The Social Theory of Georg Simmel

Nicholas J. Spykman

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781351473798
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Sociology
• Index: Social Sciences

Contemporary sociology increasingly seems to be adopting a perspective similar to that on which Georg Simmel's analysis and interpretations rested. To a significant degree, therefore, sociologists continue to turn to Simmel for a basic understanding of the forms and processes of social life. Nicholas Spykman's The Social Theory of Georg Simmel, originally published in 1925, was the first comprehensive account of Simmel's ideas. It remains a most valuable summary of the major elements of his thought.Spykman wrote this study for a specific purpose: to indicate Simmel's conception of the relations between different fields of theoretic inquiry into socio-historical actuality; to make Simmel's contributions to the methodology of the social sciences understood; and to illustrate Simmel's conception of sociology as a science. He shows that Simmel was primarily a social philosopher interested in a functional understanding of socio-historical realities, art and economic values, morals and aesthetics, religion, and the function of money. Spykman identifies three major phases in the development of Simmel's thought: the first is primarily occupied with methodology and the presuppositions of the social sciences; during the second he wrote several essays containing philosophic interpretations of modern civilization; and the third culminated in his metaphysics of culture.The Social Theory of Georg Simmel, graced with a new introduction by David Frisby, one of the foremost contemporary Simmel experts, is an outstandingly organized, coherent presentation of the complex and subtle ideas of one of the intellectual giants of modern sociology.

BOOK II

SOCIAL SCIENCE

FORMAL SOCIOLOGY

INTRODUCTION

IN THE preceding chapters we have dealt with Simmel’s fundamental considerations regarding the methodology of the social sciences in general and of sociology in particular. Our next task is, therefore, to indicate to what his conception of formal sociology and of its method and technique leads in actual application.

The subject-matter of sociology, as will be remembered from the preceding chapters, is for Simmel the process of socialization as such. Sociology is the science of human relationships, the theory of association. Its task is to describe and explain the forms of socialization and to trace the tendencies of development and the conditions under which they arise.

The fragmentary character of his work prevents an inclusive treatment, and we are therefore obliged to limit ourselves to a short summary of his most important essays. Besides, a representation of his contribution to the study of sociology in this form illustrates better than any attempt at integration his opinion about the present early stage of the science. Simmel believed that a systematic presentation of sociology would be possible only in the distant future, and that for the time being the workers in that field would have to content themselves with isolated contributions. He explicitly states that even his great volume on sociology is not to be regarded as an attempt at a systematic presentation, but merely as an illustration of the application of its method to different phenomena within the field. This explains to a large extent the fragmentary character of the work, although that is undoubtedly also due in part to Simmel’s intuitive fear and dislike of any structural rigidity.

The topics of the following chapters have, notwithstanding this fact, been selected with the view of giving at least a suggestion of unity. All unnecessary detail and expansion of irrelevant points have been omitted, and the choice of sequence and the special treatment of the material are due to the attempt to indicate with a few bold strokes what Simmel’s sociology looks like. The aim has not been to give a comprehensive interpretation, but merely to indicate its skeleton structure. It is hoped that these chapters will suggest none the less what sociology according to Simmel purports to be. We feel justified in this attempt to suggest at least some kind of unity, notwithstanding the author’s explicit warning, because only by treating it as a single unified field of inquiry can we indicate its right place between social methodology and social metaphysics.

CHAPTER I

SUBMISSION

SUPERORDINATION AND SUBORDINATION¹

THE most important form of relationship in the whole social world is the relationship between the leader and his followers, between the superior and his subordinates. It is a form of socialization without which no social life Would be possible, and the main factor sustaining the unity of groups. Superiority and subordination constitute the sociological expression of psychological differences in human beings, and wherever these are associated, there they appear in a more or less pronounced form.

