Writing a Critical of a Theoretical text: THE STRANGER IN GEORG SIMMEL - Literature review Example

? The Stranger In Georg Simmel By of Institute The Stranger In Georg Simmel The Stranger is a sociological perspective written by Georg Simmel in which he analyzes group interactions and the role played by a member who is perceived as a stranger in that group. He also analyzes other sociological perspectives as shall be seen in the latter sections. His theory as presented in The Stranger potentially fits under what one may refer to as philosophy of sociology given the style employed. Writing in the early later years of the 19th century and the early years of the 20th century, one may observe that his sociological context was originally possibly aimed at addressing the social issues of the time, especially individual role in a group (Beck and Beck-Gernsheim, 2002, p. 31). Even so, his works have defied the hands of time to remains relevant until the current age. Georg Simmel was one of the early sociologists that wrote widely in the field of sociology. He was a German by citizenship. Although Georg Simmel has been widely accredited for his contributions in sociology, one may observe that he approached the discipline from a philosophical perspective, sometimes making his readers to read between lines to decipher what exactly he intended to put across (Cuff, 2006, p. 49). Some of his works have adopted an almost similar style used by another German sociologist by the name Kant. Like Kant, Georg Simmel also adopted a style that starts by questioning about the aspects he intends to study then proceed to provide answers to them. Some of his works includes The Problems of Philosophy of History Fundamental Questions of Sociology, On The Spatial Projection of Social Forms amongst other publications. In his work The Stranger, Georg Simmel analyzes selected sociological situations in everyday life and reflects then to the reader through the concept of a stranger and distance (Marotta, 2005, p. 12). Although many sociologists have used the concept of The Stranger since its publication, one may observe that the interpretation has been remarkably different and largely varied. Perhaps this is because Georg Simmel employs a philosophical approach in significant sections. In fact, one may observe that his analytical methods appear to share the concept of “appearance and reality” as propounded by French philosopher Rene Descartes. Even so, his methods do not dilute his sociological perspectives (Descartes, 2011, p. 34). One should note in advance that the author uses the concept of the group and stranger in reference to various sociological interactions in the society. Such could be institutions, organizations or work places. It is also essential to mention that the concept of a stranger in a group has been used to imply someone who does not belong to the inner circle of a given group. It represents someone who must adjust since he/she appears to be new to the group depending the closeness and ties within a group. He/she is a stranger in the sense that his/he relations with the group can only be formal, which give him/her some outstanding qualities from the inner circle (Niezen, 2004, p. 45). Summary Analysis of The Stranger In the article The Stranger, Georg Simmel begins by analyzing group dynamism through the concept of The Stranger. He observes that sometimes for groups to grow and have something new, they should focus on the external environment and on external sources. Simmel observes that groups tend to be formed from amongst acquaintances and that only an outsider to the group can bring something new to the group. He also observes in what he calls the unity of nearness and remoteness that human relations are always in such a way that they keep relating to those who are away as well as with those who are near. The author also observes that groups are likely to benefit from embracing diversity. This is because new members, who as usual may be perceived as innocent, contribute positively to the group through eliminating biasness and promoting consistent interaction (Cohen and Kennedy, 2007, p. 78). The author also maintains that the position of a stranger is even magnified in the event that The Stranger springs into action (place of activity). He observes that positive interactions by sharing ideas may also act to enhance people’s lives. He uses the analogy of the trader instead of The Stranger to observe circumstances that can result as a result if taking the initiative to work together. Even so, he observes that a stranger should interact well within a group, knowing well all the boundaries to keep as pertains to matters pertinent to his/her new social group. He says that The Stranger is not the owner of the soil (Marotta, 2005, p. 19). Even so, the author still underscores on the importance of group diversity by working with an outsider. To this, he highlights that sometimes members within a group may differ and rather than be objective, they become subjective. Simmel therefore feels