

are

brought

t h e m

about?

only instrument

( l ’h i s t o i r e c o m p a r é e ) .

A n d

facts.

in

a

is p a r t i c u l a r t o t h e d e t e r m i n a t e

lution, t h a t h e task

is

t h e life

useful a i m s

he provides

m a n n e r . ”

considers

of

a

grasped

these

a

W h a t

d o

they

in sociology history”

part, “ a sort historian also from

the side

peoples a n d to the d e t e r m i ­

specific at

A

facts

e-

nation

a n d

of

specific m o m e n t

a of

specific its e v o ­

is g e n e r a l l y i n t e n d i n g t o i n v e s t i g a t e . H i s i m m e d i a t e

to discover

character of each of that s a m e

he

moral,

calls “ c o m p a r a t i v e

certain

w h i c h

collective individuality,

w h a t

he

social

is

But

juridical,

beliefs constituted ?

T o

treats

It

“ Rules for the

s o c i o l o g y ' is, f o r t h e m o s t

of history c o m p r e h e n d e d

time.

chapter,

for w h i c h

to solve these kinds of questions,

nate

(la

article, “ S o c i o l o g i e

political,

religious institutions a n d

respond ? T h e

m e t h o d ”

as the “ principal p r o b l e m s of sociology,”

problems : H o w

a n d

“ sociological

of proof,” of L e s règles d e la m é t h o d e sociologique.

F i r s t o f all, h e c o n s i d e r s , the

the

a n d

society

to

elucidate

and

of each

the

proper

a n d

individual

of

periods

w h i c h

the

life

society c o m p r e h e n d s .

A s c o m p a r e d w i t h t h i s , it s e e m s t o D u r k h e i m t h a t t h e s o c i o l o ­ gist tries t o d i s c o v e r t h e g e n e r a l relationships a n d t h e verifiable laws

in different societies.

A n d

m o r e

concretely,

he

says,

“T h e

G e o r g S i m m e l

sociologist

cannot hold

and

m u c h

the

societies of the

that h e

less of

a

compares

to

a n d

the consideration

unique epoch. s a m e

But

type a n d

the variations,

he

É m i l e

of

119

D u r k h e i m

only

the people

is o b l i g e d

to c o m p a r e

likewise of different types, so w h i c h

are

found

in

the

insti­

tution a n d the practice of w h i c h h e will explain, w i t h the vari­ ations w h i c h a r e f o u n d also in t h e social e n v i r o n m e n t a n d in the state of w h i c h t h e m

ideas,

etc.,

a n d

unite these t w o s o m e

it

groups

possible to of

relation of c a u s e a n d

(la m é t h o d e

comparative)

sociological

m e t h o d . ” 30

usual

is

is

sense of the word,

G r e e k g r a m m a r tive g r a m m a r . sociology”

facts a n d

g r a m m a r ,

is

m e t h o d

instrument

Latin g r a m m a r

of or

is t o t h e s c i e n c e o f c o m p a r a ­

shall state the r e a s o n

(la s o c i o l o g i e c o m p a r é e ) ,

comparative

b e t w e e n

i n D u r k h e i m ’s c a s e , h i s t o r y , i n t h e

is t o s o c i o l o g y w h a t

w e

relationships

comparative

the pre-eminent

or F r e n c h g r a m m a r N e x t

the

to establish

effect. T h e

then

Thus,

find

c o m p a r e d

considered

by

h i m

w h y to

“comparative this

to be

science of

“ sociology

it­

self.” Besides

his

notice

of

m e t h o d ” in sociology, further

considers

the

significance

in c o n n e c t i o n

“the

m e t h o d

of

with

of

this

“comparative

this m e t h o d , D u r k h e i m

concomitant

variations”

(la

m é t h o d e

des variations concomitantes) as “ the pre-eminent instru­

m e n t

sociological

the

of sixth

W h i l e

chapter

he

clusively

investigation.”

of

his

Les

recognizes that in

establishing

“ comparative

m e t h o d ”

In this r eg ar d

règles

d e

la m é t h o d e

causality,

alone

h e

also

is t h e o n l y

o p e ra to r . H e t h e n criticizes C o m t e understand even

historique) a n d w h y

“m e t h o d only and

considers,

indirect experimentation, of

concomitant

the m e t h o d that

w a s

that

but

the

the action of an

at the s a m e

time, h ar d

s o m e also

to

that a n experimentation,

is i n a p p l i c a b l e t o s o c i o l o g y . B u t

given

ex ­

suited to sociology,

fro m

ideas

variations” of Mill.

of residues

consists

recognizes

o n e

in

for u s i n g the historical m e t h o d

J o h n S. Mill m a i n t a i n e d

is c l e a r t h a t D u r k h e i m

writes

sociologique.

“ sociological explanation”

b ec au se social p h e n o m e n a escape evidently (la m é t h o d e

h e

f r o m H e

it

the

so-called

thinks

that not

the m e t h o d

of

a greement

of difference a r e not useful in t h e investigation o f social

120

G e o r g S i m m e l a n d

É m i l e D u r k h e i m

p h e n o m e n a . H o w e v e r ,

things are quite different in the “ m e t h o d

tant variations.”

D u r k h e i m

says,

“ In

reality,

for

of c o n c o m i ­

the

m e t h o d

of

c o n c o m i t a n t v a r i a t i o n s t o b e d e m o n s t r a t i v e , it i s n o t n e c e s s a r y t h a t all

the

shall

variables differing

have

been

f r o m

strictly

series of values presented it h a s b e e n is

proof

d u e

those

excluded. by

the

w h i c h

T h e t w o

to the

are comparing

parallelism

p h e n o m e n a ,

established in a sufficient n u m b e r

that a

w e

m e r e

relationship exists b e t w e e n

of

the

provided

that

a n d variety of cases, them.

Its v a l i d i t y

fact that t h e c o n c o m i t a n t variations display

is

the causal

relationship not externally, as the preceding o n e s do, but internal­ l y . ” 31 N e e d l e s s t o s a y , h e r e concomitant

it i s m a i n t a i n e d

variations” h a s a different privilege

other three m e t h o d s mentioned above, dues, the

m e t h o d of a g r e e m e n t

it i s t h e

m e t h o d

ternally,

but

“ m e t h o d

of concomitant

a

m e t h o d

internally.

maintains is

not

a

both

ception of the the

as

the causal relationship not D u r k h e i m

recognizes

ex ­

that

m e t h o d

the

which

at the exclusion of the others.” F u r t h e r ­

that “comparative of

sociology”

employing

sociology,

but

this

“ sociology

it c e a s e s t o b e p u r e l y d e s c r i p t i v e a n d a s p i r e s t o S i m m e l

a n d

former,

it

w h o

D u r k h e i m is

clear

in this respect it m a y ,

w e

c a n

w e

sociology,

as

criticized

f r o m

methodic w h o

fro m

o n

w e hav e already m ention­

S i m m e l ’s s o c i o l o g y

matter of

rela­

stands in

in detail.

1900.

B e

pure sociology

his standpoint

that

t w o ’s s o c i o l o g i e s i n

his standpoint, considered “ the

his subject

sociology” a n d treated

sociological c o n ­

latter,

shall w r i t e later a g a i n

while D u r k h e i m

great importance

the

find t h e difference of t h e

the fact that S i m m e l , of sociation”

that

that of the

position of m e t h o d i c rationalism. A s particularly

attach

takes the position of

is q u i t e d i f f e r e n t f r o m

ed, D u r k h e i m B u t

t h a t is, t h e m e t h o d o f r e s i ­

v a r i a t i o n s ” is “ t h e u n i q u e

use

a comparative method,

tivism,

f r o m that of the

facts.

A lt ho ug h to

Thus,

of

the m e t h o d of difference, a n d

particular b r a n c h

itself,” i n s o f a r a s explain

a n d

of understanding

sociologist s hould

more, h e

that the “ m e t h o d

or

forms formal

claimed “ objective

social p h e n o m e n a “ a s things,” t h o u g h

both

G e o r g S i m m e l a n d

of t h e m

maintained their o w n

o v e r c o m e

t h e difficulties o f

É mi l e

121

D u r k h e i m

sociology in order that they m i g h t

the

Comtian-Spencerian

encyclopedic

a n d synthetic sociology. In dealing w i t h their sociologies of religion in

the

next

section,

w e

m u s t

sociological conceptions

T h e

4.

Problems

S i m m e l the

and

this

characteristic

of

their

in m i n d .

the Sociology

D u r k h e i m

sociology of

wrote

o f

bear

o f

Religion

w e r e interested early

religion.

Especially

t h e article of “ Z u r

Simmel,

Soziologie der

in the p r o b l e m s as

early

as

of

1898,

R e l i g i o n ” (N e u e D e u t s c h e

R undschau, 9,1898) a n d a p p ro ac h ed the fundamental p r o bl em s of the

s ociology of religion. W e article, h e

touched

first b o o k ,

Ü b e r

o n

m u s t not

the

forget also that, prior to this

relation of religion he wrote m a n y

of religion

of

and

the b o o k

find his o w n

ology

of

views

religion.

religion. R a t h e r , and

greater.

later years,

o n

D i e

it s e e m s be

thought

(1906).

Religion

to m e

he

did

not

fairly said that S i m m e l ,

deeply

about

to be

interested in both

In c o n t r a s t t o this, D u r k h e i m the article of “ D e

sociologie religieuse M é t a p h y s i q u e

with

et d e

the t h e m e

as

book, b o o k

a n d

Les f o r m e s

the

latter

in

greater

religion

w e c a n

say

in

that

a r t a l l h i s life.

i n 1 8 9 9 , a little l a t e r t h a n

la d ef in it i on d e s p h é n o m è n e s r e l i g i e u x ” in 1 9 0 9 t h e article o f “ L a

la c o n n a i s s a n c e ”

17,

1909).

T h e

to the

sociology of

former

{Revue

article

d e

deals

religion

and

w i t h t h e f i r s t c h a p t e r (“ D e f i n i t i o n o f r e l i g i o u s

o f R e l i g i o n ”) o f t h e élémentaires

also

of

approach

Morale,

is c l o s e l y c o n n e c t e d P h e n o m e n a

wrote

et la t h é o r i e d e an

interest

especially in his

religion a n d

vol. 2, 1 8 9 9 ) a n d

sociologique,

these w o r k s

lose

the philosophy

he

{ L ' A n n é e

In

that this interest b e c a m e

t h e p h i l o s o p h y o f art. A c c o r d i n g l y ,

Simmel,

in the b e g i n ­

the philosophy of religion a n d the soci­

A f t e r that, also,

It m a y

in his

essays o n the philosophy

parallel w i t h continued

society

sociale D i f f e r e n z i e r u n g (1890). A n d

ning of the 20th century w e

a n d

is

d e

included

therefore consider that D u r k h e i m ,

first p a r t o f

his later great

la vie

religieuse (1912).

as

“ Introduction.”

o n

In

this

W e

can

the basis of the a b o v e

t w o

its

122

G e o r g S i m m e l

a n d

articles, d e v e l o p e d

É m i l e

D u r k h e i m

his sociology of religion o n

a

full scale.

N o w , S i m m e l w r i t e s a b o u t “ b e l i e f ” (G l a u b e ) i n t h e a b o v e - m e n t i o n ­ ed

article o f “ Z u r S oz i o l o g i e d e r R e l i g i o n ” a s f o l l o w s : “ T h e beliefy

w h i c h

m a n

religion,

has

considered

above

a s the essential

all, a p p e a r s

important thing

is

as

a

a n d

relation

t h e practical belief

the

a m o n g

w h i c h

at t h e sociological Further, m e n

investigation of

S i m m e l

always

re­

to m a n ­

to their fighting class o r of a p r o u d

t o his status, t h e relation o f a s ub je ct to his ruler, w h a

gives

his subject s o m e

suggestion,

possible

a n d

the

relation of

a

all t h e s e r e l a t i o n s h a v e a n infinite v a r i e t y

o f c o n t e n t s , b u t , if w e o b s e r v e is

h e says, “ T h e

or of enthusiastic cosmopolitans

true soldier to his a r m y — it

S i m m e l early at t e m p t s

religion.

to his parents, of enthusiastic patriots

the relation of w o r k e r s

n o b l e m a n

a

his consideration

of the religious,” a n d

respectful child

to their native c o u n t r y kind,

the

thinks that “ a great variety of relations a m o n g

contains an element

lation of a

F o r

men.

is n e v e r m e r e l y

l o w - l e v e l o r d e c l i n i n g t h e o r e t i c a l o p i n i o n . ” 32 A s of belief as “a relation a m o n g m e n " s h o w s ,

substance of

the f or m

of their psychical aspect,

for these relations to h a v e

call r e l i g i o u s . ” 33 O f

a

c o m m o n

tone

w h i c h

w e

m us t

o n

saying, “ All k i n d s o f religiosity c o n t a i n a peculiar m i x t u r e of

unselfish devotion vation, with is,

of sensuous

w h i c h

the

a definite

a n d

e u d a e m o n i s t i c desire,

immediateness

following

degree of

firmness of mental

higher order, mental a n d is

a n d

contained

religiosity (Religiosität) S i m m e l

w h i c h

personal.

h e

a n d

of humility

t e n s i o n o f feeling, a n d

a n

regards at

It s e e m s

a

in

the above-mentioned

F r o m

S i m m e l ’s w r i t i n g

that

relations

s o . ” 34

stand

that “ religiosity” o r “ religious m o m e n t ”

live.

Furthermore,

“ religion a s

specific t e n d e r n e s s time

something

as well as

here quoted, w e

as

to a

w e

can

m a n y under­

exists e v e r y w h e r e

find his indication that

p s y c h i c a l r e a l i t y ” is n o t “ a f i n i s h e d t h i n g ” o r “ a f i x e d

substance” but “a A b o u t

in this article

that

this religious m o m e n t

other w e

into being,

attitude of submission

the s a m e

to m e

ele­

nonsensuous abstraction;

inner conditions c o m e

state,

a n d

goes

living process.”

religiosity a n d

religion S i m m e l ,

also in D i e P r o b l e m e der

G e o r g

Geschichtsphilosophie

1905,

repeats

above

(2nd

ed.,

the

s a m e

almost

quotations

as

follows:

S i m m e l

revised)

a n d

w h i c h

statement “T h e

É mi l e

h e

as

published

h e

attitude of

123

D u r k h e i m

stated

a

in

in

patriot

the

to

his

native country, of a respectful child to his parents, of a n enthusiast t o his ideal,

of

the

of religiosity ; religion

m o m e n t

those as

a

soldier to

h i s f la g — all t h e s e a t t i t u d e s

is t h e p e c u l i a r life i n w h i c h

feelings are e n h a n c e d a n d interwoven,

in a spark, only

the

individual

r e l i g i o n is t h e i r e m o t i o n a l ential

a n d —

m o r e

before. m e n t

It m a y b e

in

the above

the

the object

infinite,

the

of

differ­

figure, t o w h i c h

article publi sh e d

noted that S i m m e l

in relation

usually w a r m ,

they

t o u c h e s o n religiosity a n d religion m u c h

of religiosity,” a n d

its o b j e c t

in

if r i g h t l y u n d e r s t o o d — a b s t r a c t

intelligibly t h a n

w h i c h

field o f i n t e r e s t ;

intersection

c r y s t a l i z e . ” 35 H e r e S i m m e l

contain

seven

years

refers v e r y often to the “ m o ­

g r a s p s “ r e l i g i o n ” i n r e l a t i o n t o life a n d

to feelings.

H e r e

the object of

religion

is

already shown. It m a y

be

noticed

Erkenntnistheorie philosophische

religiosity” jects. I n

a

119,

i n its n a r r o w e r

contrast,

a n d

attitude

S i m m e l

Philosophie

finds

then

u n d

of

feeling to very earthly

o b ­

that, w h e n

w e

religion

it i s t h a t w e

transcendental

zur

the “ m o m e n t

the principle of

h a v e set forth sharpened,

first u n d e r s t a n d

in t h e c on s c i o u s n e s s of m a n ” a n d o n l y

“the

subjektive

A n d

Verhalten)

he

it

that

(das

sense.

are

m ixed

considers

soul (Seele)” a n d

purely formal

the

relation

as

follows : “ Just

of

m a n . ”

c a t e g o r y . ”36

of religiosity a n d as

is “ a f u n d a m e n t a l ,

In

this

Further,

but, e v e n o n this

S i m m e l

religion also in D i e

recognition

does

but

religiosity

m a k e s

r e l i g i o n . ” 37

touches

T h i s

not m a k e is

on

Religion (1906)

n o t create causality,

causality d o e s create recognition, so religion d o e s iosity,

“ Beiträge

h e c o n s i d e r s t h a t r e l i g i o s i t y is “ a u n i t e d a n d f u n d a m e n t a l

state of the account,

1902),

absolutized,

r e l i g i o n is " a p r o c e s s subjective

article,

in w h i c h these b e g i n n i n g s o r these

realizations of a n d

another

is c o n v i n c e d

the process

sublimated

in

host of relations of

this article h e

faint

also

d e r R e l i g i o n ” (Z e i t s c h r i f t f ü r

Kritik,

in

Teligion as or

that,

a

but relig­

paradoxical

l o g i c , a c c o r d i n g t o w h i c h r e l i g i o s i t y is t h e v e r y b e a r e r o f r e l i g i o n .

