Durkheim and Simmels Views of Society - Literature review Example

Durkheim and Simmel’s divergent different views of society, and how the individual’s relationship to society is a central problem for both of them Name: Institution: Date QUESTION 2: Although Durkheim and Simmel present two very different views of society, the individual’s relationship to society is a central problem for both of them. Explain and evaluate their approaches, drawing evidence from four original writings by these sociologists Introduction Émile Durkheim and George Simmel are both early 20th century sociologists who vehemently confronted the validity of prevalent sociological methodologies used during their time. The two had different perspectives on the predicament regarding sociology, such as how it could be differentiated as a separate academic discipline. Durkheim opined that the law of causality is applicable to social phenomenon (Spykman 1984; Durkheim & Giddens 1972). In his view, the society should be viewed as being quantifiable, and that one only needs to seek for the mechanisms underlying its composition. Conversely, Simmel was less concerned with describing societal laws. Instead, he sought to determine and record how individual’s interactions lead to social continuity. Though Simmel is not considered to be as influential as Durkheim, he influenced many of the early sociologists in the United States, specifically those who contributed to the symbolic interaction approach, such as the Chicago school (Anon nd). Most of his analyses are comparable to those of Durkheim, particularly regarding the problem of individuals and societies (Alexander 1990). Based on this premise, it is argued that though Durkheim and Simmel presented two divergent perspectives on society, the individual’s relationship to society was a key central problem for both of them. Both Simmel and Durkheim were more concerned with defining the society than defining the relationships of individuals within the society. In fact, the preoccupation with the society made it difficult for them to identify individuals’ relationships to the society. Still, they had different views on the society (Spykman 1984; Durkheim & Giddens 1972). According to Simmel, the society comprises of interactions among people, and therefore, sociologists need to examine the forms and patterns of such associations instead of seek after social laws. Such highlighting on social interaction at the individual levels and considering such interactions to be the basic undertaking of sociology differentiates Simmel’s approach from that of Durkheim (Deflem 1999). At the same time, it is Simmen’s decision to combine analysis of the structural approach with the individual action that made his works to gain interest in the contemporary world. Hence, within a social world, the varied kinds of interaction are created by people and materialise, as people get to interact with each other. Simmel argues that individuals have creative consciousness, and that the foundation of social life is conscious groups of individuals who get to interact for a range of interests, purposes and motives. What Simmel does not identify is the nature of individual relationships (Simmel & Wolff 1950). This may include whether individuals live in neighbourhoods where they keep up with nosy neighbours or have to keep to themselves (Crow et al 2002). From this, it could be reasoned that the society is, in Simmel’s view, a lived experience and that the social forces do not particularly constrain for individuals. Instead, it is individuals who create the society, despite the individual relationships that bring them together. The concept of “forms” also points to Simmel and Durkheim’s divergent views of the society, as well as the fact that the individual’s relationship to society is a central problem for both of them. To Simmel, the society is a continuous regeneration, consisting of “forms” that depict the social relationships that people enter into and which are discoverable when those relationships are carefully analysed. On the other hand, Durkeim views the society as made up of facts. He was of the view that aggregating these social facts eventually portrays the conscious, collective or social and opposes the individual, in spite of whether the individual recognizes duality (Alexander 1990). What this also shows is that Durkheim failed to define the individual’s facts that can be aggregated to make up a social fact. Consequently, reliance on Durkheim’s perspective also implies that one has to dissociate himself from the idea of individual facts and instead consider the social facts. At any rate, since the separation of individual from social consciousness, Durkheim and Lukes (1982) opined that that sociology is indeed a separate discipline in itself. Hence, they need to be given consideration with the same degree of complexity given to others full-fledged disciplines, while being dissociated from history or philosophy. Additionally, the concept of sociation points to Simmel and Durkheim’s divergent views of the society, as well as the fact that the individual’s relationship to society is a central problem for both of them. Simmel failed to show the positivism that formed the focal point of Durkheim’s methodology, although he still believed that there could be a discipline that is wholly sociological. Still, it is significant to mention that the basis of his conceptions of “form and content” is as significant as the concept of “fact” to Durkheim (Durkheim & Giddens 1972). Simmel dubbed these forms sociations, which refers to the form through which individuals get to grow together peacefully or to form a unity. Still, it remains unclear whether Simmel intended to portray individuals, as part of a social unit. His use of the term sociation connotes society, which only serves to show that defining individual’s relationships to a