that designing a group to be diverse helps in making sure that there is the voice of reason without any biasness or emotion. The author also observes that working with a stranger in the group helps in ensuring that issues that require to be addressed openly are addressed as such. To have someone who approaches issues with an open mind in the group helps in leveling issues. For instance, matters concerning a group member, who could not have been addressed out of the feeling of closeness within the group, are solved. In addition to the above, Simmel also highlights that The Strangers ensure that there is a feeling of uniqueness which adds value to the similarity in methods that a group would apply consistently without change is there is no opportunity to try something new and unique. Simmel concludes that working with a stranger in a group usually works given that The Stranger is near and far at the same time. This he implies that a unique member of the group acts to ensure that things run as planned by possibly discouraging deviations by his/her mere presence in the group, and also contributing constructive ideas from the fact that The Stranger is highly skilled in areas that the other group members do not possess. The fact that he is skilled is the reason Simmel observes that the group needs him even against all odds. Ontological Claims in the Article It is vital to note that ontology tend to deal with entities that exist as well as how such entities can be divided in a distinguishing hierarchy. As far as analysis of The Stranger is concerned, one may observe that several ontological perspectives come into being. Simmel indirectly highlights that The Stranger’s distance with the group members ensure that there is objectivity in the group. This appears to be psychological regulation in which members of the group may not do the funny things they usually do in the presence of The Stranger. The regulatory force in a group can be psychologically achieved by making a group with a resourceful and skilled new member. One may note that this tends to lean to Emile Durkheim’s psychological regulation (Emirbayer and Cohen, 2003, p. 64). The fact that the author points out that there could be elements of subjectivism which The Stranger overcomes with objectivity also leads one to the use of ontological questioning. Such assessment of subjectivism, objectivism, as well as relativism, points out to methods of taking actions in a group setting. The author portrays the groups as diverse and one that can possible has various approaches to debatable issues. Probably he intends to show that diversity in any group is not the only challenge but how a group thinks (Coffey, 2011, p. 113). For effective management of a group, the author feels that there should be away to balance all the possible radical views. This he achieves with The Stranger. He presents The Stranger as an independently thinking member of the group. He presents The Stranger as a member of the group that is neither too close nor too far. The Strangers adequate distance with the group members allows him not to take issues personal and reason subjectively, nor be too far such that he is alienated from the reality of the issues affecting the group. Lastly on ontology, Simmel also brings the concept of relatedness and hierarchy which defines the group in a different light. Although The Stranger exists within the group, he is not of the inner circle where group members have various emotional attachments. He remains on the outer circle, an external hierarchy which although near and far at the same time, gives him power to command respect during group meetings. That is why The Stranger in the group is capable of steering the group back on the course should it deviate. Rene Descartes’ ontological philosophy of appearance and reality is also evidenced. Simmel observes that the patient may be near be near with the group but far when it comes to decision making (Descartes, 2011, p. 59). Epistemological Basis of the Article Analysis of the article, from an epistemological perspective, would drive one to question Simmel’s beliefs about group dynamism and the role of The Stranger and distance as used. While the concepts that Simmel presents may be a body of knowledge, empiricism as a branch of epistemology would question whether some of the concepts discussed by the author can be taken through experimentation to prove their applicability. Simmel portrays that once The Stranger has been accepted in a group he slowly starts to wield power. This may actually be possible but the author has not explained other possible trends. It could be possible that the method could succeed for one organization, but can it succeed for all organizations? If so, how long can it work given that The Stranger in the group will be absorbed into the group over time as he interacts with other members? Justification of Simmel’s theory could remain a matter to be seen in action rather than to be taken in theory (Sawyer, 2001, p. 38). Evaluation and Discussion When Simmel