124

G e o r g S i m m e l

M e r e

S i m m e l

religion s e e m s

a n d

É m i l e D u r k h e i m

lays

rather

to m e

stress

than

u p o n

that

of

the

the

psychological

sociology

A s

S i m m e l w e

early

had

have

already

a n d

society

religion

religion.

of

A n d

it

t h a t a t t h e b a s e o f t h a t v i e w p o i n t t h e r e lies t h e p h i l o ­

sophical con si de r at io n of religion. B e s i d e s this philosophical con si de r at io n that

of

viewpoint

the

sociological

suggested, in

his

sociological consideration

h e

first

of

religion,

consideration

touches

b o o k

o f religion,

o n

(1890).

of religion.

the

I n it

in w h i c h

it i s c l e a r relation w e

of

find his

the following are

t r e a t e d : first o f all, t h e “ s o c i a l i z i n g i m m e a s u r a b l e e f f e c t o f r e l i g i o n in general,” secondly, the q u e s t i o n of the decline in the traditional n o r m s

of

thirdly,

religion c au se d the

status of

b y

m o n k s

the

expansion of

w h i c h

the

social

gradually appears

circle,

with

the

secularization o f religion, fourthly, t h e conflict b e t w e e n sects origi­ n at in g in

“the

difference

fro m

o t h e r s . ” 38 H e r e

pecially about

the third

point with

consideration

of religion

is c l o s e l y

In

this

third

point

S i m m e l

w e

will w r i t e

es­

w h i c h D u r k h e i m ’s s o c i o l o g i c a l related.

gives

an

e x a m p l e

of

t h e earliest

C h r i s t i a n c o m m u n i t y . A c c o r d i n g t o h i m , t h e life i n t h i s c o m m u n i t y , a t first, w a s in the

sphere

over the

full o f r e l i g i o u s i d e a s , a n d all a c t i v i t i e s w e r e e n h a n c e d of this idea.

masses,

But, after that,

a certain shallowness

as

a n d

this s preads

itself

secularization

could

not help but appear. “ T h e secular, w i t h w h i c h the religious mix ed , n o w i n c r e a s e d t o o m u c h in quantity, s o that t h e religious e l e m e n t could not at o n c e a n d completely i mpress o n

it. B u t , a t t h e s a m e

in w h i c h m e n t the

time, the status of the m o n k s w a s formed,

the secular w a s

life m i g h t

be

exclusively

of religion a n d

set b a c k

into the t w o

completely,

filled w i t h

statuses

A n d w a s

in o rder that the

religious content. T h e

life d i s a p p e a r e d , a n d

r e l i g i o u s s t a t u s a p p e a r e d . ” 39

division

its c h a r a c t e r i s t i c f e a t u r e s

agree­

the secular status a n d

also according to him, “a

differentiation

within

this the

circle of Christianity,” a n d this differentiation w a s entirely n e c e s ­ sary

for

its c o n t i n u a n c e ,

original n a r r o w N o w ,

w h e n

it

h a d

to

step

out

b ey on d

its

limits.

in his later b o o k ,

D i e R e l i g i o n (1906), t h e a b o v e - m e n t i o n e d

G e o r g S i m m e l

religious status is “ o n e

is

treated as

p h e n o m e n o n

religious sphere.”

H e

its i d e a l is t h e

cluded

É mi l e

in dealing

sake

of others but soul. B u d d h i s m

sufferings

only

w i t h this

it c o m p l e t e l y l a c k s “ t h e s o c i a l m o m e n t , ”

“ m o n a s t i c . ” In this ideal are

o w n

w h i c h

decisive division of labor in the

speaks about B u d d h i s m

sacrifices a n d

125

D u r k h e i m

priesthood (Priestertum)

of the mos t

aspect. A c c o r d i n g to him , a n d

the

a n d

for

for others,

the

subject

occasionally in­

w h i c h

a n d

are

the

not

for the

salvation of

teaches “absolute withdrawal

f r o m

his

t h e social

w o r l d . ” R e d e m p t i o n ( S i c h - E r l ö s e n ) is b u t a w i t h d r a w a l ( S i c h - L ö s e n ) from

all e x i s t e n c e ,

k nowledges all

living

of the

d h i s m

is

It s e e m s called

himself. is

in

the

A n d

sharp

w h i c h

natural, w h e n

Christian world. A n d

to m e

religion.

that this v i e w

H e r m a n n

B u d d h i s m

“ the welfare “the

obligations

in

also

says, “ N o w

B u d ­

t e a c h i n g a b o u t s a l v a t i o n . ” 40 w a s

given as a

author of B u d d h a

without

to

in g en e r a l , a n d

o f S i m m e l ’s

Oldenberg,

“ religion

social

world

it a c ­

the welfare of

is t h e n

so S i m m e l

It is a

a n d

contradiction

defined

in the non-Christian

also not a

gestion fro m

This

demarcation,”

classical a n d

in m o s t

as well as

involved in t h e m , r e d e m p t i o n beings.”

political-social the

social

only duties t o w a r d

others b e c o m e s of

the

god.”

T h e

sug­

(1881),

reason

w h o

w h y

w e

t o u c h e d u p o n t h i s a s p e c t i s b e c a u s e t h i s i s c o n n e c t e d t o D u r k h e i m ’s view

of B u d d h i s m

Simmel, follows: only

further,

substance of grace a n d

as the

logical

him.

B u d d h i s m

w e

about

fro m

shall s p e a k the

later.

substance of

suffering (Erlösung v o m

Buddhism,

does

not

require

a

a m e d i a t o r ; it i s n o t p e r f o r m e d ,

result

this p r e m i s e

w h i c h

speaks

“ R e d e m p t i o n

power, O n

about

of

S i m m e l

t h e s o u l ’s r e n o u n c i n g deals with

recognizes mos t

as

Leiden),

the

transcendental but takes place

a l l w i l l t o l i v e . ” 41

the priesthood.

distinctly “ the

B u d d h i s m

According

sociological

to

e m e r ­

g e n c e of the priesthood.” N a m e l y , the religious functions, originally performed w h o

perform

to say found B y

b y

that

each

passed

o n

these duties in behalf of the this differentiation

in B u d d h i s m , the

individual, h a v e

way,

but

D u r k h e i m

to specific p e r s o n s

others.

It is n e e d l e s s

in religious functions

is n o t

only

also in Christianity. also refers to B u d d h i s m

in his treatise.

126

“ D e

G e o r g

S i m m e l

a n d

É m i l e D u r k h e i m

la définition d e s p h é n o m è n e s

as follows:

“ In

reality,

there

religieux” (1899), a n d

are

religions

in w h i c h

h e writes

t h e r e is n o

i d e a o f G o d a t all. O n e e x a m p l e is B u d d h i s m . ” 42 I n t h i s c o n n e c t i o n , D u r k h e i m deals w i t h B u d d h i s m in his b o o k , L e s f o r m e s élémentaires la vie religieuse (1912).

d e

ligions f r o m

w h i c h

the

According

to him,

idea of g ods

there

(les d i e u x )

are

and

great re­

spirits

(les

e s p r i t s ) is a b s e n t , o r a t l e a s t , w h e r e t h i s i d e a p l a y s o n l y a s e c o n d ­ ary a n d

m i n o r

role.

that B u d d h i s m system says

D u r k h e i m

primarily

in

B u d d h a w a y

with

Buddhism.

is

w h o

o n e

k n o w s

“ absolutely atheistic.”

salvation,”

the g o o d

only

to D u r k h e i m ,

w h i c h

Christ

a n d

b ooks

f r o m

a n d

salvation

doctrine

as “ the

a n d

O n

is i n c o n c e i v a b l e

his

his

w h i c h D u r k h e i m

c u l t . ” 43

cites here,

B o u d d h a

role

the ever-present B y

the

A n d in n o

the contrary,

is q u i t e d if f e r e n t f r o m

without

ever-practised

presupposes

p r a c t i s e s i t.

wisest of m e n , ”

B u d d h i s m

o f O l d e n b e r g ’s o n e , L e Let

another

cites these passages, B u d d h i s m consists

“ the idea of

is r e g a r d e d

tianity,

says

as a moral

a n d an atheism without Nature," a n d

r e s e m b l e s that of other divine personalities. O n

according

O n e

O l d e n b e r g also calls B u d d h i s m “ a religion w i t h o u t

god.” F o r that

case

doctrine of B u d d h i s m

the other hand,

solely

is t h e

“ sets itself i n o p p o s i t i o n t o B r a h m a n i s m

without g o d

that the

This

way,

one

is t h e F r e n c h

“Chris­ idea of of

the

translation

(1903).

us here

turn

to the definition of religion b y D u r k h e i m ,

fore w e touch

u p o n

the relation b e t w e e n the c oncept of priesthood

in S i m m e l

a n d

t h a t o f p r i e s t (le p r ê t r e ) i n D u r k h e i m .

writes about the his b o o k

of

a n d

forms

of s ym bo ls

b y

then

have

originated

a n d

w h i c h

w h i c h possible

is

a

as follows:

society.

“ T h e

Religion

of w h i c h

in

w e r e a

word,

society b e c o m e s

in

only the

conscious

of thinking p r o p e r to collective existence.

f r o m

analysis of

gods

is,

mental

states

individual consciousnesses

f ro m

D u r k h e i m

relation of religion a n d society

vast totality of if

result

derive

of

m e a n s

o f i t s e l f ; it is t h e w a y H e r e

the

suicide (1897)

L e

the hypostatized system

gods

be­

this u n i o n

individual the

latter,

a n d

natures. they

are In

w h i c h had

w o u l d

not combined,

superadded spite of

will n e v e r

not

the

serve

to those minutest to explain

G e o r g

the foundation a n d

development

t i c e s . ” '14 N e e d l e s s t o s a y , b y

D u r k h e i m

religion,

as

in

symbols

m e a n s

so to speak,

as

ence.”

A n d

derives

from

not be

reduced

even

society,

of w h i c h

“the

w a y

society h a s individual

though

A t

here the g od s

to

w e

h a v e

but, w e

and

R o m a n s

facts are

o n

o n

the o n e

intention in r e g a r d

of

states,” w h i c h appeared,

elucidate

the

that t o t e m i s m

w a s

that they

turned

h a n d

the other hand.

unexplainable

system

c a n ­

former,

t h e latter.

writes

singular beliefs a n d practices, a n d religion of J e h o v a h

also

to collective exist­

having

cannot

but

c o n s c i o u s o f itself,”

proper o nc e

prac­

understood

“ the

vast totality of m e n t a l

analyzed

127

D ü r k h e i m

society,” as

b e c o m e s

of thinking

natures,

D u r k h e i m

of

understood

to these. H e n c e

that time,

É mi l e

are not only

forms

society

“a

a n d

the s t r a n g e beliefs a n d

“ the hypostatized

relation

b y

of

S i m m e l

h av e

a n d

A n d

he

Polytheism

consists

from

into the

of G r e e k s

emphasizes

f r o m individual natures. In

to this e m p h a s i s

bor n

that these

short, his real

in his d e m o n s t r a t i n g

t h a t t h e p r e c e d i n g c o n s i d e r a t i o n is n o t o n l y a p p l i c a b l e t o religion, but

to a law,

pedagogical life. W e

a moral,

p r a c t i c e s , etc.,

have

Durkheim, a n d

to

in a

in

the

to political institutions,

word,

already m entioned further, says

religion

to modes,

t o all f o r m s

of

to

collective

this.

a b o u t r e l i g i o u s f ac ts (les faits religieux)

article,

“ D e

la

définition

des

p h é n o m è n e s

religieux,” published w ithin t w o years after h e presented L e suicide (1897)

to the

deals

with

them.

W e

public as follows:

religious facts, say

it

religious facts,

totality o f religious p h e n o m e n a , in t e r m s

of the

manifestations religion. I n be

they

“Since

is a n d

d o

not

necessary not

to begin

religion,

of

to

a n y

defining

r e l i g i o n is a

only be defined

there are innumerable

belong

religion

by

for

a n d the w h o l e c a n

parts. M o r e o v e r , w h i c h

the sociology

properly

religious

recognized

e v e r y society, there a r e scattered beliefs a n d practices,

individual o r local, w h i c h

are

not integrated into

a defi­

n i t e s y s t e m . " 45 T h i s i s o n e o f t h e o p e n i n g p a r a g r a p h s i n t h e a b o v e article,

w h e r e

t h e o b j e c t o f t h e s o c i o l o g y o f r e l i g i o n is n o t c o n ­

sidered a s religion,

but

as

“ religious facts,”

a n d

totality of religious p h e n o m e n a . ” Besides, t h e r e w e

religion

as

“a

find his indi-

128

G e o r g S i m m e l

cation that A b o u t

a n d

É m i l e D u r k h e i m

religious beliefs a n d

practices exist e v e r y w h e r e .

these religious “ beliefs

that beliefs are ligious,”

a n d

not

“ the only

further,

and

p h e n o m e n a

there

are

r e l i g i o u s p r a c t i c e s (les p r a t i q u e s obligatory N am e l y ,

w a y s they

of

acting,”

vary

practices are b o u n d “t w o

that

practices.

o n e

O f

religieuses) are

like

moral

a n d

“ beliefs in m o t i o n ”

different

aspects a n d

of practices.” A n d according

of

to

object.

Religious

s a m e

religious practices

w h a t

both

are

reality.”

are often

him,

practices, practices.

their

the

beliefs

call r e ­

juridical

religious beliefs, a n d

but

thinks

“ the definite a n d

u p

with

to

mus t

these

according

are

a n d

D u r k h e i m

merely

ing

beliefs as well as

practices”

“ an

noth­

Practices

interpretation

characterizes religious

is t h a t “ t h e y

are obligatory,”

“ w h a t is o b l i g a t o r y h a s all its o r i g i n i n s o c i e t y . ” F o r

“a n

o b ­

ligation” (une obligation) implies a c o m m a n d , a n d consequently, “ a n authority

w h i c h

c o m m a n d s . ”

religious p h e n o m e n a in the

s a m e

w a y

b e l i e f s . ” 46

It

considered

by

T o way ,

be

h i m

noted

relating to that

given

religious

w h o

characterizes

of p h e n o m e n a

here

is t h a t

k n o w n

f r o m

ligion”

(la

the

m o r e

T o

suicide.

fact that h e

an

H e

recognizes,

as

exact,

that

however,

w h a t

calls

in

such

are

here

uses

H e r e

in

the

the w e

term

and

system­

indeed, This

that

can

be

“obligatory

re­

find a l m o s t

above-mentioned

in this b o o k

in this

h e w o u l d like to

obligatory nature.

even

obligatoire).

religion be

p h e n o m e n a

o r less o r g a n i z e d

of this k i n d . ”

religion h a s

religion

definition of

objects

religious p h e n o m e n a

“ r e l i g i o n is e s s e n t i a l l y a s o c i a l t h i n g . ” B u t say

says, " O n e

a s “ obligatory beliefs.”

r e l i g i o n is “ t h e w h o l e ,

atized,

so, D u r k h e i m

o b l i g a t o r y b e l i e f s (les c r o y a n c e s o b l i g a t o i r e s )

as practices

m a y

D urkheim,

A n d

D u r k h e i m

the

s a m e

book,

L e

lays e m ­

phasis o n

t h e s u p e r i n d i v i d u a l i t y o f r e l i g i o n i n h i s d e f i n i n g i t, w h i l e

he

stress u p o n

places

religion

w h i c h

w e

its o b l i g a t o r y

us

n o w

v i e religieuse.

a n d

to explain

turn T h e

in

the definition

h a v e just t a k e n up. C o n s e q u e n t l y ,

quite different standpoints Let

nature

to

in his definition of

D u r k h e i m ’s

Les f o r m e s

w e

of

find t w o

religion. élémentaires d e

la

t h e m e o f t h i s g r e a t b o o k is t o s t u d y , t o a n a l y z e

“ the

m o s t

primitive a n d

simple

religion

w h i c h

is

G e o r g S i m m e l

actually k n o w n , ” natives. in so

that

According

far as

w e

is,

the

to him,

can

totemism

a

observe,

a n d

É m i l e

found

a m o n g

Australian

religious s y s t e m

is m o s t

w h e n

the

it

m eets

129

D u r k h e i m

primitive,

following t w o

c o n d i t i o n s : first, it m u s t b e f o u n d i n a s o c i e t y

w h o s e organization

is a s s i m p l e

b e

as possible,

this society w i t h o u t ceding to

i t.

primitive

religions

hold

O n

be

ritual

attitudes,

w h e r e

and

with

“the

express

w h i c h

perform

of

h av e

the objective content generally

a n d

F r o m

the profane

(le s a c r é ) a n d

“ t h e distinct trait of is a b s o l u t e . I n

or

sacred

of

so

a n d

as separated

sacred

sacred

in

cannot

at t h e b a s e of

T h e y

this standpoint,

w h o

they

a r e all w e

talk

religion

is

defines, for the present,

is d i v i d e d

into t w o

or

to o n e

says, “ T h i s

worlds

It is t h e t o t e m

thought

always

there

w h i c h

have

communi c at io n b e t w e e n

and

profane

impunity. the t w o is n o t

differ­ the

everywhere not

mutually

w h i c h divides these t w o things

the profane,

with

is n o

N am e l y ,

a n d

is

heteroge­

so profoundly

a n o t h e r . ” 47

are considered t w o

the

(le p r o f a n e ) , a n d t h i s d i v i s i o n

categories of things

as

domains,

this t o t e m

itself is “ a t y p e

t h i n g s (les c h o s e s s a c r é e s ) . ” I n t h i s c a s e ,

s ible. F o r , if t h e

and

every­

though

w e express w h e n

religious t h o u g h t . ” H e

t w o

a n d

touch

neces­

m e a n i n g

religion.

t h i n g s a r e , a b o v e all, t h o s e w h i c h p r o f a n e and

religions

representations

all t h e h i s t o r y o f h u m a n

layers,

into the

to him,

of

o r less c o m p l e x s y s t e m of m y t h s ,

radically o p p o s e d

elements.

of the

world

the profane

c o m m o n

primitive

objective

F r o m

of D u r k h e i m

sacred

entiated

study

ceremonies.”

the standpoint

e xa m p l e

s a m e

of the idea w h i c h

the

other

the

cults, t h e r e m u s t

the h u m a n

religion in this w a y ,

neity

religion pre­

functions everywhere,

about “ the religion.” rites a n d

that

to explain

It is t h e s e p e r m a n e n t e l e m e n t s w h i c h

grasped b y D u r k h e i m as “a m o r e dogmas,

a

m a k e s

fundamental

the

able

fro m

D u r k h e i m

o f all t h e

the s a m e

eternal

element

assurance

and

differ in their e x t e r n a l f o r m s . the

it m u s t

it.” A c c o r d i n g

a certain n u m b e r

constitute

a n y

this a s s u m p t i o n

of beliefs

sarily

besides,

borrowing

to reality a n d

all t h e s y s t e m s

and

B u t

worlds

the sacred

persons m u s t not touch

b y

t h i s i n h i b i t i o n all t h e

is n e v e r

rendered

impos­

able to h a v e a n y t h i n g to d o w i t h

130

G e o r g

the

S i m m e l

sacred,

sacred the

a n d

this sacred

things are

profane

applied

a n d

D u r k h e i m

thing

“those are

w h i c h

mus t

here

is

w h i c h

things

things.” F r o m T h a t

É m i l e

“ those

w a s

be

g o o d

each

things a n d

other

or

of behavior sacred

to w h i c h

left at

d r a w n

the

the

a

these

so

the

prohibitions

distance

from

definition of

relations

to profane

the

are

sacred

religious beliefs.

w h i c h

prescribe

things.” W h e n

h o w

the

c o r r e s p o n d i n g beliefs

Perhaps

relations

fro m

here

of

also w a s

rites

are

m a n

has

to

behave

“ the

rules

towards

with

and

subordination,

“ the

rites constitutes a religion.”

d r a w n

are connected

D u r k h e i m ’s d e f i n i t i o n o f o f beliefs a n d

re­

practices w h i c h

t h i n g s .”

sacred

D u r k h e i m c a l l s t h i s d e f i n i t i o n o f r e l i g i o n its first d e f i n i t i o n ,

to this h e

further adds

is a n

T o

C h u r c h . ” 16

“essential” than it m u s t

says

in a

be

note

a n

this s e c o n d

eminently that

have w e

it,

w h i c h

a group

fro m

the

imposes

that

nitions partially overlap.

formerly

defined

the idea of religion it s o u n d

this point h e

this, o u r p r e s e n t d e f ­ proposed

in

L ' A n n é e

religious beliefs exclusively

these

its m e m b e r s .