society was difficult (Spykman 1984). Indeed, Simmel’s ‘sociation’ is unique from “content” as content tends to be circumstantial and does little to understand the realities surrounding individuals. Content is also made up of everything that can be found in individuals. An example includes mental capacities individual and motivation, both of which are manifest in sociations, such as religion (Deflem 1999). Next, to Simmel, a society would be viewed to be in existence when several people enter into a state of interaction. What this also shows is that Simmel’s preoccupation with the society only validates the argument that he had a problem defining individuals’ relationships rather than their entry into a state of interaction. Simmel’s perspective of a society also shows that he does not have an independent quality associated with Durkheim’s understanding of a society. This shows that a society is created when individuals interact with one another, as well as the degree to which their interactions form sociations. Still, it appears that Simmel was less concerned with the type of individuals’ relationships during these interactions (Durkheim & Giddens 1972). The concept of content also points to Simmel and Durkheim’s divergent views of the society, as well as the fact that the individual’s relationship to society is a central problem for both of them. Unlike Simmel, Durkheim concentrated on what Simmel called “content.” In his book “The Rules of Sociological Method,” Durkheim stated that social practice might exist separately from individual nuances. He viewed this as the most reasonable thing (Alexander 1990). The slight incongruity of Durkheim’s concentration on content, such as individual’s motivations or inclinations is that he viewed a society as prevailing over an individual (Durkheim & Giddens 1972). What this also shows is that Durkheim was more preoccupied with the society. Although he concentrated on “content,” he emphasised that the society was above the “individual.” This only shows that like Simmel, the individual’s relationship to the society was a key problem. On the other hand, Simmel seemed to concentrate on forms, which, however, excludes the individual, failed to prevent him from viewing the individual as the creator of the society (Bentley 1926). The concept of “fact” also points to Simmel and Durkheim’s divergent views of the society, as well as the fact that the individual’s relationship to society is a central problem for both of them. Durkheim perceived that the social fact consists of a social thing that is exemplified by its state of being ‘exterior” to an individual’s conscience,” as well as through exercising the constraint on the individual consciousness (Alexander 1990). What this only tends to show is that Durkheim gave little or no regard to individual’s relationship to the society in spite of whether individuals live in neighbourhoods where they keep up with nosy neighbours or have to keep to themselves or whether they value high friendships (Crow et al 2002; Wallace & Hartley 1988). Evidence of his preoccupation with individual’s consciousness rather than individual’s relationships is in the types of investigations he undertook. He delved in the density and volume of the society, issues of suicide, as well as the features of the religious life. None of these investigations was into individual’s relationships. On the other hand, Simmel explored what is peculiar within the society. He sought to separate the concepts of form and content in the society. The form is what he viewed as uniquely social. It is also, what he studied. In his studies, he argued that social form is what contained the wide knowledge of the society, rather than individual’s relationships (Wallace & Hartley 1988). In his view, this is since the society deals with competition, party formation, division of labour, as well as subordination and superiority. Conclusion Both Simmel and Durkheim were more concerned with defining the society than defining the relationships of individuals within the society. In fact, the preoccupation with the society made it difficult for them to identify individuals’ relationships to the society. The concept of “content,” “fact” and “forms” point to Simmel and Durkheim’s divergent views of the society, as well as the fact that the individual’s relationship to society is a central problem for both of them. In fact, according to Simmel, the fundamental problem faced by any society is the conflict between the individual and the social forces since the social is natural to any individual. In addition, the individual and social elements may collide in an individual. Durkheim also viewed that the problem or conflict in the society emanates from the individuals. References Alexander, J 1990,"Durkheimian Sociology: Cultural Studies," Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Anon, nd, Notes on Georg Simmel, viewed 18 May 2015, Bentley, A 1926, "Simmel, Durkheim, and Ratzenhofer," American Journal of Sociology vol 32, pp.250-256. Crow, G, Allan, G & Summers, M 2002, "Neither Busybodies nor Nobodies: Managing Proximity and Distance in Neighbourly Relations," Sociology, vol. 36 no. 1, pp.127-145 Deflem, M 1999, Classical Sociological Theory: A Review of Themes, Concepts, and Perspectives (Part II), viewed 17 May 2015, Durkheim, E & Giddens, A 1972,"Emile Durkheim: Selected Writings," Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Durkheim, E & Lukes, S 1982, “Rules of Sociological Method,” MacMillan Press, New York Wallace, R & Hartley, S 1988, "Religious elements in friendship: Durkheimian theory in an empirical context," Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Simmel, G & Wolff, K 1950, "The Sociology of Georg Simmel," The Free Press, New York Spykman, N 1984, "The social theory of Georg Simmel," Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick Read More

 

Read More