observed that only strange may bring something new to the group, he most likely implied that there is a need for a group to work together irrespective of their differences. He notes that The Stranger is remarkably different from each of the group members perhaps to underscore the point that newcomer will breath in new energy and ways of doing things. He says this to recognize that human progress usually come in when people put their minds together and are willing to try something new as opposed to doing the same thing over and over. Simmel observes that the fact that The Stranger has not belonged to the group from the beginning; he imports qualities into the group. Simmel seems to assert that the identity of humankind develops, usually, along the line and concept of differentiation. This differentiation is something he observes as pertaining to drawing a clear cut between the externalities that the self- perspective. He also seems that the best way to achieve progress along such lines of differentiation is to focus on what makes rather than what does not make. He reveals that to achieve such miles, it is only prudent that that everyone learns to see himself/herself as not being in opposition with the larger group (Schweingruber, 2005, p. 3). When Simmel talks about the soil, he observes that as much as groups or people may interact together, the sociology of positive interaction point out that there should be some limits and recognition. In their social interactions, people should always bear in mind that as much as people may be friendly and welcoming, they also have limits beyond which they do not expect other to cross. Such could be matters most pertinent to them such as sources of their livelihood. Simmel seems to be asserting that the concept of group sociology is also one that should be governed by ethics (Encinosa III et al., 2005, p. 14). When the author talked about The Stranger approaching issues within a group with a define attitude of objectivity, one may conclude that he intended to portray that groups usually face challenges that could take varied twists and turns. Like many other scholars, Simmel rightly noted that there is a need for groups to make be cohesive as much as possible so that they may achieve their mandate as set out during their formation. Should that be possible, then there should be a unifying voice for the group (Coffey, 2011, p. 37). Such s unifying voice is represented in the person of The Stranger. Such a responsibility, the author presents, is usually achievable only when there is some minimal space between the team member and The Stranger. In the event that The Stranger and group members are too much socialized, then The Stranger ceases being a stranger to the group and interacts as any of the group members. Thus, he observes indirectly, dilutes the power of The Stranger to act objectively as expected of him. Conclusion One may note that the author uses the concept of The Stranger to refer to one who is not so closely related to members in any group but whose presence is instrumental in the overall functioning and achievements of a group. The Stranger acts as the middle ground that is neither too radical nor too liberal. The Stranger balances power and emotions in a group so that there is harmony in a situation when things could have gone out of hands. In other words, one may observe that Simmel uses the concept of The Stranger to ensure that there is harmony not just in a group, but in any social setting. Having a stranger who is near and fat at the same time serves to ensure harmony (Gillies, V., 2003, p. 8). Bibliography Beck, U., and Beck-Gernsheim, E., 2002. Individualization. London: Sage. Coffey, P., 2011. Ontology Or the Theory of Being: An Introduction to General Metaphysics. Ulan: Ulan Press. Cohen, R. and Kennedy, P., 2007. Global Sociology. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Cuff, E.C., 2006. Perspectives in Sociology. Rutledge: New York. Descartes, R., 2011. Meditations on First Philosophy. New York: Simons $ Brown. Emirbayer, M., and Cohen, I.J., 2003. Emile Durkheim: Sociologist of Modernity. New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell. Encinosa III, W.E et al., 2005.The Sociology of Groups and the Economics of Incentives: Theory and Evidence on Compensation Systems. IZA Discussion Paper No. 1851 November 2005. Gillies, V., 2003. Family and Intimate Relationships: A Review of the Sociological Research. Families & Social Capital ESRC Research Group Working Paper No. 2. Marotta, V.P., 2005. Urban Sociology and The Stranger. TASA Conference 2005, University of Tasmania, 6-8 December 2005. TASA 2005 Conference Proceedings. Niezen, R., 2004. A World Beyond Difference: Cultural Identity in the Age of Globalization. Oxford: Blackwell. Sawyer, R.K., 2001. Emergence in Sociology: Contemporary Philosophy of Mind and Some Implications for Sociological Theory. AJS Volume 107 Number 3, 551-85. Schweingruber, D., 2005. Three Perspectives of Sociology. Retrieved from http://www.iastate.edu/~soc.134. Read More