If w e

less

this obligation c o m e s clear, a n d

fact that

u p o n

“ A

c o mm u n i ty ,

d e f i n i t i o n is n o t

as follows: “ B y

w e

In this w o r k ,

s h o w

m o r a l

collective thing.” O n

their obligatory character. B u t

as w e

to the s a m e

the idea of C h u r c h , a religion m a k e s

of his b o o k

inition rejoins o n e sociologique.

to h i m

D u r k h e i m

follows:

o f beliefs a n d p r ac t i c es w h i c h

t h e first. F o r , “ s h o w i n g

is i n s e p a r a b l e f r o m that

its s e c o n d d e f i n i t i o n a s

interdependent system

unite all those th at a d h e r e called

the

a n d

interdependent system

religion

A n d

coordination

ligion as “ a n N o w ,

m ai n t a i n to

a certain n u m b e r of sacred things mutually

w h o l e

of

that these things

things.”

maintain

by

A n d

i s t o s a y , it i s “ t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s w h i c h e x p r e s s t h e n a t u r e

of sacred

a n d

for nothing.

prohibit protect a n d isolate,” a n d

h av e

beliefs

are

H e n c e

these t w o

thought

w e

m u s t

the

things defi­

propose

a

n e w d e f i n i t i o n , it i s b e c a u s e t h e f i r s t w a s t o o f o r m a l a n d n e g l e c t e d too note

completely

s h o w s , t h e first d e f i n i t i o n i n w h i c h

sidered are

t h e c o n t e n t o f r e l i g i o u s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s . ” 49 A s

a s o b l i g a t o r y is d e r i v e d

regarded

from

this

religious beliefs are c o n ­ the

second

in w h i c h

they

a s “ t h e t h i n g s o f a g r o u p , ” a n d o n e is c o m p l e m e n t a r y

G e o r g

to

the other.

Consequently,

religion

in

w h i c h

religion

as

“the

istence.”

T h e

its

here

S i m m e l a n d

D u r k h e i m

obligatory nature

w a y

of

former

thinking

v ie w

is

found

in

T h e n ,

L e

rites, a n d

m a g i c

“the repugnance b et w e e n

n o

moral

is f o r D u r k h e i m

to him,

fro m

the

t h a t it i s n o t c o m m u n i t y

maintains based

o n

that this,

with

D u r k h e i m moral

there exists

a

grasps

c om mu ni t y,

o n

idea of C h u r c h . ” simply a

But

d r a w s

a

the church

is n o r m a l l y

church,

Therefore,

the

of

a n d

the

In this point

as

well

as

w an t i n g

magician

there

fro m

the

thinks

as

but

by

in is

is a n

in

magic.

a

w e

is t h e

priests,

(le m a g i c i a n )

priesthood,

believers

while S i m m e l

and,

“ religion

find his v i e w o f t h e priest. W h e n

priests

exists or

a n d religion. A n d after h e c o n ­

believers

concept

is

s h a r p line

sacerdotal brotherhood

distinguishes

there

the contrary, “ the

magical

the church.

church

w e

relation b e t w e e n

also consists of beliefs a n d

n o

b y

S i m m e r s

the priesthood

ex ­

already-mentioned

is t h e

w h e t h e r

formed

he

t h e priest. H e r e this

w h a t

M a g i c

essential difference b e t w e e n m a g i c sidered

collective

its m y t h s a n d d o g m a s .

religion w i t h o u t

inseparable

of

that of

religieux,” a n d t h e latter

to religion.” Besides, w h a t

t w o

not. A c c o r d i n g

about the

of religion to m a g i c , ” and,

magic

the

history,

(la m a g i e ) ?

l i k e r e l i g i o n it h a s

hostility of

and

suicide.

in t h e c a s e of D u r k h e i m ,

religion a n d

the view

stressed

properly

131

D ü r k h e i m

unites

is

article, “ D e la définition d e s p h é n o m è n e s in his b o o k ,

É m i l e

he

Being fro m

w e c o m p a r e can

church,

say

that

namely,

a

that t h e differentiation of

secular status b e g a n

with

the

seculari­

z a t i o n o f religion. P e r h a p s t h e c a u s e o f this d i f f e r e n c e lies in t h e fact that the f o r m e r attaches i m p o r t a n c e to the distinction b e t w e e n the magician

and

t h e priest, w h i l e t h e latter l a y s e m p h a s i s

defining the e m e r g e n c e

of the

priesthood

A s w e have already mentioned, con si de r at io n of religion in w h i c h of

at the s a m e

time,

he

w h i c h

b e l i e f is t a k e n

as

hand,

D u r k h e i m

the

has

has

“a

religion.

S i m m e l has the philosophical t h e b e a r e r o f religion, n a m e l y ,

“ the subjective attitude of m a n , ”

and,

in h i g h

u po n

the

is

considered

sociological

relation a m o n g

religiosity,

viewpoint

m e n . ”

sociological viewpoint

as O n

f r o m

f ro m

the other w h i c h

he

132

G e o r g

regards in

S i m m e l a n d

É mi l e D ü r k h e i m

religious beliefs as “ o b l i g a t o r y ” a n d s ee k s

society. In this case, t h e w a y

different.

But

it is c l e a r

viewpoint. H e r e

w e

in

that each

w h i c h

for their origin

t h e y g r a s p r e l i g i o n is

of t h e m

has

the

sociological

f i n d t h e c o m m o n f e a t u r e o f b o t h . F o r all t h a t ,

since 1 8 9 0 S i m m e l h as a t t e m p t e d to consider religion sociologically as well

as philosophically.

sociology of

religion

a n d

A s

it w e r e ,

in

S i m m e l ’s t h i n k i n g

the philosophy

of

the

religion coexist

and

b o t h a r e closely related. A s a g a i n s t this, t h o u g h D u r k h e i m i n q u i r e d sociologically into religion after a while,

in his case the philosophy

of religion d o e s n o t b e c o m e the c e n t e r of interest, a n d h e c o n t i n u e s to h a v e

an

natural

exclusive

that there

interest

is a

thinking of S i m m e l

in

the s ociology of religion.

notable difference

a n d

D ur kheim.

A t

in the contents

a n y

rate, t h e y

interested, indeed, early, in t h e s o c i o l o g y of religion, be

safely said

heim,

so h e

W e

that S i m m e l

w a s

w a s

that both

S i m m e l

have

with

something

Karl

M a r x .

m o r e

in c o m m o n .

this

respect

In

both

it m a y to D u r k ­

of religion. a n d

interest in t h e s ociology of religion. H o w e v e r , they

but

is

of the

w e r e

i n t e r e s t e d i n it p r e v i o u s

a precursor of the sociology

h a v e just m e n t i o n e d

It

D u r k h e i m

had

in a d d i t i o n t o this,

It is t h e i r c o n f r o n t a t i o n

w e

shall

write

in

the

next

section.

5.

T h e W e

Confrontation have

methodic “Preface”

already

with

given

relativism. T h i s of

K a r l

M a r x

the outline of standpoint w e

S i m m e l ’s s t a n d p o i n t o f find m o s t

his P h i l o s o p h i e des G e l d e s (1900),

in

clearly

in the

w h i c h

he

at­

t e m p t e d to “ construct a n e w storey b e n e a t h historical materialism.” A ccording

to S i m m e l ,

w h o believes in “ relativism as t h e principle

of recognition,” for t h e practice of c o g n i t i o n a n intellectual culture a n d

an

e c o n o m i c

life m u s t

every

interpretation of

n o m i c

structure

be

understood

themselves

mus t “ f r o m

an

develop “ in endless reciprocity.” A n d ideal structure

lead to m o r e

the general

the d e m a n d

ideal d e p t h s , ”

e co no mi c

base

has

b y that

m e a n s

of

a n

eco­

the latter in turn

while for these depths to be

sought,

a n d

so

G e o r g S i m m e l a n d

o n

infinitely.

conceptually b e c o m e s

“ In

such

a n

alternation

a n d

É m i l e

133

D u r k h e i m

entanglement

of

the

o p p o s e d principles of cognition, t h e unity of things...

practical a n d

vital f o r u s . ” 50

In this w a y ,

S i m m e l

w h o

p a y s a t t e n t i o n t o t h e r e c i p r o c i t y o f intellectual life a n d

economic

life d o e s

but

pays

recognition,

and

fro m

this

n o t stick o n l y

to the principle of recognition,

attention to the interaction of takes up

the standpoint of

methodic

alternation a n d entanglement himself with S i m m e r s

M a r x

fro m

a n d

the essence of m o n e y

the

connections

“Synthetic

Part,”

a n d

the

intelligible

o f life i n g e n e r a l ,

H e n c e

h e confronts relativism.

a n d

former

f ro m

part

the

In

this b o o k

m o n e y

t h e latter s e e k s

national economics, but M a r x

w h o

to

considers

b e c o m e

m a k e

the

the function the

object

of

m o n e y

as

a

substance,

thinks that “ m o n e y

S i m m e l

grasps

is, a s it w e r e ,

actus

h e c o n s i d e r s t h a t it i s a " p u r e r e l a t i o n s h i p , " a n d t h a t

it is a n e x p r e s s i o n a n d dependence,

not

to and

that of philosophical study. In opposition

as a function a nd

purus.” A n d

does

seeks

conditions

a n d o r g a n i z a t i o n o f t h i s life i n t el li g ib le f r o m

of m o n e y .

m o n e y

are emphasized.

w h i c h

Philosophie des G e ldes (1900) consists of the “ Analytical

m a k e

to

relativism

this standpoint of m e t h o d i c

Part”

essence

the principles of

or

the

a m e d i u m of the relationship, or the inter­

relativity

of

m e n

that

always

m a k e s

the

satisfaction of o n e p e r s o n mutually d e p e n d e n t u p o n a n o t h e r person. Accordingly,

m o n e y

instrument w h i c h m o n e y

the

a pure a n d

there

is

n o

as

that

pure “a n

there bee n

is a n has

instrument

economic

satisfies t h e m c o m p l e t e l y , a n d b y

the p h e n o m e n a the cha ng e

S i m m e l

of

finds the

means,

“a concrete

of

as

Thus, so

in

the

world

thoroughly

than

O n

M o n e y the

so m a n y

men , value

clearly

other m e n

a s it

of

its o w n

m o n e y .

m a k e s

it is,

hand,

so c o m ­

o f all e n d s , t h e p o s s e s s i o n w h i c h

is t h e g o a l o f all s t r i v i n g . H e r e

h u m a n

m o n e y

absolute m e a n s ;

m e d i u m . ”

a n object that

p l e t e l y b e l i e v e t h a t it i s t h e e n d find

reality of

m e d i u m . ”

other object

only

never has

forms

simple

its q u a l i t y a s a

appeared

purest

is a b s o l u t e l y i d e n t i c a l w i t h its a b s t r a c t c o n c e p t ”;

“ i n its p e r f e c t e d

were, and

is

alienation a

fact that there

m e a n s is n e v e r

that into

is a n

a place

brought end.

A n d

a n y w h e r e

w e

about here else

134

G e o r g S i m m e l

w h e r e

the

a n d

“ axial

É m i l e

D u r k h e i m

rotation”

(Achsendrehung)

takes

place

m o r e

radically. M ea nw hi l e,

D u r k h e i m

begins with the following preliminary re­

m a r k i n h i s c o m m e n t i n g o n S i m m e l ’s P h i l o s o p h i e d e s G e l d e s i n t h e f i f t h v o l u m e ( 1 9 0 2 ) o f L ’A n n é e s o c i o l o g i q u e : “ T h e t i t l e o f t h i s w o r k m ight

suggest

that

it i s p r i m a r i l y c o n c e r n e d

of e c o n o m y .

B u t , i n fact,

wider

T h e r e

scope.

are

not

the

selling of

w o m e n ,

vantage of m o n e y , in S i m m e F s lowing

means,

in t h e

a n d

virtue of in the

m o n e y , ”

the

m o s t

the m o s t

A n d

far a s

idealized p o w e r s

it c a n

“ the

life a n d

w a y

turning he

a n d

to

that

affects h u m a n

culture

in dealing w i t h “ the value of m o n e y based

o n

the

to g r a s p

According intellect,

m o n e y to him,

and

that

also

c o n ­

it t h e n

totality of to him,

to

it

and

life a s a in

in

parts: of

t h o s e it

“Synthetic,”

S i m m e l ’s P h i l o s o p h i e d e s G e l d e s ,

tried

he

“ the essence

called

chapter,

essentially

A n d

into t w o

w h i c h

second

stanzwert des Geldes).

into

rise

the most

f r o m w h i c h

his b o o k

gave

fortuitous

According

in

the second,

m o n e y

a n d

h i s t o r y . ” 52

divides

“ Analytical,” needs

is s i m p l y

of existence,

understood.”

S i m m e l

elucidated;

to reveal the

be

to t h e fol­

“M o n e y

realistic

a point of departure

called

namely,

n o w

the

for the presentation of relations

superficial,

individual

this concept,

meets,” are m e a n t

pays attention

question of eventually developing

first p a r t ,

fro m

In

is a t r e a t i s e i n s o c i a l p h i ­

and

des Geldes

s i d e r s t h a t “ t h i s is o n l y existence, so

w h i c h

f r e e d o m , etc.

primarily

“ P r e f a c e ” of this b o o k :

currents of a

m u c h

problems

transaction,

here

a

of slavery, b o n d a g e ,

considered

have

have

D u r k h e i m finds “ a treatise in social p h i l o s o p h y ”

b et w e e n

p h e n o m e n a

b e c o m e s

is

material, or a n e x a m p l e

that exist profound

w e

Philosophie

passage

sociological

will find a t h e o r y

society

w h a t

l o s o p h y . ” 51 T h u s ,

a n y

punishment,

although

the sociology

questions dealt with

are hardly

tackled here ; o n e

other words,

a

the

with

“ is

whole.” in

the

the context of

as a substance” (Sub­ “ the idea

intellect

that

life

is

is a c c e p t e d

in

p r a c t i c a l life a s t h e m o s t v a l u a b l e o f o u r m e n t a l e n e r g i e s , ” is u s e d to g o

h a n d

H e n c e

he

in h a n d says

that

with

the “penetration of a m o n e y

“ the

g r o w t h

of

intellectual

e c o n o m y . ”

and

abstract

G e o r g

abilities c h a r a c t e r i z e s t h e a g e pure

in w h i c h

a n d É m i l e

m o n e y

b e c o m e s

m o r e a n d

a

noted

that h e asserts that m o n e y b e c o m e s m o r e a n d m o r e But,

n e u t r a l i n its i n t r i n s i c v a l u e . ” 53

first o f all,

s a y s , “ If m o n e y

is o n l y

D u r k h e i m

135

D u r k h e i m

m o r e

symbol.”

symbol,

S i m m e l

It m a y

be

“a pure

criticizes this assertion.

a symbol, a

y a r d s t i c k , it h a s

n o

H e

need

to

p o s s e s s b y itself a n i n t r i n s i c v a l u e s o a s t o fulfill its m i s s i o n . ” T o Simmel, of a

however,

pure

mark,

m o n e y or

increasingly c o m e s

of a n

to hav e the character

abstract expression, while

the

intrinsic

n a t u r e a n d v a l u e o f t h e m a t e r i a l u s e d f o r its c a s t b e c o m e s c o n v e r s e ­ ly

a still m o r e

m o n e y

meaningless

factor

t h e social

services

w h i c h

renders.

In o p p o s i t i o n t o this, D u r k h e i m the

of

importance

of

the s u m s

says,

of m o n e y

“N o w a d a y s , w e

w e

evaluate

receive without

even

reflecting o n the c o m m e r c i a l value of the precious m et a l s w h i c h m a k e u p m o n e y . T h i s d e v e l o p m e n t , it i s t r u e , c a n n o t b e t a k e n t o its l o g i c a l c o n c l u s i o n : it i s i m p o s s i b l e clusively a pure mel.

F o r

“m a n y even

ideas, k e e n

observations, interesting,

proof,” he goes o n

to say, “ T o

together without

read

l a b o r i o u s , is t h e r e f o r e i n t e r e s t i n g , objective value of

a n d

is n o t

m o n e y ,

taking w e

up

m u s t

his m e t h o d o l o g y

D u r k h e i m ’s say

that

it

accept

the

velopments, A ccording s a m e

time,

theory

w h i c h

f o r it r e s t s o n to h i m ,

b y

criticism d o not

in p r o p o r t i o n

it i s d e v e l o p e d .

S i m m e l ’s t h e o r y as

is k n o w n

of

f ro m

believe that a n e conomist

lies at t h e

an a m b i g u o u s

m o n e y S i m m e l

metallic m o n e y

o n

But

c r i t i c i z e s S i m m e l ’s

w h i c h

is v e r y s e v e r e ,

D u r k h e i m ’s j u d g e m e n t t h a t “ w e can

o n

or

s o m e w h a t

in places, suggestive.

the insights p r o p o s e d to us a n d

accuracy

this b o o k , t h o u g h

t o t h e i r i n g e n i o u s n e s s . ”55 S a y i n g s o , D u r k h e i m of m o n e y

sometimes

a w e a l t h of historical a n d e t h n o g r a ­

facts, yet, u n f o r t u n a t e l y , p u t

First,

ex ­

a l l t h a t , a f t e r h e f i n d s i n S i m m e l ’s P h i l o s o p h i e d e s G e l d e s ,

ingenious

theory

to b e c o m e

s y m b o l . ” 54 H e r e D u r k h e i m s e v e r e l y c r i t i c i z e s S i m ­

surprising comparisons,

phical

for m o n e y

bot to m

of

all t h e s e d e ­

a n d confused

understands,

(le n u m é r a i r e ) , w h i c h

n o t i o n . ” 56

at o n e a n d has

the

a real v al u e

i n itself, a n d p a p e r m o n e y (le p a p i e r - m o n n a i e ) , n a m e l y , m o n e y w i t h a

purely

fiduciary

value

(la m o n n a i e

p ur em en t

fiduciare).