This relationship between the superior and the inferior assumes oftentimes the appearance of a one-sided operation. It seems as if the superior exerts an influence which the inferior merely undergoes. But the latter is by no means a purely passive agent. The subordinate in turn exerts an influence on the superior, and it is only by virtue of this interaction of the two that in the relationship the one takes the position of superior and the other the position of subordinate. The relationship of superior to inferior is a form of interaction between individuals and therefore a form of socialization. It always allows a certain amount of independence and spontaneity on the part of the subordinate. In some cases of superiority and inferiority the amount of spontaneity and independence of the subordinate is great, in others small; but it is never wholly absent. Even in a case of the worst tyranny, the subordinate has the choice between submission and punishment. However little consolation the existence of this alternative may bring to the individual in question, it shows none the less that the superior-inferior relationship cannot be established without some active participation on the part of the subordinate. This submission is not purely passive, but has an active aspect as well, and the resulting relationship is a form of social interaction.

What is called “authority” requires also a much more active participation on the part of those who submit to it than is generally supposed. To call a human being an authority means to ascribe to his judgments and decisions a certainty and an infallibility which are otherwise ascribed only to universal postulates and logical deductions. This authority can become established in two different ways. In the first instance, it results from the fact that a superior individual inspires in his group such a faith and confidence in his opinions and decisions that they obtain for that group the character of objective validity. In becoming an authority, his quantitative significance turns into a new quality with objective status. In the second instance, the authority becomes established by a different process. It occurs when a superindividual organization like the state, the church, or the school transfers to the individual a power of decision and a dignity which he could not inspire or obtain through his own personality. In the first instance the authority develops out of the individuality, in the second instance it descends into the individual from the outside. But in neither case can the transition occur without the active belief of those who submit to the authority. The transformation of the value of the individual into a superpersonal value is brought about by the believers in the authority. Authority is a sociological product requiring the spontaneous and active participation of the subordinates.

Another variation of the superior-inferior relation is the relationship indicated by the word “prestige.” This relationship, however, does not contain any superpersonal element. For that reason the existence of an active, spontaneous participation on the part of those who admit the prestige of an individual is more clearly visible. Like all other superior-inferior relations, it is a form of socialization involving an interaction between all the elements concerned.²

The superior-inferior relationships may be classified in three different types. The superiority may be exercised by a single individual, by a group, or by an objective principle in the form of a social or ideal superindividual power. Each of these three forms has certain specific characteristics which must be briefly enumerated.

Subordination to an Individual

The subordination of a group to a single individual leads to a strong unification of the group. It occurs not only if the group and its leader constitute already an internal unity, but also if the group is conscious of an opposition and antithesis between itself and its superior. In the first case, the group elements become conscious of their unity because their interests converge at a single point. In the second instance, they are forced to strengthen their unity in order to oppose more effectively the unified controlling power to which they are subordinate.

This is the case, not only in political groups, but in all other organizations. In the factory, the ecclesiastical community, and in the school class, wherever the organization terminates in a single head, there the common subordination leads to a strong unity independently of the fact whether the relationship be one of harmony or opposition. This significance of leadership for the group unity, although manifest in all associations, is most clearly visible, however, in political groups. History has shown innumerable instances where the death of the common superior resulted in a complete disruption of the political unity of the group.

The relationship between the group elements and the leader is usually a combination of submission and opposition. Human nature seems to be so constituted that it requires both elements in its social relationships. The individual seems to seek, on the one hand, a superior power which will relieve him of part of his responsibility and protect him, not only against others, but even against himself; yet, on the other hand, he seems to feel a necessity for placing himself in opposition to this same power. Opposition and submission seem in the last analysis to be only different aspects of relationships which are fundamentally of a unified character. Every subordination shows both aspects.

This process of unification of the group elements resulting from a common subordination appears in two different forms. The first might be indicated by the word “leveling,” the second by the word “gradation.” In the first instance the group elements are all on a common level with regard to the superior. In the second instance the group consists of series of different layers decreasing in size, but increasing in significance.

The correlation between despotism and equality has long been recognized. On the one hand, perfect equality leads easily to despotism, because a slight variation is sufficient to give an individual a position of superiority to all. On the other hand, the despot has an immediate advantage in keeping his subjects on a common level. He will thereby prevent other superiority-inferiority relations between different ranks from coming into actual or merely psychological competition with his own supremacy.

The process of gradation gives the group the form of a pyramid. In this case the subordinates are not an equalized mass, but they stand to the common superior in different strata of power and dependence. These strata grow constantly smaller in size, but greater in significance. They lead up gradually from the inferior mass to the superior ruler.