A s

it

136

G e o r g

were,

in

S i m m e l

a n d

É m i l e D u r k h e i m

S i m m e l ’s c a s e b o t h

A ccording

to D u r k h e i m ,

are

dealt

however,

they

with are

in t w o

the

s a m e

way.

entirely distinct

institutions, w h i c h a r e n o t b a s e d o n t h e s a m e principles. F o r p a p e r m o n e y

depends

o n

the development

different origins f r o m for t w o

such

the

m o n e t a r y

in o n e

a n d

correct to say

that

“ m o n e y

this time, m a y b e ,

about cant

“ the value that

creased m e a n s its

the

the

of m o n e y

of e xc ha ng e

bill

concept.

beco m e s

m o r e

kept

totally

and

relations,

(Tauschmittel),

elimination

w h i c h

Therefore, m o r e

b y

through

passage

“ It is signifi­

w h i c h

originally in­

in m o d e r n

interlocal

transfer

But,

fiduciary.”

(Substanzwertigkeit) leads,

the

with­

it i s n o t

S i m m e l ’s f o l l o w i n g

valuableness

is t h a t “ t h e r e a r e

circulation),

impossible

It is t h u s

s a m e

trade

( W e c h s e l v e r s a n d ) . ” 57

matter

system.

as a substance” in m i n d ;

expansion of

substantial

complete

the

D u r k h e i m

balancing of accounts a

o n

different categories of fact to b e c o m p o u n d e d

out confusion A t

of credit, n a m e l y ,

(Giro)

and and

for D u r k h e i m

of

the

culture,

to

international negotiation of

the truth of

the

i n e x i s t e n c e t w o t y p e s o f c i r c u l a t i o n (la

relate to t w o

v e r y different

forms

of

social

organization.” A n d

according

to D u r k h e i m ,

metallic currency

paper

m o n e y

can

substitute

only to the extent that e c o n o m i c

ized, a n d , c on v e r s e l y , e c o n o m i c control of

society

w h e r e

important.

Fiduciary

the

m o n e y ,

functions escape

life is s o c i a l ­

all t h e m o r e

role of metallic c ur r e n c y then,

cannot

for

b e c o m e

is

the m o r e

preponderant

t h r o u g h a sort of s p o n t a n e o u s d ev el op m en t, in the course of w h i c h m o n e y , m o r e a n d m o r e c o m p l e t e l y , r e a l i z e s its n a t u r e . R a t h e r , i n this case,

profound

transformations

w o u l d

have

to occur

in the

structure of o u r societies, i m p o s i n g a different s y s t e m o f circulation f r o m

the o n e

that

that D u r k h e i m

is c u r r e n t l y

grasps

the development

m o n e y

to paper

c h a n g e

of social structure e ns ui ng f r o m

functions. H e r e of m o n e y N o w ,

m o n e y

in use.

in relation to

Accordingly, of

m o n e y

w e

fro m

this d e v e l o p m e n t

can

say

fiduciary with

the

the increase of eco no mi c

w e f i n d h i s v i e w p o i n t f r o m w h i c h S i m m e l ’s t h e o r y

is c r i t i c i z e d . in his criticism t o w a r d

S i m m e l ’s m e t h o d o l o g y , D u r k h e i m

G e o r g

criticizes

“ Synthetic

A ccording

to

Part” of

D u r k h e i m ,

S i m m e l a n d

t h e l a t t e r ’s P h i l o s o p h i e

this

“Synthetic

137

É m i l e D u r k h e i m

Part”

des Geldes.

calls

for

“ even

clearer reservations” and, “here, ideas are often mutually attached b y

an

external

v i e w his

reason

rather than

a

l o g i c a l . ” 58

His

fundamental

is d i r e c t l y a n d i n t e n s i v e l y e x p r e s s e d i n t h i s p a s s a g e , i n w h i c h reasoning

mentioned

is

very

severe,

theory of m o n e y .

as

follows: S i m m e l

in

w h i c h

h e

as

is h i s c r i t i c i s m

W e

to

the above-

c a n s u m u p D u r k h e i m ’s c r i t i c i s m

in t h e “ P r e f a c e ” of his Philo s o ph i e d e s Geldes,

differentiates

philosophy

f r o m

individual

sciences,

said, “ R e p r e s e n t i n g a n d investigating p r e - c on d it io ns w i t h objective a n d

methodical

scend

nature,

philosophy

such pre-conditions. Only,

point of recognition appeal

to the

at w h i c h

D u r k h e i m

given

free reign here, a n d

very

F o r

high

our

said, o w n

part,

D u r k h e i m

to the

point

of

confess

riving

persists

f r o m with

each

D u r k h e i m losophy.

philosophy,

m a k e s A n d

the

the

rival in S i m m e l ,

a

under

thus

n o

rele­

spe cu la t io n (ce g e n r e

a de

in necessarily s u b ­

i n s c i e n c e . ” 60

T h e

because

so severely?

F i r s t o f all, S i m m e l

deriving of

latter

F o r

“ the

this fresh

nor

“ the

w e

m u s t

stands

f r o m

o n

S i m m e l

say

not

while

to understand did not

sociology

in

e s p e c i a l l y h i s p h i l o s o p h y o f life, reason

is

b e t w e e n

sociology

that D u r k h e i m

the circumstances

that

rationalism de ­

try

grasps

to

the v i e w ­

Spinozism,

methodic did

It s e e m s

their methodologies

rigid distinction third

are

not attach

t h a t t h e artist a ro us es ,

his viewpoint

other,

d o

offer u s neither

criticize S i m m e l

Cartesianism.

relation w i t h

t h e last

t h e scientist seeks.

relativism in

feelings

w e

r e a l i t y is e x p r e s s e d

f o r m e r ’s v i e w p o i n t . S e c o n d l y ,

along

that

bastard

are v e r y different;

methodic

D u r k h e i m the

w e

following reasons:

their viewpoints

personal

a s s e r t s t h a t it c a n

does D u r k h e i m

d u e

tran­

a n d

rigorous demonstrations hav e

living sensation of things”

W h y

authoritative decision

in art, b u t abstractly, a s

distinct ideas” after w h i c h be

a n

v a l u e to this style of

jective terms, as a n d

i n t h i s c a s e , it is a l w a y s

“ Imagination,

spéculation bâtard), w h e r e reason,

completely

u n p r o v a b l e a r i s e s i n u s . ” 59 P a y i n g a t t e n t i o n t o t h i s

view, vance.

itself c a n n o t

that they

w e r e

its

while

a n d

found

go

a

phi­ g oo d

of

the

138

G e o r g

s a m e very

S i m m e l

age and different

century.”

a n d É m i l e D ü r k h e i m

b o t h tried to rebuild standpoints in w h a t

Thi s

is

clear

f r o m

a science of sociology f r o m is c a l l e d “ t h e t u r n o f t h e

D u r k h e i m ’s

article,

“ Sociologie et

s o n d o m a i n e s c i e n t i f i c , ” o n w h i c h w e s h a l l m e n t i o n l a t e r . F o r all t h a t , it i s s t r a n g e t h a t S i m m e l d i d n o t r e f u t e D u r k h e i m a t all. Let

us

heim.

n o w turn

It m a y b e

confronted “ T h e

imagined

M a r x .

N u m b e r

to the views of socialism of S i m m e l a n d D u r k ­ In

f r o m their v ie ws of socialism h o w

t h e first p l a c e , S i m m e l

of M e m b e r s as Determining

of the G r o u p , ” translated n u m b e r

of the eighth Thi s

of Sociology.

by Albion

v o l u m e

is

the original

already

D u r k h e i m . view

of

mentioned,

Relying o n

socialism.

the Sociological F o r m

of

of

T h e A m e r i c a n Journal

the second

says,

“ T h e

small

group

viduals can obvious repays

and,

t h e latter b o o k

After

h e

w o r k

here, w e

finds socialism

w h a t

each

to him,

a large group,

of

a n d

w h a t

overlook

socialism,

reward,

can

is s u r e l y e q u a l l y

a n d

does

A s

w e

r e f e r t o S i m m e l ’s

only

for the

w h o l e

in quite

namely, be

fairness

realized best

important

a n d

small

in large groups,

control this t e n d e n c y .

so that c omparison however,

his

t h e f o r m e r article w a s c o m m e n t e d o n b y

inner tendency

the distribution of

chapter of

Determination of G ro up . ”

g r o u p s a n d r e c o g n i z e s t h a t it c a n n o t b e o r g a n i z e d he

they

t h e article,

S m a l l , i n t h e first a n d s e c o n d

(1902/03)

S o z iologie (1908), “ Q u a n t i t a t i v e

hav e

published

is

in

in a

that

indi­

It is h e r e q u i t e

with

w h a t

the

w h o l e

a n d a d j u s t m e n t a r e e a s y . ” 61 I n

t h e y a r e difficult, b e c a u s e o f t h e i n e v i t a b l e

d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n o f its m e m b e r s ,

that

is, o f

their functions a n d their

claims. Nevertheless, concerned, m e m b e r s .

the

m o r e

Therefore,

individuals to socialism

the closer

the

unity

of

a

group

is

articulate

m u s t

be

the specialization of

its

this

the w h o l e

feelings

the w h o l e

m u s t

increasingly

to t hem.

o f a l a r g e g r o u p ” i s p o s s i b l e , it w o u l d

est differentiation a m o n g entiation

specialization and

wide-spread

w o u l d a n d

extend

wishes.

B u t

its m e m b e r s . b e y o n d this

achievements, a m o n g rewards,

their w o u l d

A n d ,

bind

if “ t h e

require the sharp­

of course, this differ­

occupations m a k e

T h e n ,

and

comparisons

to

their a m o n g

a n d adjustments b et w e e n them,

ex-

G eo r g

tremely

difficult.

According

socialism

for

group

“the o n e

is

a small

to

g r o u p ”

that

S i m m e l

Simmel,

that

relies

is

o n

a n d

hence

it

possible.

complete

139

É m i l e D ü r k h e i m

is

F o r

only

“the

only a

small

systematization and

entire practicability.” A b o u t

this v i e w

o f s o c i a l i s m o f S i m m e l ’s , D u r k h e i m

in

the above-mentioned

as

Determining

“ Impossibility But

he

Sociological

that

he

conspicuously article. M r .

could

clear.

the eras of the

history other

L e

the

is

all s o r t s o f

socialism and work,

m a k e

as

N u m b e r

not

a

fro m

as

the

facts,

m e t h o d

b o r r o w e d

in

very

deals

b o o k

w a s

this it o c ­

f r o m

all

o f c o l l e c t i v e life.” 02 severely.

with

the

the doctrines of Saint-Simonians

socialisme (1928). T h i s

factor

n u m e r a t i n g rapidly, as

all t h e f o r m s

D u r k h e i m

follows : “O n e

numerical

the consistent

criticizes S i m m e l

hand,

of

writes:

in s m a l l circles.”

w h o l e

multitudinous

a n d

also notes

of M e m b e r s

of the G r o u p ” a n d

role

is c o n t e n t w i t h

also, D u r k h e i m

O n

“ T h e

F o r m

article

S u c h

S i m m e l

curs to him,

o n

for socialism to b e realized except

c r i t i c i z e s S i m m e l ’s

believed

H e r e

the

c o m m e n t

definition

of

in his p o s t h u m o u s

edited b y

his n e p h e w ,

M a r c e l M a u s s . A c c o r d i n g t o M a u s s w h o w r o t e its “ I n t r o d u c t i o n , ” it i s “ a n u n p u b l i s h e d w o r k , ” “ t h e f i r s t p a r t o f a h i s t o r y o f s o c i a l ­ ism,

d r a w n

given

at

u p

the

under

S e p t e m b e r

1895

D u r k h e i m

M a u s s

socialism f r o m the

the

Faculty

of

to M a y

for m 1896.

says,

of

Letters,

a

lecture.”

University

A b o u t

“ D u r k h e i m

scholar should look

of socialism” of

considered

the

a problem

it is a q u e s t i o n o f e x p l a i n i n g a n i d e o l o g y — to explain

constrained

a

a n d

M a r x ,

a n d

e co no mi c

that

f e w

m u s t

m e n

to advance

such

analyze

the

as a

“the doctrine

of

fact w h i c h

in sociology;

with­

for him,

t h e socialist i d e o l o g y — social

as Saint-Simon

Needless to say,

considered

doctrine

prejudice, a n d

a n d

n e w principles of morality

a c t i o n . ”63

D u r k h e i m

purely

it o n e

w a s from

“the study

u p o n coldly, w i t h o u t

t r e a t s it a s

lecture

Bordeaux,

a p u r e l y scientific poi nt of v i e w ,

o u t t a k i n g sides. H e a n d

Thi s of

here of

pressures

w h i c h

Fourier,

O w e n

a n d

o f political

M a u s s

socialism”

points out f r o m

“a

scientific p o i n t o f v i e w ” a n d a n a l y z e d t h e social facts w h i c h

produced

the

socialist ideology. M a u s s further believes that D u r k -

140

G e o r g S i m m e l

a n d

É m i l e D u r k h e i m

h e i m ’s l e c t u r e i s “ a m o d e l o f t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f s o c i o l o g i c a l a n d historical m e t h o d to the analysis of t h e c a u s e s w h i c h p r o d u c e d an

idea.” In defining

socialism at

the

beginning of

the First Part in his p o s t h u m o u s

work,

the

first c h a p t e r

D u r k h e i m

of

thinks that “ a

s c i e n c e i s a s t u d y t o r e c o g n i z e a n d , if p o s s i b l e , t o u n d e r s t a n d o n a d e t e r m i n a t e p or t i o n o f reality.” F o r D u r k h e i m , “ to describe a n d explain task

that w h i c h

is

of science, a n d

though

its final

however,

a n d

that w h i c h

that “ speculation o n

objective

is t o

attention to

or has

it h a s

it h a s

received

r e f l e c t i o n , it h a s

various itself.”

“ Yet,

b e t w e e n

Socialism, it i s a b o v e

societies,” n a m e l y , “ a C o n s e q u e n t l y , it p a y s to

“ that w h i c h

is

given f ro m

back

m o r e

“ a c e r t a i n scientific

services to social science

this science.

F o r

it h a s

s t i m u l a t e d scientific activity,

its h i s t o r y m i n g l e s

h o w

m o r e

can

o n e

a w a k e n e d

it h a s

us

provoked

m a n y

problems.

with

the history of sociology

fail t o n o t e

Accordingly,

the e n o r m o u s

disparity

the rare and m e a g e r deta socialism b or r o w s fro m sciences

the extent

of

the practical

are, nevertheless, the

complete h e i m

possible.

the future, a n d

b e ” than

a n d

r e s e a r c h e s , a n d it h a s p o s e d

“ in m a n y points,

w h i c h

its w o r k ,

is c l o s e l y c o n n e c t e d w i t h s c i e n c e . A c c o r d i n g

it h a s a f f e c t e d m o r e

tendency,” a n d

a n d

the unique

been.”

to D u r k h e i m ,

to

is

f u t u r e ” is n o t

of present “ a n ideal.” m u s t

b e e n ”

t h e m

toward

“ that w h i c h

H o w e v e r , socialism

than

m a k e

is o r i e n t e d c o m p l e t e l y

all “ a p l a n o f r e c o n s t r u c t i o n p r o g r a m m e o f c o l l e c t i v e life,” m o r e

has

conclusions

that

heart of the s y s te m?

it d r a w s ,

and

It a s p i r e s t o a

r e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e s o c i a l o r d e r . ” 64 S t a t i n g t h u s , D u r k ­

recognizes

that

historical

standpoint

E u r o p e a n

peoples,

transformed

it

is a b s o l u t e l y n e c e s s a r y

the to

m a n y

discover

these institutions a n d

institutions the

and

principal

practices.

to study

f ro m

practices

conditions

O n l y

w h e n

a of

w h i c h this h a s

b e e n m a d e c l e a r , it is p o s s i b l e t o a s k r a t i o n a l l y “ w h a t t h e s e i n ­ stitutions a n d practices h a v e to b e c o m e n o w a d a y s , u n d e r the present conditions of o u r collective existence.” But, h e t h a t “ all t h e s e

researches are

in t h e

diagnoses

infant stages as yet.”

G e o r g

After having given

tude that science permits however,

t o M a r x ’s

had

D a s

one

a n d

Kapital,

w e

in a

f e w

their

affirmations

arguments. establish than

T h e a

are

doctrine

that

reminded lines?

the only

atti­

this h e

statistical dealt

studies

that h a d

bee n

to

with

truth

solve there!

m a d e

of

is t h a t t h e facts to d o c u m e n t

except to give

they

w h a t

that a n entire theory

T h e

there

points

data,

necessary

are

Social­

w e r e

f o r m

to the

undertaken

previously conceived,

to

rather

t h e d o c t r i n e b e i n g w h i c h w o u l d b e a r e s u l t o f t h e r e s e a r c h . ”65

D u r k h e i m

gives

such

a

cutting

criticism

to the

scientific socialism, i n c l u d i n g t h e a u t h o r o f D a s a “passion”

he

finds that

cording to him, forces

says

b y theoreticians anxious

hardly

research

D u r k h e i m

him,

be

141

D u r k h e i m

cautiousness.”

studies w o u l d b e

observations assembled

a n d

“ W h a t

of the innumerable question

v a l u e is e s t a b l i s h e d

Émile

this attitude. W i t h

says,

w h a t

I n M a r x ’s C a p i t a l n e e d and

exist.” F o r

is “ m o d e s t y

not a ss u m e d

historical c o m p a r i s o n s , a n y

a n d

this d iagnosis to socialism,

that “ a scientific s o c i a l i s m c a n n o t ism,

S i m m e l

is

w h a t

w h i c h

brings

inspires

“ t h e thirst for m o r e

torments

“ Socialism

the

is n o t a

A n d

Kapital.

all t h e i r

systems.

forth these systems a n d m a k e s perfect justice,” “ the pity

m i s e r y o f the w o r k i n g class,” a n d w h i c h

theoreticians of A c ­ their

for the

“a v a g u e feeling for the trouble

contemporary

science, a

in

societies.”

sociology

D u r k h e i m

in miniature—

adds,

it i s a c r y

of grief, s o m e t i m e s o f a n g e r , u t t e r e d b y m e n w h o feel m o s t k e e n l y o u r c o l l e c t i v e a n x i e t y . ” 66

H e r e

of socialism.

H e

thus regards

furthermore,

as

“a

t h i n k s o f it a s W e

have

consider

social

just n o w

mentioned

this c o n n e c t i o n M a u s s to

D u r k h e i m ’s v i e w

the highest

“a

social fact,”

importance,”

and

the “object of science.”

socialism as “a

adhere

find directly

s o c i a l i s m itself a s

fact of

the

fact that D u r k h e i m

social fact”

of science.” Standing firmly o n to

w e

a n d

to m a k e

this p r e m i s e ,

(properly

so-called),

the “object

h e dealt with

s a y s , “ A l l h i s life D u r k h e i m

socialism

it

tried to

w a s

because

i t. I n

reluctant of

certain

f e a t u r e s o f t h i s m o v e m e n t : its v i o l e n t n a t u r e , its c l a s s c h a r a c t e r — m o r e

or

l e s s p u r e l y w o r k i n g m e n ’s — a n d

even

politician-like tone.

D u r k h e i m

t h e r e f o r e its p o l i t i c a l a n d

w a s p r o f o u n d l y o p p o s e d t o all

142

G e o r g

w a r s

S i m m e l

a n d

of class or

of the

w h o le

of

if t h e

latter h a d

É mi l e D u r k h e i m

nation.

H e

society

a n d

n u m b e r s

desired c ha ng e not of

a n d

only

f o r c e . ” 67

only

o n e

T o

for

the benefit

o f its p a r t s — e v e n

D u r k h e i m

w h o

thus

g r a s p e d socialism objectively a n d tried to c h a n g e society as a w h o l e , political r evolutions a n d p a r l a m e n t a r y e vo l u t i o n s s e e m e d to be H e

“ superficial,

therefore

expensive

always

a n d

resisted

rather theatrical t h a n

“ the

idea of submitting

serious.”

to

a

party

w i t h political discipline, specially a n international o n e . ” A c c o r d i n g to Mauss, the

m o r e

Dreyfus

First W o r l d a n y

hopes

ally.”

than

that, e v e n

affair” did n o t W a r ,

he

on w h a t

w a s

N am e l y ,

c o m r a d e

o n e

a n d

his opinion.

of the persons

moral E v e n

w h o

crisis of

during the

did

not

place

is c a l l e d “ w o r k i n g c l a s s o r g a n i z e d i n t e r n a t i o n ­

Consequently,

m e a n . ”

“ the social

c ha nge

h e

always

although

h e

Jean Jaurès, a n d

continued

to

“sympathized”

socialism, h e

be

in

with

“ the golden socialists,

never devoted

his

himself to

it. Judging S i m m e l

f r o m the

a n d

their o w n h e i m the

cuttingly

he

regarded

clearly

took

it b i t t e r l y . T h i s

u p

in this section,

confronted

a

S i m m e l ’s

this b o o k .

M a r x

Philosophie

T hi s

socialism only

large g r o u p ”

can be

from

is c l e a r f r o m

k n o w n

as impossible,

f r o m

M a r x ’s l a b o r t h e o r y

des Geldes,

from

in a small g ro up

socialism as “ a social fact” a n d

“object of science” exclusively

S i m m e l

mentioned

in spite of the c i r c u m s t a n c e that D u r k ­

found

“ socialism in

D u r k h e i m

h a d

criticized

facts that S i m m e l

it t h e

both

set s o m e value o n

considered

all,

D u r k h e i m

points of view,

m o s t

though

facts that w e h a v e

a n d

the paradoxical

value

that

tried to m a k e

this v i e w p o i n t . of

and

a n d

A b o v e

criticized

logic w h i c h w e c a n

f i n d i n t h e f o l l o w i n g p a s s a g e : “ It is a f a l l a c y t o r e v e r s e t h e p o s t u ­ l a t e t h a t is p e r h a p s

ethically g r o u n d a b l e in the s ta t e m e n t

v a l u e is l a b o r ’ i n t o t h e v a l u e . ” 68 T h i s

A s

w e w e

h av e have

search m a d e

‘ a l l l a b o r i s v a l u e , ’ t h a t is, o f e q u a l

p a s s a g e o f S i m m e l ’s a g r e e s w i t h D u r k h e i m ’s p a s s a g e

of “a n entire theory w h i c h

one

t h a t ‘ all

b y

o f v a l u e is e s t a b l i s h e d t h e r e i n a f e w

mentioned already

lines,”

before.

mentioned,

D u r k h e i m

considered

the re­

t h e t h e o r e t i c i a n s o f scientific s o c i a l i s m a s “ u n d e r -

G e o r g

taken a n d

to establish

S i m m e l

a doctrine that they

criticized that this d o c t r i n e w a s

the other hand, (2nd

philosophie

present

although

“ the

ed.,

merit

fundamental

of

that historical

É mi l e

143

D ü r k h e i m

h a d previously conceived”

not

a result of research. O n

in his b o o k D i e P r o b l e m e d e r Geschichts­

revised,

1905)

historical

principle

a n d

of

S i m m e l

materialism”

scientific

w h i c h

is k n o w n

for

the

forms

the

criticism

w a s

“ a heuristic principle”

with

socialism,

materialism confused

“ a constitutive one.” T h i s

recognized

f ro m

his

the following passage:

“ Historical materialism confuses... a principle w h i c h h a s a heuristic meaning, a

as applied

constitutive

the

one

facts d e v e l o p

first,

w h i c h f ro m

as

it w e r e ,

fro m

o n

trial e v e r y w h e r e ,

the beginning

with

is f i x e d a n d

itself.”69 C o n s e q u e n t l y ,

S i m m e l ’s

m a k e s

criticism

a g a i n s t scientific s o c i a l i s m o r historical m a t e r i a l i s m h a s s o m e t h i n g to d o

with

D u r k h e i m ’s c r i t i c i s m a g a i n s t it.

6. Concl u s i o n A s

w e

m e r s

have

article of

i n L ’A n n é e Ersten

12, ed

“Ü b e r

Deutschen

il s u o

räumliche

also w r o t e

D u r k h e i m

c o m m e n t e d

Projektionen

1904)

a n d

in the

Soziologentages

h e

dominio

a n d

mentioned,

s o c i o l o g i q u e (vol. 7,

1913), a n d

1900)

already

o n

Also

like to take u p

these c o m m e n t s .

a n d

S i m m e l ’s “ Ü b e r chapter

e xa m i n e

a part of (“ D e r

R a u m

the

u n d

in question

is t o d e t e r m i n e

of a g r o u p

problems

group of

so

affects a

its

relation of

is

can

find

I w o u l d

in

the

O r d n u n g e n

der

saying:

in w h i c h

it w e r e ,

a s p e c t . ” 70 group

treated

S o z i o l o g i e (1908).

begins b y

the w a y

are projected, as

a n d

such

sociologia

w e

D u r k h e i m ,

die räumlichen

this article, D u r k h e i m

this

a n d

here

contents w h i c h

m en t i n g o n

by

r e p o r t (vol.

r ä u m l i c h e Projektionen socialer F o r m e n ” (1903)

Gesellschaft”) of his later great b o o k ,

forms

annual

des

scientifico” in Ri vi s t a italiana d i sociologia (IV, S i m m e l

ninth

F o r m e n ”

V e r h a n d l u n g e n

s a m e

the point of contact b et w e e n

to

socialer

the Italian article of “ L a

c r i t i c i z e d S i m m e l ’s s o c i o l o g y .

corresponds

o n S i m ­

a n d

o n A n d

In

“ T h e

c o m ­ point

social forces a n d the space occupied he

classifies

the

space,

e x a m i n e d

by

144

G e o r g

Simmel,

S i m m e l

a n d

into the

É m i l e D u r k h e i m

following

four categories a n d

summarizes

them.

F i r s t o f all, t h e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n , t h r o u g h w h i c h s o c i e t i e s p a s s f r o m t h e principle of f a m i l y into a p r o p e r l y political o r g a n i z a t i o n a n d

f o r m

a

so-called

state, is o f t e n a c c o m p a n i e d

b y the differen­

tiation of g r o u p s

a c c o r d i n g to a territorial base. “ In s u c h

social f r a m e s

r e g i o n s (les districts), n o t

races

to

n e w - b o r n

more.

are

According

the author,

it

is

the

substitutes this n e w

principle for the old principle of

cause

still

it

facilitates

D u r k h e i m

recognizes

attaches

m o r e

the

political

the opinion of "the

importance

to

the

unity

case,

state

that

family,

of

author,”

social f r a m e

a

(les g e n t e s ) a n y be­

s o c i e t y . ” 71

Simmel,

of the region

w h o

a n d

c o n ­

siders that the principle of family declines w ith the formation state a n d

“ t h e p o l i t i c a l u n i t y o f s o c i e t y ” is e s t a b l i s h e d . S e c o n d l y ,

“ the sovereignty of w h i c h

of a chief,”

a group

established o n

is

the

territory.

of the

former. Moreover, have as

the

seat

"secondary g r o u p ” a

easily

N am e l y ,

a

of

the

latter

F o r

centralized

the individuals the sovereignty is

translation

of territorial s o v e r ­ w h e n

in the center power.

secondaire),

a

example,

c i t y is e r e c t e d

this

on

b e c o m e s

the different f o r m s

(le g r o u p e

club, a r e g i m e n t a n d m a k i n g

established

various spatial expressions.

strong centralization,

territory,

once

composed,

eignty is a

such

as

“a

“building”

form.

to w h a t

appropriate

N am e l y ,

these

people

After D u r k h e i m

the each

family,

a

a university,” t e n d s to t a k e a spatial f o r m b y

different social g r o u p s

unique

there of

Thirdly,

to

b e c o m e

an

element

p r o p e r c h a r a c t e r . F o u r t h l y , “ t h e s p a c e ” (l’e s p a c e ) w h i c h t w o

of

it

takes, as a is

a n d

result of

of

separates

this situation,

the frontier w h i c h

its

varies

a

according

their relationships are.

thus s um ma ri z ed

S i m m e l ’s v i e w s , h e g i v e s t h e

following j u d g m e n t

o n t h e s e v i e w s . “ T h e flexibility o f spirit w i t h

w h i c h

m o v e s

M r .

passing

S i m m e l

fro m

o n e

subject

n e x t idea, interests a b o u t concepts A n d m e r c y

w h i c h

although

h e

within

into another, w h i c h

e mploys

he

have

these concepts h av e

of development,”

the questions

they

f ro m

that

o n e

writes.

But,

generally

n o

he

idea

as a

treats, into the

result, t h e

p r e c i s e s e n s e . ”72

“ a n e x c e s s i v e elasticity at t h e

“h av e

generally n o

precise sense.”

G e o r g S i m m e l

Thus,

D u r k h e i m

does

not

see h o w

territorial s o v e r e i g n t y ” b y F o r

example,

the

a n d

Émile

’’t h e p o l i t i c a l p r i n c i p l e o f t h e

itself i m p l i c a t e s s p a t i a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n s .

fact that

a

king

is

considered

the

territory d o e s n o t affect the constitution o r t h e f o r m s “ W e

can

district

say

is

the

a

145

D u r k h e i m

s a m e

thing

conventional,

about

divisions

a

of territory.

into

ideal circumscription,

ruler of districts. A

w h i c h

is

only

m o s t accessorily spatial, in s o far a s w e trace b o u n d a r i e s o r w e e r e c t m i l e s t o n e s , i n o r d e r t o d i s t i n g u i s h b o r d e r i n g d i s t r i c t s . ” 73 I n this w a y ,

D u r k h e i m

t h i n k o f i t, h e

A s

asserts that Friedrich

(1897),

G e o g r a p h i e

m o r e

c r i t i c i z e s S i m m e l ’s v i e w s s e v e r e l y . W h e n treats

“ the

Ratzel,

w h o l e

part

“extensively and

profoundly” than

w e

mentioned,

hav e

already

w e

author of Politische relating

to frontiers”

Simmel.

D u r k h e i m

c o m m e n t e d

o n

V e r ­

h a n d l u n g e n d e s E r s t e n D e u t s c h e n S o z i o l o g e n t a g e s (1911), in L ' A n n é e

(vol. 12,

sociologique

first

meeting

1910.”

But,

Soziologie days for

of

Berlin.

savants,

this

as

the

had

October

congress first

meeting

1910,

he

mistakes

the others,

a lecture

this lecture

h e

writes that

in Berlin

Deutsche

19-22,

Kantorowicz a n d gave

of

Frankfort

it a s i d e ,

he

place

in

Ferdinand

w e

took

held

as

mel, w h i c h

In his c o m m e n t

been

Setting

such

1913).

in O c t o b e r

Gesellschaft

the

Main,

Frankfort

deals

Tönnies,

o n

o n

with

the

views

Ernst

Tröltsch,

a n d h e deals also with

t h e first d a y

corresponds

keit”) in his later b o o k ,

of the

roughly

to

meeting.

the

G r u n d f r a g e n

for

für four

the

M a i n

of

m a n y

H e r m a n n

those of S i m ­

find in “ Soziologie d e r Geselligkeit,” o n o n

"the

T h e

w h i c h

he

contents of

t h i r d c h a p t e r (“ G e s e l l i g ­ S o z i o l o g i e (1917).

d e r

D u r k h e i m ’s a p p r a i s a l o f t h i s “ S o z i o l o g i e d e r G e s e l l i g k e i t ” i s a s follows: “M r .

S i m m e l ’s r e p o r t i s d e d i c a t e d

Various

sociabilité.

interests,

political,

to L a sociologie d e

economic,

aesthetic, give birth to various kinds of groups. In i n t e r e s t s , it i s i m p o r t a n t t o d i s t i n g u i s h the group bility.

itself a n d

T h e

pleasure

conditions

w h i c h

feeling of satisfaction m a y professional

differences,

be

but,

in

a

are

a

so-called

form.

necessary

in

the

s a m e

This order

of

is s o c i a ­ that

are effacement

time

a n d

regard to these

feeling of e n j o y m e n t

a t its m a x i m u m at

religious

la

attenuation

this of of

146

G e o r g

S i m m e l a n d

Êntile D u r k h e i m

personal differences,

tact,

equality

received

face contacts, ‘played ’ d em oc ra c y, analyzes notes

with w ell-known

the

o n e

m u s t

m e n t

o n

be

and

a w a r e

sets

that

S i m m e r s

in individual

t h a t is w h a t

face to

M r . S i m m e l

s u g g e s t i v e a c u t e n e s s . ” 74 H e r e D u r k h e i m

“suggestive acuteness”

a n a l y z i n g sociability

etc.— of

S i m m e l

a high

w h o

value

o n

s h o w e d

it i n

this analysis,

it i s a s d i f f e r e n t f r o m

so

his cutting c o m ­

a b o v e - m e n t i o n e d a r t i c l e , a s l i g h t is f r o m

dark­

ness. P r i o r t o this, in 1 9 0 0 sociologia

ed

il s u o d o m i n i o

sociologia and,

presented

t h a t o f S i m m e l ’s . of

“ D a s

formes

In

P r o b l e m

to take u p article

w a s

pendix of

m e l

as

book.

because

v a

m a d e the

di

(1894), a n d

of “ C o m m e n t

w h i c h

he

w h i c h F o r

les

himself trans­ w e

are going

that reason, this

original

w a s

missing

B u t g r a d u a l l y it b e c a m e k n o w n , in the year

1953, as a n (1953),

la sociologie f r ançaise?

ap ­

written

Quvillier.

t r a n s l a t i o n , first o f all, D u r k h e i m c o n s i d e r s S i m ­ w h o

attempts to establish

barely b e g u n a

italiana

t o S i m m e l ’s a r t i c l e s

its F r e n c h

sociologist A r m a n d

“ L a

of s ociology a n d criticized

in F rench.

in French.

Oil

the person has

Rivista

article of D u r k h e i m

the encyclopedic a n d

w h i c h has

a

in

referred

translation appeared

this F r e n c h

f r o m

of

Thi s

not noted,

F re nc h

In

view

Sociologie”

it w a s u n r e a d a b l e

a

his o w n

this article h e

der

t h e Italian article,

scientifico,”

w a s originally written

a f t e r its F r e n c h by

w rote

sociales se m a i n t i e n n e n t ” (1898),

lated into F rench.

and

D u r k h e i m

notable,

a n d

appreciates

a l m o s t violent,

subject matter of

science

different

s y n t h e t i c s o c i o l o g y , t h a t is, “ a s c i e n c e

to exist”

an

a

sociology.”

that

“S i m m e l

effort to trace the

A n d

he

finds

this

limits

kind

of

e f f o r t o n S i m m e l ’s p a r t , i n t h e t w o a b o v e - m e n t i o n e d a r t i c l e s t r a n s ­ lated

into F r e n c h

e x a m i n e

and,

b y

r e f er ri n g t o t h e s e articles, h e

tries to

S i m m e l ’s s o c i o l o g y .

D u r k h e i m genious.

d e s c r i b e s S i m m e l ’s i n v e s t i g a t i o n s

H o w e v e r ,

after

h e

considered

“ it

as

subtle

impossible

a n d to

in­ trace

the m a i n

d i v i s i o n s o f o u r s c i e n c e a s S i m m e l u n d e r s t a n d s it i n a n

objective

m a n n e r , ”

a m o n g

the questions

h e

says, to

“N o

w h i c h

connection S i m m e l

d r a w s

can the

be

discovered attention

of

G e o r g S i m m e l a n d

sociologists;

they are

topics of meditation

to a n integral scientific s y s t e m .

É mi l e

147

D u r k h e i m

that have

n o

relation

I n a d d i t i o n , S i m m e l ’s p r o o f s g e n e r ­

ally consist o n l y o f e x p l a n a t i o n s b y e x a m p l e s ; s o m e facts, b o r r o w e d f r o m t h e m o s t d i s p a r a t e fields, a r e cited, b u t by

critical analysis,

and

they are not preceded

t h e y often offer

us

n o

a s s e s s t h e i r v a l u e . ” 75 D u r k h e i m s e t s t h u s a h i g h

idea of

h o w

to

v a l u e o n S i m m e l ’s

sociological investigations, b u t h e criticizes t h e sociological m e t h o d on

w h i c h

they

are made.