This group form may come into existence in two different ways. In the first place, it may result from a distribution of power from above. Here the ruler may intentionally create a juxtaposition of ranks and classes. In that case the result will not be a weakening of his power, but a better protection of his position. The quantity of submission remains the same, but it is unequally distributed over the subjects. The resulting type of social structure is apt to be strongly conservative, because every class or rank that has another class subordinate to it will be interested in the persistence of the existing form. The distribution of power from above is, however, only in rare instances the result of a voluntary relinquishment on the part of the ruler. What usually happens is that the ruler loses the substance of his power and allows it to slip downward, while retaining its form and titles. The orders nearest to the ruler will retain most of his power, while the rest will go to those farther distant. The result will be a gradual percolation of his power through the whole group and a continuity and gradation of superior-inferior relations among all the elements.

This is the process by which oriental monarchies have usually obtained their characteristic form. Indolence or ignorance of governmental technique on the part of the persons comprising their administrations has usually prevented them from preserving the supreme power, for the power which is exercised over a large group is never a constant possession. It must be constantly acquired and defended anew if anything more than its shadow and name is to remain.

The second way in which a group may obtain a social structure consisting of graded classes is by the accumulation of power from below. This occurs if out of a group of comparatively equal elements a certain number gain a special significance and out of this group there differentiate again a smaller number of especially powerful persons and so on until the development accommodates itself to a single leader. This type of development is the characteristic form in the economic world and in political life, but it is also manifest in the world of science. In the first process the resulting pyramid of superiority and inferiority was developed from above downward. In this latter form it is built from below upward.

The classical example of a social structure resulting from a combination of both tendencies is the feudal state. As long as the full citizen—Greek, Roman, or Teutonic—knew no subordination to an individual, he was, on the one hand, on an equal footing with his fellow-citizens and, on the other hand, sharply differentiated from all below him. In the feudal state, the gap between the unfree and the free was bridged by a long series of intermediate classses. The king gave a part of his property and power to the nobles in exchange for service. There occurred a distribution of power from above downward. But, on the other hand, the free farmer gave his land to the lord in exchange for protection. There was also an accumulation of power from below upward.

These two sociological formations of unification through leveling and unification through gradation also occur in case of subordination to a group. The monarchy is, however, the archetype and the primary form of all superior-inferior relations. Its form seems so effective that it even continues to exist in situations and institutions which have arisen from reactions against monarchy. The American president, the Athenian archon, and the Roman consul were, with certain restrictions, the heirs to the royal power of which the kings had been robbed by revolution. Even the democracy of the French Revolution was nothing but an inverted monarchy, and Rousseau’s “general will” had all the attributes of an absolute personal sovereignty.³

Subordination to a Group

Subordination to a group occurs in two different forms. The superior may be a crowd, a group of individuals actually assembled and in close spatial proximity. But the superior group may also be an abstract unity manifesting a more or less permanent existence in an objective social structure. In this class falls the subordination of an individual to his state, to his church, or to any organized association.

In subordination to an objective structure, the superior-inferior relationship itself obtains a more or less objective character. The participation of the superior in the relationship loses its subjective aspects and obtains a super individual character. Sentiments, feelings, and emotions are excluded from the participation of the superior, and the relationship becomes more or less cold and factual. It depends, therefore, on the type of relationship that is advantageous to the subordinate whether subordination to a group is better or worse than subordination to an individual. In great modern enterprises which either are corporations or are administered in an equally impersonal manner, the employees are usually better off than those in the small private concerns who are subject to the personal exploitation of the proprietor. On the other hand, in special cases of distress the administration of the corporation cannot act as generously as the private owner who is not responsible to anyone for his management. Subordination to a group is therefore an advantage to the individual if he is helped by a formal, impartial, factual, and business-like relationship. It is a disadvantage if the individual is helped by a benevolent, altruistic, and merciful relationship.

Subordination to a crowd, to a group actually assembled, varies also considerably from subordination to an individual. In organized associations which function as legal persons, the participation...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Transaction Introduction
• List of Abbreviations
• Acknowledgments
• Preface
• The Life of Georg Simmel
• General Introduction
• Book I. Social Philosophy: Methodology—Epistomology
• Book II. Social Science: Formal Sociology
• Book III. Social Philosophy: Metaphysics
• Conclusion
• Bibliography
• Index