H e n c e

merit

the n a m e

from

“philosophical variation”

chosen

m o r e

single w a y

or

w h i c h

S i m m e r s

w e

society

sociales

have

there

d ’e t r e )

D u r k h e i m

to

the

leanings of

to pose

the

problem

logical

s o l u t i o n ”—

fro m

problem, his

“the

social

mentioned, social

“ the social former

D u r k h e i m

w h i c h

social it

his

a n d

sociology

general

he

he

v i e w ­

consists

sociology,

of and

(les

manières

m o d e s

of

d o i n g ”

(les

manières

p h e n o m e n a

has

for

to think sets

up

its o b j e c t . that

“ the science that has

material

f o r m s of society.” A n d

viewpoint

says,

taking

that

term f o r m

“ after

general

w h i c h

S i m m e l ’s

opinion

(le m o t f o r m e )

w h o the

which,

sociology

as

the study holds

other used

h a s o n l y a m e t a p h o r i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e , is h e r e e m p l o y e d has

of society.”

for his o w n

It m a y

is u n d e r s t o o d

be by

task “the study

noted S i m m e l

here and

as

as

a

in opposition to

f o r its o b j e c t

D u r k h e i m

But,

analysis,

Especially, c o n c e r n ­

considers this science,

as

term f o r m

criticizes

being”

is m o r p h o l o g i c a l

Simmel,

forms

the

of

principle

for synthesis,”

he

is

w a y s

physiology

his

ing social m o r p h o l o g y ,

s e n s e , ” 76 a n d

in a

morphological

science w h i c h synthesizes particular sciences.

“the

this

a

h a s f o r its o b j e c t , a n d t h e l a t t e r is p h y s i o l o g i c a l

m a k e s

t h e r e is n e e d

a

social p h y s i o l o g y

a n d

social m o r p h o l o g y

is

s o c i a l life,

himself poses.

already

are

aspects of

according

thus his o w n

s o c i a l e s d e faire). T h e p h e n o m e n a

d r a w

of sociology

social m o r p h o l o g y , in

to

posed

view

A s

us

certain

is n e e d e d

D u r k h e i m

After having point.

“W h a t

permits

problem

o n

less at r a n d o m

individual. that

h e asserts that, “ for s o c i o l o g y to

o f a s c i e n c e , ” it m u s t b e s o m e t h i n g q u i t e d i f f e r e n t

that o n e

fast to this w a y

around,

b y

Simmel,

i n its p r o p e r

of the a n d

D u r k h e i m

of the

material the

in

s a m e

the t w o

148

G e o r g S i m m e l

a n d

É m i l e D u r k h e i m

quite different senses. A s

w e h a v e m e n t i o n e d in t h e b e g i n n i n g of this section, t h e c o m ­

parative study of S i m m e l i a n

sociology a n d D u r k h e i m i a n

sociology

h a s n o t b e e n m a d e s o m u c h of until n o w . In v i e w of s u c h c i r c u m ­ stances of study, w e h a v e h e r e a t t e m p t e d to m a k e , w i t h the b ac kg ro u nd

of

the

relation

b e t w e e n

S i m m e l

a n d

D u r k h e i m

as

c o n t e m p o r a r i e s , the c o m p a r a t i v e s t u d y of their sociological theories. A s

everybody

knows,

the

related

to eac h

other.

outline of the difference a n d Firstly,

about

methodic stood

S i m m e l ’s

rationalism.

the position

nected

with

w e of

affirmed that his

that

his

w h o

holds

rationalism

p hysics” of C o m t e Cartesianism.

In

I w o u l d

theories

already so

and his

case,

A s

it m a y

the

has

been

noted

S i m m e l

closely c o n ­

m u c h

of

inter­

principle of recog­ O n

the contrary,

rationalism,

f ro m be

D u r k h e i m ’s

is

m a d e

that of Spinozism.

Spencer.

a n d

mentioned,

“ relativism as a

different

have

like to give the

w h i c h

he

fast to m e t h o d i c w a s

that w e

of their views.

relativism life,

to m e

relativism

have

methodic

n i t i o n , ” a f t e r all, a p p r o a c h e s Durkheim,

So,

agreement

his philosophy

actions and

seems

methodic

A s

of

it

sociological

exhausted the principal points of the v i e w s of b o t h of t h e m are

But

their

nearly they

fields.

of

extremely

as

wide

contents

cover

emphasized

“ positivistic stated, that

m e t a ­

it l e a d s t o

his m e t h o d

is

c o n s i d e r e d i n d e p e n d e n t o f a l l s o r t s o f p h i l o s o p h y . T o p u t it d i r e c t l y , therefore, b e t w e e n

there the

positions, t w o ;

both

methods.

is t h e o p p o s i t i o n o f S p i n o z i s m

two.

there

H o w e v e r , is

of t h e m T o

the

in spite of

following

c o m m o n

grasp society through

repeat,

this

in sociological

a n d

Cartesianism

difference

feature

b e t w e e n

their o w n

investigations

in their the

comparative S i m m e l

finds

t w o c o u r s e s : first, t o “ f o l l o w t h e l o n g i t u d i a l d i r e c t i o n o f a p a r t i c u l a r d e v e l o p m e n t ”; a n d second, lar d e v e l o p m e n t s , ” a n d m e t h o d a n d be

in w h i c h

the

to “ lay a cross-section t h r o u g h particu­

he attaches importance

cross-section consisting of the vertical axis

t h e h o r i z o n t a l a x i s is u s e d w i t h called

“ a great master

social recognitions. O n

to the comparative

the

skill. H e n c e S i m m e l

of cross-section”

w h o m a y

unites historical a n d

other hand, D u r k h e i m

considers

“ the

G e o r g

S i m m e l

a n d

É m i l e

149

D u r k h e i m

c o p m a r a t i v e m e t h o d ” as “ the p r e - e m i n e n t i n s t r u m e n t of sociological m e t h o d ” and, in this connection, h e regards “ the m e t h o d comitant

variations” as “ the p r e - e m i n e n t instrument of sociological

investigation.”

In his case,

“ the comparative c o m i n g

it

is

m e t h o d ” alone

w o r t h y

of

special

is t a k e n a s

notice

that

the only m e t h o d

be ­

to sociology.

Secondly, about the systematization of sociology. to say

that S i m m e l

considered D u r k h e i m

advocated formal

“ the study

of

the

H e r e

It is n e e d l e s s

sociology a n d that D u r k h e i m

material

forms

of

society.”

term f o r m ” e m p l o y e d

tried to u s e “ the

its p r o p e r s e n s e . ” t w o

of c o n ­

w e

m a y

find

b y S i m m e l

the difference

s c h o l a r ’s s o c i o l o g i c a l s t a n d p o i n t s .

But

both

A n d “ in

b e t w e e n

hav e

the

a c o m m o n

feature in that they established a

microscopic sociology w h i c h

quite different f r o m

sociology such as

Spencerian m a y

encyclopedic

o v e r c o m e

besides

a macroscopic a n d

t h e difficulties o f

the pure

or formal

w h o l e

parts.

system

O n

the

D u r k h e i m saying

i n o r d e r t h a t it

set u p

Moreover, general and

t w o parts of sociology a n d constructed

sociologies

other hand,

also built s u c h

morphology, out

of

the Comtian-

t h e latter sociology.

sociology, S i m m e l

philosophical sociologies as the

synthetic sociology

is

w h i c h

dealing a

with

system

consists social

w h i c h

of

these

facts

three

objectively,

is c o m p o s e d

of social

s o c i a l p h y s i o l o g y a n d g e n e r a l s o c i o l o g y . It g o e s w i t h ­ that their sociologies differ in their c ontents. But,

from

the viewpoint of the intention to systematize sociology, both have this in c o m m o n . W h e n

w e

It is k n o w n

t h i n k o f it, S i m m e l that h e

wrote

that I shall die w i t h o u t he

expected

m a n y

intention w h a t e v e r f o r m e d

in his

a

“ spiritual heir.”

" p o s t h u m o u s diary,” as “o n e

heirs.” H e n c e

of forming

school

a

“I k n o w

s p i r i t u a l h e i r s ( a n d it i s g o o d s o ) . ” 7 7 A n d

t h a t h i s e s t a t e is s u c h

tributed a m o n g h e i m

did not h av e

a

w h i c h

it i s n a t u r a l t h a t h e

school.

intentionally.

of cash

O n

T h i s

the contrary, is

called

is d i s ­ h a d

n o

D u r k ­

“ the Durk-

heimian school” or “ the F r e n c h school of sociology.” T h e following w e l l - k n o w n Mauss,

Henri

savants Hubert,

belong

to

this

school,

D u r k h e i m ’s

n e p h e w

M a r c e l G r a n e t , in t h e s ociology o f religion,

150

G e o r g

S i m m e l

a n d

Paul Fauconnet,

É m i l e D ü r k h e i m

in the

sociology of moral, G e o r g e s

Davy,

in the

sociology of law, François S i m i a n d a n d M a u ri ce H albwachs,

in the

sociology of e c o n o m y , guage,

Halbwachs,

there w a s guishes

A ntoine

in the sociology

a school

or not forms

D u r k h e i m

from

Thirdly, about

Meillet,

in

the sociology

of knowledge.

of

Thus,

lan­

whether

o n e of the features w h i c h

distin­

Simmel.

the attempt at a n establishment of the sociology

o f r e l i g i o n . S i m m e l a n d D u r k h e i m , a s e a r l y a s t h e 1 8 9 0 ’s , h a d i n t e r ­ est in the sociology of religion a n d p r e s e n t e d S i m m e l ’s c a s e , r e l i g i o n h a d all h i s life, a n d

it w a s

e x a m i n e d

the sociology of religion the

philosophy

the

religion of primitive

sociology of

religion

with

namely, grasps

moral

wanting them,

been

independent of

religion,

the

so

with

i n D u r k h e i m ’s c a s e , kept in m in d,

so the

the philosophy

of

re­

t h e priest in particular,

the differentiation a n d

high

as closely c onnected

the contrary,

priesthood

In

b e t w e e n secular

the

religious

status

appeared

the secularization o f religion. I n striking contrast to S i m m e l ,

D u r k h e i m or a

exclusively as

regarded

views.

at the center of interest

the priesthood or

that

the

been

societies h a d

w a s

with

considers

status,

w a s

o f religion. O n

ligion. In d e a l i n g S i m m e l

always

their o w n

priests

a n d

believers

as m e m b e r s

of

c o m m u n i t y a n d c onsiders that this c h u r c h

in

magic.

If this d i f f e r e n c e

it is t h a t t h e

former

devotes

in

views

himself to

a

is n o r m a l l y

appears the

church between

study

of high

religion, a n d t h e latter k e e p s religion o f p r i m i t i v e societies in m i n d . A n d i n S i m m e l t h e r e is t h e p h i l o s o p h i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n of religion

in w h i c h religion, n a m e l y , “ t h e subjective attitude of m a n ”

is r e g a r d e d a s

m a d e

the sociological lation

a m o n g

ological

religiosity a n d

viewpoint O n

m e n . "

viewpoint

“obligatory”

b y

a n d

w h i c h

w h i c h its

h e

origin

viewpoints

in c o n s i d e r i n g

religion

they

in c o m m o n

that

hav e

sociologically.

is

It is c e r t a i n

s o c i o l o g i c a l l y , if a n y t h i n g ,

D u r k h e i m

considers in

has

t h e r e is

Their

thus

different.

of

that S i m m e l

“a re­

the

soci­

religious belief

society.

are

each

time

b e l i e f is t a k e n a s

the contrary,

f r o m finds

fro m

at the s a m e

t h e m h a d

a little e a r l i e r t h a n

sociological But

considers dealt

as

with

Durkheim,

w h a t

religion religion so w e

G e o r g S i m m e l

can

regard

h i m

Fourthly,

as a

about

a n d

151

É m i l e D u r k h e i m

p r e c u r s o r o f t h e s o c i o l o g y o f religion.

the

confrontation

with

M a r x .

It

is

without

q u e s t i o n t h a t S i m m e l ’s P h i l o s o p h i e d e s G e l d e s w a s w r i t t e n , b e a r i n g M a r x ’s D a s i t.

Also,

with

w e

the

have

already

intention

materialism.” this

to

A n d

Philosophie des

refuses

in m i n d ,

Kapital

f r o m

a

pointed

out

that

w rote

this b o o k

“ construct a

n e w

storey beneath

historical

while D u r k h e i m a n d

Geldes

sense of opposition toward

speculation,

finds he

cuttingly

i n it

S i m m e l

finds socialism

only

considers

“socialism

“ socialism

of a small g r o u p ”

attention m a k e

in

a

to this respect,

“ the

role of the

criticizes

“ bastard

a

is “ i n teresting,

perfect small

large g r o u p ” he

it

as

possible.

group,

and

a n d

only

D u r k h e i m

pays

impossible W h i l e

criticizes that S i m m e l

numerical

a n d

both S i m m e l a n d D u r k h e i m v i e w s of socialism. First of

in

as

S i m m e l ’s

speculation”

nevertheless says

a n d in places, suggestive.” Further, confronted M a r x t h r o u g h their o w n all,

h e

factor”

w h o

tries to

not

d e m o n ­

clear does

strate this role in “ a consistent m e t h o d . ” Besides, S i m m e l a p p r e c i ­ ated

for the present “ the m e r i t of historical m a t e r i a l i s m ”

forms

t h e f u n d a m e n t a l principle o f scientific socialism,

not

in a g r e e m e n t

w i t h this. O n

ed

socialism as “a

it

the “ object of science,”

the other hand,

social fact” a n d but

he

points out that “a n entire theory

theory

as

this

of value

in

in

S i m m e F s

materialism,

roughly

D u r k h e i m regard­

it n e c e s s a r y

disliked

c o n s e n t i n g t o i t.

of value

to m a k e H e

is e s t a b l i s h e d t h e r e (in

c a n find nearly

severe criticism

his Philosophie des Geldes,

the criticisms of both of t h e m

w hich he w a s

thought

M a r x ’s D a s K a p i t a l ) i n a f e w l i n e s . ” W e indication

but

of so

the s a m e

M a r x ’s l a b o r in

this respect

o n scientific s o c i a l i s m o r historical

speaking, coincide with each

other.

Finally, w h a t gives u s a n intense i mpression t h r o u g h o u r con si d ­ eration there

about w a s

toward

the

only

relation b e t w e e n a

cism

or appraisal,

that

h e

Simmel,

one-sided

the former. did n o

not doubt,

S i m m e l but

it

S i m m e l

criticism mus t

is

strange

refute D u r k h e i m considered

h av e

or

a n d D u r k h e i m appraisal

k n o w n a n d

a t all.

refutation

the

latter

a b o u t s u c h a criti­

b e y o n d W e

of

is t h a t

m a y

comprehension p r e s u m e

that

as quite inconsequential

152

G e o r g S i m m e l

a n d

a n d

tried to g o

sociology

his w a y .

a n d

T h e a

at

the University

of

Strasbourg,

f ro m

h e died just prior to t he e n d of the First W o r l d

location of his university,

of G e r m a n y b e c a m e

In this connection, h e tau gh t philosophy,

ped ag og y

1 9 1 4 to 1918, a n d W a r .

É m i l e D ü r k h e i m

after the w a r b e t w e e n

w h i c h

h a d

been

a

Prussia a n d France,

territory of F r a n c e b e c a u s e of

territory

n o w again

the defeat of G e r m a n y .

I r o n i c a l l y , it w a s a l e a d e r o f “ t h e D u r k h e i m i a n s c h o o l , ” H a l b w a c h s , w h o

taught

bourg

sociology

w h i c h

w a s

a n d

p e d a g og y

rebuilt b y

the

at

Fre nc h

the University

of Stras­

g o v e r n m e n t

1 9 1 9 . 78

in

Notes 1.

O f

the

fact that D u r k h e i m

letter to B o u g l é , S e e 2.

A .

3.

C.

96,

also S.

L uk e s,

Fouillée,

L e

3rd ed., Bouglé,

ed.,

translated this article of S i m m e l ,

1897, in É.

É m i l e D u r k h e i m ,

m o u v e m e n t

1920, p.

revised,

1912,

p. 43.

M o r e o v e r ,

science” (une

science sociale) w h i c h

Bouglé,

5.

H .

Bouglé,

influence of

h e

D u r k h e i m

D u r k h e i m ’s y e a r s o f In

S i m m e l

Giddens,

b e as

É.

r e m e m b e r e d

“ social

proposed

18

forms,

1978,

pp. “ L a

1925,

Bouglé

(«formes as

their

school.

1907, 5 th ed.,

H i s Sociology,

D u r k h e i m ,

1896, 3rd

that "a

so­

social

effect

a n d

I n this respect, pp. 3-32.

p. 44.

Allemagne,

a n d

f o r m s ” sociology

o bs e rv e s “ social

1939, 2 n d ed., 1961,

a pp r en t i c e s h i p , cf. also G .

D u r k h e i m ,

thi9 respect, see

m on d e,

L e conflit d e s m é t h o d e s ,

m a y

a n d

Q u'est ce q u e la sociologie?

Alpert, É m i l e

his

p. 413.

1973, p. 404.

W o r k ,

b elonged to the D u r k h e i m i a n

L e s sciences sociales e n

p. 7 ; A .

it

“relationships linking individuals”

their cause,” t h o u g h

see

1975,

232.

the

cf. C .

H i s Life a n d

Textes, 2,

positiviste et la conception sociologique d u

ciales») u n d e r

4.

D u r k h e i m ,

L e s sciences sociales e n A l l e m a g n e .

considered

6.

himself

25. O c t o b e r

D a v y ,

p. 32.

O f 1919,

É m i l e D u r k h e i m ,

11-14. science positive d e

la m o r a l e

e n

Alle­

m a g n e , " R e v u e philosophique, 24, 1 8 8 7 ; “ L a p h i l o s o p h i e d a n s les universités alle­ m a n d e s , "

R e v u e

é c o n o m i q u e 7.

In this É m i l e f ü r

d e

international

M .

respect, D u r k h e i m ,

Gesetsgebung,

1898.

see G .

S i m m e l ,

l'Enseignement,

u n d

“ L ' A n n é e

tou c he s o n

excellent article o n lation of

the

the the

the

to the readers of

P r e m i è r e

t w o

pages,

année, i m

in

significance of

L ’A n n é e

point

a nn u al

that

prohibition of

r e p o r t e r ’s s t u d y the

o n

the

1887 ;

Sociologique,

Volkswirtschaft

I n c i d e n t a l l y , t h i s is less t h a n

D u r k h e i m ,

13,

d ' é c o n o m i e politique, 2,

Professor in B ordeaux, V e r w a l t u n g

after hav i ng alluded to

k n o w n

d e

Schâffle," R e v u e

this

incest a n d

w h i c h

p r o g r a m m e

hera us g eg e be n Reich,

S i m m e l ,

its g r o u n d s ,

“the a n d

social

X XI I ,

h ow e v e r ,

f o u n d e d

sociologique,

contains

1045.)

v o n

1896/97," Jahrbuch

Deutschen

self-preservation of

a n n u a l . ” ( Cf . ibid., p .

“L e

1888.

by

publisher's the

group,

trans­ well-

G e o r g S i m m e l

8.

É.

D u r k h e i m ,

9.

A .

M a m e l e t ,

D e L e

a n d

É m i l e

t r a v a i l social, 1 8 9 3 , 5 t h

la division d u

relativisme philosophique chez

G e o r g

153

D u r k h e i m

ed,,

1926, p. 9. 1914,

S i m m e l ,

pp.

154-

155. 10.

S o

far as I k n o w ,

m e l " H .

w e

(in J a p a n e s e ,

M or i ,

h a v e only the following : K . O d a k a ,

G r e a t B o o k s at

Sociological Analysis (in J ap a ne s e,

(in J apanese,

D u r k h e i m

“ D u r k h e i m

1969),

H . N a k a ,

Social T h e o r y o f

1979).

11.

G .

S i m m e l ,

Ü b e r

sociale D i f f e r e n z i e r u n g ,

12.

G .

S i m m e l ,

“ D a s

P r o b l e m der Sociologie," J ah r b u c h f ü r Gesetzgebung,

tung

13.

Loc.

14.

O f

u n d

a n d S i m ­

47, D u r k h e i m a n d S i m m e l , 1968),

the W o r l d ,

Volkswirtschaft i m

Deutschen

1 8 9 0 , p . 4.

Reich,

XVIII,

1894, p.

V e r w a l ­

1303.

cit.

the sociological s ys t em

ziologie,

1917,

C h a p .

15.

S i m m e l ,

“ D a s

P r o b l e m

16.

Ibid-, p.

1306.

17.

Loc.

18.

Ibid., p.

19.

É.

20.

It is c o n n e c t e d

of

S i m m e l ,

cf.

G ,

S i m m e l ,

G r u n d f r a g e n

der

S o ­

1. d e r Sociologie,” p.

1305.

cit.

1307.

D u r k h e i m ,

Les

tist o f F r e n c h

1895,

règles d e la m é t h o d e sociologique,

w i t h

this respect

that

birth, called D u r k h e i m

H en r i “ the

Peyre,

7th

ed.,

A m e r i c a n

Descartes

of

1919,

VIII.

cultural

sociology.”

scien­ (Cf. H .

Peyre, " D u r k h e i m : T h e m a n , his t i m e a n d his intellectual b a c k g r o u n d , ” in K . H . Wolff 21.

In

, É m i l e

D u r k he i m,

this respect S i m m e l

inclined to think

states

t o its

as

e x t r e m e

18.)

“ Relativism

opposite—

S pinozism—

is

closer

w i t h

than

its

o n e

is

all-embracing

1900, 3rd ed., 1920,

Philosophie des Geldes,

84-85.)

22.

D u r k h e i m ,

23.

Ibid.,

24.

Ibid.,

p. 127.

25.

Ibid.,

p. 35.

op.

cit., p .

175.

p. 6.

study of h e

p.

follows.

substantia sive D e u s . ” (G. S i m m e l , pp.

1960,

1 8 5 8 - 1 9 1 7 ,

In this c o n n ec t io n

socialism

says, “ W e

understand

as "a

D u r k h e i m

social fact.”

envisage socialism as a

it.” ( É .

D u r k h e i m ,

L e

applies this w a y e xa m p l e ,

thing,

as a

socialisme,

É.

D u r k h e i m ,

L e suicide,

É.

D u r k h e i m ,

“Sociologie et sciences sociales,” in

phologie sociale,” 28.

D u r k h e i m ,

29.

Ibid., p. 325.

ed., 1967,

10th ed., 1920,

p. 320.

L ’A n n é e s o c i o l o g i q u e , v o l . 2 ,

of

grasp

to

p o s t h u m o u s

reality, a n d

26.

1909,

in his

1928, p.

27.

ences, First Series,

1897, 2 n d

F o r

w e

the w o r k

e nd e a v e r

to

11.)

p. 354. D e

la

m é t h o d e d a n s les sci­

S e e also É. 1899, pp.

D u r k h e i m , “ M o r ­

520-521.

"Sociologie et sciences sociales,” p. 321.

30.

Ibid.,

31.

D u r k h e i m ,

L e s règles d e la m é t h o d e sociologique, p p .

32.

G . S i m m e l ,

“ Z u r S o z i o l o g i e d e r R e l i g i o n , ” N e u e D e u t s c h e R u n d s c h a u , 9, 1 8 9 8 , p.

116.

p. 330. 159-160.

154

G e o r g

S i m m e l

33.

Ibid., p.

34.

L o c . cit.

G .

36.

Cf.

G .

p.

110.

37.

G .

S i m m e l ,

38.

Cf.

39.

Ibid., p. 64.

40.

S i m m e l ,

41.

Loc.

S i m m e l ,

ed.

b y

ed.,

M .

4th

L a n d m a n n ,

revised,

sociale D i f f e r e n z i e r u n g , C h a p .

Ü b e r

1912,

ed.,

1957, p.

1922, 105,

p. 174. p.

108,

p. 23.

II, C h a p .

III.

D i e Religion, p. 35.

cit.

1899,

41

42.

la d é f i n i t i o n d e s p h é n o m è n e s

L e s f o r m e s é l é m e n t a i r e s d e l a v i e religieuse, 1 9 1 2 , 2 n d ed., 1 9 2 5 ,

M o r e o v e r ,

as D u r k h e i m

44.

D u r k h e i m ,

L e

45.

D u r k h e i m ,

“D e

46.

Ibid., p. 21.

47.

D u r k h e i m ,

48.

Ibid., p. 65.

49.

Ibid., pp.

50.

S i m m e l ,

religieux," L ' A n n é e sociologique,

p. 9.

Cf. É. D u r k h e i m ,

É.

Tür,

1906, 2 n d

D i e Religion,

S i m m e l ,

d h i s m

51.

Brücke u n d

É. D u r k h e i m , “D e

pp.

D u r k h e i m

P r o b l e m e d e r Geschichtsphilosophie, 1892,

D i e

S i m m e l ,

vol. 2, 43.

É m i l e

113.

35.

42.

a n d

M a x

a n d

W e b e r

also refers to as Oldenberg's

v i e w

of

B u d ­

S i m m e l .

suicide, p p . 3 5 2 - 3 5 3 .

la d éf i n i t i o n d e s p h é n o m è n e s

religieux," p.

1.

L e s f o r m e s é l é m en t ai r es d e l a v i e religieuse, p. 53.

65-66. Philosophie des Geldes, VIII.

D u r k h e i m ,

“ S i m m e l

(Georg.).—

Philosophie

g e n t ) , " L ’A n n é e s o c i o l o g i q u e , v o l . 5 ,

52.

S i m m e l ,

op.

53.

Ibid., p.

128.

54.

D u r k h e i m ,

55.

Ibid., p.

1902,

p.

des G e l d e s

(P h i l o s o p h i e d e l ' a r ­

141.

cit., V I I .

o p . cit., p .

142.

144.

56.

L o c . cit.

57.

S i m m e l ,

58.

D u r k h e i m ,

59.

S i m m e l ,

o p . cit., p.

169.

o p . cit., p . 1 4 4 .

o p . cit., V .

60.

D u r k h e i m ,

61.

G .

S i m m e l ,

62.

E.

D u r k h e i m ,

sociological

o p . cit., p .

D u r k h e i m ,

64.

Ibid., p. 4.

65.

Ibid., p p . 5 -6. Ibid., p. 6.

67.

Ibid., VIII.

68.

S i m m e l ,

69.

G .

“ S i m m e l

f o r m

63.

66.

145.

Soziologie, 1908,

L e

of the

3rd

(Georg).— G r o u p , "

ed., 1923, p. T h e

32.

n u m b e r of

m e m b e r s

as determining

L ’A n n é e s o c i o l o g i q u e , v o l . 7 ,

1904,

the

p. 648.

socialisme, VII.

Philosophie des Geldes, p. 476.

S i m m e l ,

Die

P r o b l e m e d e r Geschichtsphilosophie, 1892, 4 t h ed., 1922,

pp. 212-

G e o r g S i m m e l

a n d

É m i l e

155

D u r k h e i m

213. 70.

É.

D u r k h e i m ,

F o r m e n .

“S i m m e l

(Georg).—

U e b e r

( Le s projections spatiales d es

vol. 7, 1904, 71.

Loc.

72.

Ibid., p. 647.

73.

Loc.

74.

É .

p.

räumliche

f o r m e s

sociologique,

cit.

D u r k h e i m , “ L e

pre m ie r C o n g r è s

D u r k h e i m ’s t h o r i e s o f

1977, pp.

a ll e m a n d

D u r k h e i m ,

76.

Ibid., p.

77.

G .

p.

cf.

E.

K o n a u ,

Sociologie.— p. 26. R a u m

C o m m u n i c a t i o n s

B e s i d e s , o f S i m m e l ’s u n d

soziales H a n d e l n ,

“ L a b y

sociologie A .

et s o n

Quvillier,

d o m a i n e

1953,

p.

scientifique,”

in

Oit v a

la soci­

186.

190.

S i m m e l ,

1967,

space,

d e 1913,

15-64.

ologie f r ançaise?

78.

L ' A n n é e

socialer

cit.

a n d É.

sociales),”

(sic)

646.

e t d i s c u s s i o n s , ” L ’A n n é e s o c i o l o g i q u e , v o l . 1 2 ,

75.

Projektionen

F r a g m e n t e

u n d

Aufsätze,

ed.

b y

G .

Kan t or o wi c z,

1923,

2 n d

ed.,

1.

H a l b w a c h s (1919-1935).

p r o d u c e d m a n y excellent a c h i e v e m e n t s d u r i n g his stay at Strasbourg A c c o r d i n g

to J o h n

E.

Craig,

h o w e v e r ,

h e

possessed

neither the

e l o q u e n c e of D u r k h e i m n o r “ the brilliance of S i m m e l . ” Cf. J.E. Craig, “ M a u r i c e H a l b w a c h s p. 288.

à S t r a s b o u r g , ” R e v u e f r a n ç a i s e d e sociologie,

vol.

X X ,

no.

1,

1979,

156

Bibliographical Notes

Bibliographical N otes

A s

f a r a s this b o o k is c o n c e r n e d ,

m e n t i o n should be

m a d e

o f t h e fol­

l o w i n g English translations a m o n g the w o r k s of F e r d i n a n d Tönnies, G e o r g Simmel,

M a x

W e b e r

a n d

Émile

Durkheim.

F. T ö n n i e s , C o m m u n i t y a n d Association, translated b y C h . P. L o o m i s , 1955 (London). F. Tönnies, O n Sociology : Pure, Applied, a n d Empirical, edited a n d with a n T h e

Introduction b y W . Sociology o f G e o r g

J. C a h n m a n

a n d

R. Heberle,

translated,

Simmel,

edited,

1971 (Chicago).

a n d

with

a n

Intro­

duction b y K. H. Wolff, 1950 ( N e w York). G . S i m m e l , Sociology o f Religion, translated b y C. Rosenthal, 1959 ( N e w G.

Y ork). Simmel, with an

O n

b y

D.

N. Levine,

Oakes,

M .

P. Etzkorn,

1968 ( N e w

York).

edited a n d with a n Intro­

Social For ms,

1971 (Chicago).

Sociologist a n d

(London). G. Simmel, T h e

European,

ed.

b y

P. A.

Problems o f the Philosophy o f History,

1977 ( N e w

G. Simmel,

K.

Individuality a n d

G e o r g S i m m e l :

Culture a n d O t h e r Essays, translated,

Conflict in M o d e m

introduction b y

G. Simmel, duction

T h e

T h e

Lawrence,

1976

translated b y

G.

York).

Philosophy o f M o n e y ,

translated

b y

T. B o t t o m o r e

D. Frisby, 1978 (London/Boston). W e b e r , T h e Protestant Ethic a n d the Spirit o f Capitalism,

b y T. Parsons, 1930 (London). M . W e b e r , E c o n o m y a n d Society,

2

vols.,

edited

b y

G.

a n d

translated

R o t h

a n d

C.

Wittich, 1 978 (California). É. D u r k h e i m , T h e E l e m e n t a r y F o r m s o f the Religious Life, translated b y J. W .

Swain,

É. D u r k h e i m , son, É.

1915 ( N e w T h e

1933 ( N e w

D u r k h e i m ,

T h e

York).

Division o f L a b o r in Society,

York), Rules

1964 ( N e w o f

translated

b y G.

S i m p ­

York).

Sociological

Method,

translated

b y

S. A.

S o l o v a y a n d J. H . M u e l l e r , 1 9 3 8 ( C h i c a g o ) , 1 9 5 0 ( N e w Y o r k ) . É . D u r k h e i m , S u i c i d e , t r a n s l a t e d b y J. A . S p a u l d i n g a n d G . S i m p s o n , 1951 ( N e w York). É. D u r k h e i m , Socialism a n d Saint-Simon, translated b y

Ch.

Sattler, 1 9 5 8

(Ohio). D u r k h e i m

on

Religion, edited

b y

W .

S. F. Pickering,

1975 (London).

Index

o f N a m e s

I n dex of N a m e s

Alpert, H., Bachofen,

102, J. J.,

Bastian,

A.,

23

B a u m g a r t e n ,

E.,

Becher,

15

H .

Bendix,

J.,

41, 9 0 , 9 4

A.,

R.,

Bergson,

Fouillée, 51-52,93

7

B el lebaum,

H .

H .

Bismarck,

O .

von,

A.,

Böhringer, Bouglé,

H.,

Brentano, Bücher,

Christ,

K.,

92-94

7

Geo r ge ,

S.,

4-5,7,52

Giddens,

von,

J.,

A.,

Goet he ,

J. W .

G o g h ,

V .

13 von,

van,

23, 3 7

37

E.,

48

M . ,

149

G rü n d e r ,

K.,

41,43

Guillain,

A.,

100

G.,

42

126 14,28,37,53,91,106,112-

Coulanges, C r a i g , J.

F.

E.,

H a l b w a c h s , H a m p e ,

de,

13

Heberle, Hegel,

155

D a r w i n ,

Ch.,

G „

G.,

Descartes, R . ( Dilthey,

W „

Dreyfus,

H o m a n s ,

G .

39

Hubert,

H.,

153

H u g h e s ,

E.

Jacoby,

142

É.,

Meister

E.,

F.,

Th.,

v - v i , viii, 9 7 , 9 9 - 1 5 5

3,27

13-14 15 C.,

41,43

149 Ch.,

E.

6

J.,

35

G.,

Jaspers, K., J a u r è s , J.,

Eckhart,

40

W .

42

25,52,90,105

A.,

D u r k h e i m ,

R.,

G .

150,152,155

48

Höffding, H.,

23,48

150,152

Greef,

M . ,

K.,

H o b b e s ,

Engel,

152

von,

Gurvitch,

40

33

O .

Granet,

113,117,119,148

D e

139

37

Gierke,

Gothein,

103

C o m t e , A.,

D a v y ,

Ch.,

Th.,

5-6,9

W .

38,42

S.,

Geiger,

62,126

C a h n m a n ,

Freud,

Gassen,

99,100-101,152

K „

B u d d h a ,

100,152 M .

33

41,43

L.,

A.,

H.,

37

C.,

150 3

Fourier, F.

Freyer,

22,25,48

Berlepsch,

Böcklin,

P.,

40

42

H.,

5,15

Fichte, J. G . ,

A.,

A.,

F.,

F a u c on n et ,

13

Baltzer,

Bebel,

Engels,

152

Jehovah, Jhering,

40 vi

142 127

R .

von,

13, 3 9 , 1 0 1

157

158

Index of N a m e s

K an t ,

I.,

4,8-9,23-24,27,31,35,53,

93,105 G.,

42,93,155

K an t or o wi c z,

H.,

145

K a utsky,

K.,

O.,

K o n a u ,

7

F.,

Lazarus,

M . ,

L e o n a r d o Levine,

D .

92-94 23,101

Vinci, N.,

Liebknecht,

7

33

v o n

F.,

F.,

B a d e n ,

G „

48

32,36-37,42

Lukes,

S.,

152

Maier,

H.,

48

153

Quvillier,

A.,

146

M a i n e ,

H .

F.,

145

R e m b r a n d t ,

23,37

Ricardo,

D.,

Rickert,

Heinrich,

Rickert,

Sophie,

Rodbertus, Rodin,

14

M a r x ,

S a l o m o n ,

S.,

13-14

A.,

K.,

104

v, 3 - 5 , 8 - 9 , 1 4 - 1 5 , 2 6 , 3 2 - 3 4 ,

A . M . ,

33

R.,

42

Schmoller, Schnabel,

M . , A.,

M e r t o n ,

R .

J. S.,

M i t z m a n ,

37

A.,

M o o r e ,

W .

E.,

L.

H.,

150

42 13

Gertrud,

S i m m e l ,

H a n s ,

Smi t h,

A.,

S om b a r t ,

W . ,

Spencer,

H.,

Mori,

O.,

vi

Spengler, Spinoza,

62

Sprott, H.,

Nietzsche,

F.,

K „

153

14,28,37,113,148

B. W .

15,34

de,

Stoltenberg, Th.,

30,114,137,148

J. H . , F.,

Steinthal, H., 9,11,17,23,48,52

S to r m, O d a k a ,

7,50

O.,

Staudinger,

153 52

47, 50, 92 39,41,43

14

153

N a p o l e o n ,

v-viii, 1, 3 - 4 3 , 4 5 , 4 7 -

S i m m e l ,

H.,

N a k a ,

9,11,17,23,48,52

40

G eo r g,

Mori,

M u h a m m a d ,

A.,

95,97, 99-155

40 37

5-6,9,23,102

41,51,90,93-94

M . , F.,

S i m m e l ,

119

C.,

Simiand,

139

102,152

von,

S h i m m e i ,

M o n e t , M o r g a n ,

G .

S c h o p e n h a u e r ,

41,43

F.,

P.-E.,

150

Michelangelo, Mill,

E.

139,141-142,149

K.,

de,

37,42

Scheler,

142,151

Meillet,

C.-H.

Schäffle,

38,76,78-79,88-89,132-133,138,141M a u s s ,

6

37

A.,

Schmidt,

4 8-49, 52, 58 49

K.,

A.,

Saint-Simon,

M a m e l e t ,

3-4,16,32-33,41-42

11,13,38-39,42

H.,

Ratzel, 37

94-95

W . ,

Litt, T h . ,

125-126,154

139

5,7

da

Lukâcs,

Peyre,

M . ,

Lassalle,

R.,

Paulsen,

155

L a n d m a n n ,

O w e n ,

41 H.,

P a p p e n h e i m ,

42

E.,

Luise

K.,

Oldenberg,

K an t or o wi c z,

Klose,

Okoc hi ,

41 8,33

101 H . 11

L.,

16

I nd e x oj N a m e s

T e n b r u c k ,

F.

Tönnies,

F.,

Tröltsch,

E.,

H.,

90, 9 4

v - v i , viii, 1, 3 - 4 3 , 5 0 , 1 4 5

Wie s e,

L.

W i l l i a m

von,

II,

W i n c k e l m a n n ,

145

W i n d e l b a n d , Vierkandt,

A.,

33,35

Wolff, K . W u n d t ,

W a g n e r ,

A.,

M a r i a n n e ,

W e b e r ,

M a x ,

47, 50, 9 2 - 9 4

12,27,45,47-95,154

H „

W „

Zoroaster,

J., W . ,

62

93 4 9, 5 2

4 2, 1 53 102

5-7,9,101

W e b e r ,

33,35

4, 7, 2 2 , 34, 3 6 , 1 0 6

159

160

Subject

Index

Subject Index

Abstract

art,

A c a d e m i c

Bureaucratization,

37

socialism (Kathedersozialis-

mus),

Calculability,

5-6

A c t i o n

(Handeln),

Administration, Administrative

Calculating

5 4-55,70,87

60,73,75,80, 83,85, 88 staff ( V e r w a l t u n g s s t a b ) ,

A d o r n m e n t , Alienation

Calculation,

A n a r c h i s m ,

3 -4 ,18,133

81-82

A n a t o m y ,

Capital calculation, 78

Capitalistic differentiation, Cartesianism,

obligation),

128

80-81,86

4,58,73,75,77-80,86,89

Capitalistic order,

116

obligation (une

Caste,

113,137,148

67-68

5

C harisma,

Appl ie d

2 0

Charismatic domination,

sociology,

Art, A

C h u r c h ,

25,57-58

social thing

(une

chose

City,

social things ( c o m m e sociales),

des

choses

(Gesellschaft),

14,16-18,

Association

for Social

Policy,

things ( c o m m e s w o r n

Axial

Civil capitalism o f m a n a g e m e n t {burger^

Clan,

des

confraternity,

choses),

37 60

Clothing,

110 114

60,88

C o l l e c t i v e c o n s c i o u s n e s s (la c o n s c i e n c e collective),

67

rotation ( A c hsendrehung),

134

114

C o l l e c t i v e life, C o m b i n a t i o n s

Bankers,

C o m m a n d ,

67

B eh a v i o r (Verhalten),

Biology, B u d d h i s m ,

Bureaucracy, Bureaucratic

C o m m u n a l

126 125-126,152 74 administration,

75,84

65 76 relationship ( V e r g e m e i n ­

schaftung),

76

C o m m u n i s m ,

13

C o m m u n i t y

110

action (Gemeinschafts­

handeln),

116

B r a h m a n i s m ,

C o m m u n a l

116,139 (Vereinigungen),

64

C o m m a n d e r ,

54-55

91,122,127-128,150

Belief {Glaube),

73

67-68

Clothes,

5

Associations (Associationen),

A

136

17, 6 5 - 6 8 , 1 4 4

Classicism,

20,33,55

A s

117,130-131

lieber Zirtrie&skapitalismus),

114

Association

64-65

124-126

Circulation,

sociale),

117,128 A s

61-62

Christianity,

56

78,89

84

Anti-Socialist law, A p p r ox i ma t io n ,

72

72-73,75,80,82

Capitalist,

60-61 (Entfremdung),

60, 68,72-75, 8 8

intellectuality,

Capitalism,

65

A n

84-85,89

(Gemeinschaft),

16-18,

Subject

20-21,33, 73,76,112 C o m p a r a t i v e

history,

C o m p a r a t i v e

m e t h o d ,

E x e m p l a r y 118 112,119-120,

148-149 sociology,

Competition,

Expressionism,

Family,

24-25

Constraint

Fiduciary 77,89

(la c o n t r a i n t e ) ,

Content,

114

109

Co-operative

55 m o n e y ,

(Genossenschaft),

108,147,149

F o r m a l

rationality,

Coquetry,

8,

socialism,

7-8,12

F o r m a l F o r m

36

sociology, a n d

F o r m s

Counterpoint,

27-29, 35, 54-55, 63,

content,

F r e e

labor,

28,35,37,54,110,

80

Futurism, D e m o c r a c y ,

54

of sociation,

120

86

10, 2 5-27, 7 7 , 1 3 4

37

146

Dialectic

of

Distance

(Distanz),

Distancing

life,

27,36

G at hering

57-58,66

(Distanzierung),

Divination,

Gene ra l 56-57,87

62

D o m i n a t i o n ,

( Z u s am m en s ei n ),

sociology,

2 8,78,103,125

37, 64, 74, 83

D o m i n a t i o n

b y

a

D o m i n a t i o n

b y

one,

D o m i n a t i o n

b y

the

64

28,109

Association

G e r m a n

minority,

65

62

60

for Ethical

8

Association

R e f o r m ,

64

interpretation,

G e r m a n

Culture,

plurality,

107

20, 29,109,116,

118,147,149 G e o m e t r y ,

of labor,

for

Social

7

G e r m a n

Catholic

church,

5

G e r m a n

Social D e m o c r a t i c

Party,

7 ,1 2,14,34

E c o n o m i c

action,

E c o n o m i c

history,

72

E c o n o m i c

individualization, life,

Empirical

sociology,

Encyclopedic

79

30 20

a n d synthetic sociology,

28,37,91,99,107,112,121,146,149

sciences,

of

(Evidenz),

Sociological Society,

G o d ,

62-63 61,126

G r o u n d s

of legitimacy,

G r o u p ,

138,143,145

Guilds,

79-80,83

H a r m o n y

music,

Heuristic principle, 62

Hierarchy, 58

Party,

64

110

the special social

29

Ethical prophecy,

Socialist L a b o r

G e r m a n

G o d s ,

E p i s t e m o l o g y of society, E pi s t e m o l o g y

G e r m a n 50

111

E c o n o m i c

E vidence

72-73,80-81,84,

87, 9 0 - 9 1 , 1 0 9 , 1 2 0 , 1 4 9

Co-operative

Division

135-136

F o r m , 89

18-19, 33

Culture,

114

17, 28, 8 3 , 1 0 8 , 1 4 4

Feudalism,

9,37-38

Constitutive principle,

Dress,

58

37

119-120

10,28,108, 111

o f life,

Conflict,

D r e a m

62

(erklären),

E x t e r n a l i t y ( l ’e x t é r i o r i t é ) ,

C o m p a r a t i v e C o n c e p t

prophecy,

Explanation

161

Index

86 77, 89

9, 82, 8 4 , 1 0 8

Historical jurisprudence,

13,16

5,7 12,38,

162

Subject Index

Historical

materialism,

76-77,89,91,

132,143,151 Historical

m e t h o d

historique),

119

Historical school Historicism, History,

(la m é t h o d e law,

14

law,

13-14

H u m a n

alienation,

H u m a n

c o n d u c t (la c o n d u i t e h u m a i n e ) ,

133

Leader,

138,151

65

domination,

Liberalism,

64,74

10

(Leben),

Literature,

23-27,134 37

L og i c

of

L o g i c

o f fluid transition o f

fluid transition,

types,

113

L o g i c

60,63,87 the

ideal

vi, 6 0 - 6 1 , 6 3 , 8 8

of

fluid transition

of

t h e types,

vi, 6 0 - 6 1 , 6 3 , 8 8

H u m a n Ideal

60,73,80,88

Life

16

134 of

group,

L a w , L eg a l

of

11, 21, 30, 7 6 - 7 9 , 9 1 , 1 0 0 , 1 1 9 ,

History

L a r g e

estrangement,

type

3

(Idealtypus),

L o w e s t 56, 60, 63, 8 7 -

88, 9 0 Imitation,

28, 108 35,37

Incalculability,

75

Individualism,

Institutions,

28 75

82,85,117

71,134

Intellectuality, Interaction,

a m o n g

the

Interpretation,

m a n , 108

individuals,

69

59

55, 63, 87, 9 0-91

8,35

rationality,

M e a n i n g

{Sinn),

of

73,81,84,89

55-56, 58-59, 87

labor,

78-79, 82, 89

interaction a m o n g

individuals,

Metal,

60,88 m o n e y ,

135

M e t a p h y s i c s

o f life,

M e t a p h y s i c s

of society,

M e t h o d i c

30, 35 29

individualism,

v, 5 1 - 5 2 , 5 5 ,

6 0,87,106-107 rationalism,

v, 1 1 3 - 1 1 4 , 1 2 0 ,

relativism,

v, 10, 3 6 , 5 1 , 5 3 ,

55, 57,60,76-77,87,105-106,113-114,

78, 82,85, 89

L a b o r

m e a n s ,

85

L a b o r

p ow e r,

78-79

L a b o r

theory of

L a b o r

value,

L a r g e

city,

120,132-133,137,148 M e t h o d

value,

34, 8 8 17

of history,

137,148

78-79,88-89,142

Laborer,

conception

3 0,76-77,89

M e t h o d i c Labor,

40

Material

M e t h o d i c K a n t i s m ,

61-63, SS, 1 31

73-75,80

28-29, 36, 53, 55, 8 7 , 1 0 6

sociology (verstehende

Soziologie),

61

Material,

Metallic

Interchangeability,

62,131

(le m a g i c i e n ) ,

M a r g i n a l

M e n t a l

28, 5 4 , 1 0 6 , 1 1 0

Interpretive

action,

M e a n s

69

53-54, 90,108

Interaction

M a g i c

Materialistic

capitalism,

Intellect,

114

22

Individualistic realism, Industrial

(la m a g i e ) ,

M a n a g e m e n t ,

consciousness,

67

M a g i c

M a g i c i a n

Impressionism, Individual

laborers,

of c oncomitant

variations,

vi, 1 1 9 - 1 2 0 , 1 4 9 34, 88, 142

M e t h o d

of h a r m o n y

Metropolis, Metropolitan

b y

chord,

65-66 m a n ,

66-67

86

Subject Index

M o d e r n

bookkeeping,

M o d e r n

bureaucracy,

M o d e r n

capitalism,

M o d e r n

law,

M o d e r n

natural law,

M o d e r n

society,

M o n e t a r y

M o n e y

Philosophical

o f art,

60, 7 3,75,80, 88

Philosophy

of culture,

Philosophy

of e c o n o m y ,

Philosophy

of

history,

Philosophy

of

life ( L e b e n s p h i l o s o p h i e ) ,

13,16

7 1,82-83,86

56, 66-72, 79, 8 2 , 1 3 3 - 1 3 6

Philosophy

59,68-69,71-72,75,

M o r a l

Physical

71

124

More-t h an - Li f e M o r p h o l o g y , Music,

(Mehr-als-Leben),

25

116

37

N u m e r i c a l

17-18,20-21

58

N e o - Ka n ti a ni s m, N o n - w e s t e r n

105

116 of society,

23

Positivistic m e t a p h y s i c s ,

113

Possibility of obedience,

64

of c o m m a n d ,

P r a g m a t i s m ,

64

Priesthood,

67

Priests, P r o d u c t

calculability,

Productive

88

61-62, 126,131,150

61,125,131,150

61-62, 88,131

86 60,68,71,75,

P r o f a n e

of

labor,

79

powers,

things,

26

130

Professional bureaucracy, Objective

sociology,

Obligatory

Profit

114,120

beliefs (les c r o y a n c e s

obligatoires),

128

O b l i g a t o r y r e l i g i o n (la r el i g i o n obligatoire), 80

Opposition

(Gegnerschaft),

Oracle,

chances,

of sending,

Prophet,

62-63, 65,88

Psychologism,

P u r e

63

30 107

sociology,

20, 28, 54,109,120, 1 49

110

62

Rational

administration,

Painting, Patrimonial

135-136

bureaucracy,

Patrimonialism, P e d a g o g y , Personality,

Rational

57,85

m o n e y ,

74-75

32 79,83

capitalism,

Rationalism, 74

Rationality,

84

80

Rational bookkeeping,

P a p e r

84,89

68

P r o p h e c y

Psychology,

128

Occident,

117,123-128

10

P r i e s t (le p rê t r e ) ,

9,24

city,

76-77, 88-

83-84

P r a c t i c e s (les p r a t iq u es ) ,

(Nähe),-

Notation,

Position,

P o w e r

N a t u r a l will (Wesenwille), N e a r n e s s

m o n a d o l o g y ,

Positivism,

17

Naturalism,

110

89

25

50,85-86

Nation,

32,121,132,

of society,

Pluralistic v i e w

23,27,32,101

( M e h r - L e b e n ) ,

23, 27, 32 23,31,111-112

of religion,

Physiology,

science,

M o r e - L i f e

23,100

150 Philosophy

evaluation,

M o n k s ,

23, 32, 4 9 , 8 6 , 1 2 1

23-24, 31-32, 36,137,148

82-83,88,134 M o n e y

29,109

Philosophy

9,33,83,86

e c o n o m y ,

sociology,

60, 74-75, 88

75

system,

M o n e y ,

86

163

73-74,80

16, 83, 85-86, 8 9 74

Rationalization,

82,85

Rational

socialism,

80

Rational

will (Kürwille),

17-18, 20-21

164

Subject I ndex

R e d e m p t i o n

(Sich-Erlösen),

R e d e m p t i o n

f r o m

v o m

Leiden),

R e g i o n s Religion,

Socialism,

125 144

10,30,53-54,104,113,132

131,144

Social

Religious action,

religieuses),

127 R e l i g i o u s p r actices (les p r a c t i q u e s Resident,

128

20-21,48,88 of

the

city,

realism,

27, 5 3 , 1 0 6

Social

reform,

6-8,19,33-34

Social

science,

3,116,152

Social

sciences,

Social

system,

68,88

28-29, 33, 58,101 38

(Vergesellschaftung),

27,

107-110,112

62 85-86

life,

116-117,147,149

6

Social

Sociation

63

R h y t h m ,

physiology,

Social psychology

R e l i g i o u s facts (les faits religieux),

Revelation,

116,147,149 28, 53, 106

Social psychology,

117,128,130,150

religieuses),

m o r p h o l o g y ,

Social policy,

61

84

9,30,35,108,115-116

Social nominalism, Social

35,122-123,150

R e l i g i o u s beliefs (les c r o y a n c e s

R ur a l

85,89,138-142,151 S o c i a l life,

25, 3 5 , 5 7 - 5 8 , 6 1 , 9 1 , 1 1 7 , 1 2 1 -

Religiosity,

5,8-10,12-13,33,77,81-

Socialistic order,

(les districts),

Relativism,

125

suffering (Erlösung

Society,

65

4,18,27-29,36,52-53, 55,57,

82,85,87,106,109,112,

115,

118-119,

121,124,126-127,134,142,144,147 S ac r ed

t h i n g s (les c h o s e s sacrées),

129-130 Salvation, Science,

73,140 113 141-143,151

Sociology,

status,

124,131,150

t ow n ,

S m a l l

t o w n

Sociability, Social

vi, 1 2 , 1 9 - 2 1 , 2 3 , 2 7 - 3 1 , 3 3 -

113,115, 117-120, Sociology

as a

M e t h o d e ) , group,

action

138-139,151 65-66 m a n ,

66

35,145 (soziales H a n d e l n ) ,

54-

55,73,90

art,

of

conflict,

Sociology

of domination, of

e c o n o m y ,

of

k n o w l e d g e ,

Sociology

of

language,

of

Sociology

10

Sociology of

forming.

Social

hierarchy,

7 6 -77,89 111 82

9

Sociology

20

20,114-115,117-118,139

117

Sociology

conflict,

Social

109143,

m e t h o d ( S o z i o l o g i e als

of

biology,

facts,

107,

140-141,

29,109

Sociology

Social

Social

138,

Sociology

Social

Social diagnosis,

36

146-147,149,152

131

3, 2 6

S ma l l

of history, 29,118,147

34,48,51-56,58,90,99-100,

Self-alienation (Selbstentfremdung), Small

20,34

56

Sociological m e t h o d ,

37

Secularization of religion, Secular

casuistry (soziologische

Sociological conception

Scientific socialism, society,

(Soziographie),

Sociological Kausuitik),

62, 7 8 , 1 2 5 - 1 2 6

Scientific rationalism,

Secret

S oc i og r ap h y

Sociology

law,

117,134,150 150 117,150

117,150

moral,

of music,

Sociology of

63-64

religion,

117,150 86,89 61, 91,115,117,

121,124,127,132,149-151 Soul

(Seele),

123

Subject I nd e x

Space,

143-144

T h e

Special sociology, Spinozisra,

20

114,137,148

Spirits (les esprits),

T h e

126

Spiritualistic c o n c e p t i o n 8 0

7-8

(Fremde),

Structure

60,88

147

b e i n g (les m a n i è r e s 147

Space,

20

129 127,129 64

60,63,87-88

T y p o l o g y

o f cities,

67-68, 88

U n d e r s t a n d i n g

(Verstehen),

55,58-

59,87

Submission,

83 a n d

subordination

(Super-subordination),

of

labor,

U p r o o t e d

people

Value, 85-86

n u m b e r s ,

71

4 7, 6 9

W a n d e r e r

( W a n d e r n d e ) ,

W a n d e r i n g 29, 32, 5 2-53, 55, 57,

66, 6 9 , 8 2 , 8 7 , 1 0 7 , 1 1 4 - 1 1 5 of distance,

T h e

profane

T h e

rites (les rites),

T h e

s a c r e d (le sacré),

66-67

17

Vocation,

73

individual,

67 in general,

34,88,142

Village,

60,88

T e c h n o l o g y ,

Unskilled 28, 8 1 - 8 2 , 84,

89,108,111 S y m m e t r y ,

T h e o r y

(les

faire),

63

of culture (Kulturgebilde),

Superordination

T h e

a n d

T y p e s ,

25-26

Tattoo,

doing

Traditional domination,

a dornments,

Stranger

S y s t e m

T i m e

T o t e m i s m ,

28,55,144

State socialism, S t o n e

social w a y s of

T o t e m ,

calculation,

State,

of

sociales d e

s o c i a l e s d ’ê t r e ) , of history,

29,77 S p o t

social m o d e s

m an i è r e s

165

W a t c h , W e s t e r n

57

Will

(le p r o f a n e ) , 117 129

129

to

63

( W a n d e r n ) ,

63

72 city, the

67-68

life ( W i l l e

z u m

Leben),

17 W i t h d r a w a l W o r l d ,

(Sich-Lösen),

17,30

125