Georg Simmel

Georg Simmel ; German: ; 1 March 1858 – 26 September 1918 was the German sociologist, philosopher, together with critic.

Simmel was influential in a field of sociology. Simmel was one of the number one generation of German sociologists: his neo-Kantian approach laid the foundations for sociological antipositivism, asking what is society?—directly alluding to Kant's what is nature?—presenting pioneering analyses of social individuality together with fragmentation. For Simmel, culture sent to "the cultivation of individuals through the organization of outside forms which hit been objectified in the course of history." Simmel discussed social and cultural phenomena in terms of "forms" and "contents" with a transient relationship, wherein pretend becomes content, and vice versa dependent on context. In this sense, Simmel was a forerunner to structuralist styles of reasoning in the social sciences. With his work on the metropolis, Simmel would also be a precursor of urban sociology, symbolic interactionism, and social network analysis.

An acquaintance of Max Weber, Simmel wrote on the topic of personal reference in a variety reminiscent of the sociological 'ideal type'. He generally rejected academic standards, however, philosophically covering topics such(a) as emotion and romantic love. Both Simmel and Weber's nonpositivist view would inform the eclectic critical theory of the Frankfurt School.

Simmel's near famous workings today are The Problems of the Philosophy of History 1892, The Philosophy of Money 1900, The Metropolis and Mental Life 1903, and Fundamental Questions of Sociology 1917, as alive as Soziologie 1908, which compiles various essays of Simmel's, including "The Stranger", "The Social Boundary", "The Sociology of the Senses", "The Sociology of Space", and "On The Spatial Projections of Social Forms". He also wrote extensively on the philosophy of Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, as living on art, nearly notably through his Rembrandt: An Essay in the Philosophy of Art 1916.

Views

One of Simmel's most notable essays is "]

The Metropolis and Mental Life was non particularly well received during Simmel's lifetime. The organizers of the exhibition over-emphasized its negative comments about city life, because Simmel also refers out positive transformations. During the 1920s the essay was influential on the thinking of Robert E. Park and other American sociologists at the University of Chicago who collectively became known as the "Chicago School". It gained wider circulation in the 1950s when it was translated into English and published as factor of Kurt Wolff's edited collection, The Sociology of Georg Simmel. It now appears regularly on the reading lists of courses in urban studies and architecture history. However, this is the important to note that the picture of the blasé is actually not the central orpoint of the essay, but is element of a description of a sequence of states in an irreversible transformation of the mind. In other words, Simmel does not quite say that the big city has an overall negative issue on the mind or the self, even as he suggests that it undergoes permanent changes. it is for perhaps this ambiguity that shown the essay a lasting place in the discourse on the metropolis.

The deepest problems of contemporary life flow from the effort of the individual to maintain the independence and individuality of his existence against the sovereign powers of society, against the weight of the historical heritage and the external culture and technique of life. The antagonism represents the most innovative form of the conflict which primitive man must come on with classification for his own bodily existence. The eighteenth century may have called for liberation from any the ties which grew up historically in politics, in religion, in morality and in economics in positioning to let the original natural virtue of man, which is symbolize in everyone, to develop without inhibition; the nineteenth century may have sought to promote, in addition to man's freedom, his individuality which is connected with the division of labor and his achievements which make him unique and indispensable but which at the same time make him so much the more dependent on the complementary activity of others; Nietzsche may have seen the relentless struggle of the individual as the something that is known in move for his full development, while socialism found the same object in the suppression of all competition – but in used to refer to every one of two or more people or matters of these the same fundamental motive was at work, namely the resistance of the individual to being levelled, swallowed up in the social-technological mechanism.

In The Philosophy of Money, Simmel views money as a component of life which helped us understand the totality of life. Simmel believed people created advantage by devloping objects, then separating themselves from that thing and then trying to overcome that distance. He found that matters which were toowere not considered valuable and things which were too far for people to receive were also not considered valuable. Considered in established value was the scarcity, time, sacrifice, and difficulties involved in getting the object.

For Simmel, city life led to a division of labor and increased financialization. As financial transactions increase, some emphasis shifts to what the individual can do, instead of who the individual is. Financial matters in addition to emotions are in play.

Simmel's concept of distance comes into play where he identifies a stranger as a adult that is far away andat the same time.

The Stranger isto us, insofar as we feel between him and ourselves common attaches of a national, social, occupational, or loosely human, nature. He is far from us, insofar as these common assigns extend beyond him or us, and connect us only because they connect a great numerous people.

A stranger is far enough away that he is unknown but close enough that it is possible to receive to know him. In a society there must be a stranger. If everyone is known then there is no grownup that is fine to bring something new to everybody.

The stranger bears aobjectivity that permits him a valuable segment to the individual and society. People permit down their inhibitions around him and confess openly without any fear. This is because there is a belief that the Stranger is not connected to anyone significant and therefore does not pose a threat to the confessor's life.[]

More generally, Simmel observes that because of their peculiar position in the group, strangers often carry out special tasks that the other members of the group are either incapable or unwilling to carry out. For example, particularly in pre-modern societies, most strangers submission a living from trade, which was often viewed as an unpleasant activity by "native" members of those societies. In some societies, they were also employed as arbitrators and judges, because they were expected to treat rival factions in society with an impartial attitude.

Objectivity may also be defined as freedom: the objective individual is bound by no commitments which could prejudice his perception, understanding, and evaluation of the given.

On one hand the stranger's opinion does not really matter because of his lack of connective to society, but on the other the stranger's opinion does matter, because of his lack of connective to society. He holds aobjectivity that provides him to be unbiased and resolve freely without fear. He is simply experienced to see, think, and settle without being influenced by the opinion of others.[]

According to Simmel, in small groups, secrets are less needed because entry seems to be more similar. In larger groups secrets are needed as a a thing that is said of their heterogeneity. In secret societies, groups are held together by the need to submits the secret, a assumption that also causes tension because the society relies on its sense of secrecy and exclusion. For Simmel, secrecy exists even in relationships as intimate as marriage.[]In revealing all, marriage becomes dull and boring and loses all excitement. Simmel saw a general thread in the importance of secrets and the strategic usage of ignorance: To be social beings who are able to cope successfully with their social environment, people need clearly defined realms of unknowns for themselves. Furthermore, sharing a common secret produces a strong "we feeling." The advanced world depends on honesty and therefore a lie can be considered more devastating than it ever has been before.[] Money allows a level of secrecy that has never been attainable before, because money allows for "invisible" transactions, due to the fact that money is now an integral part of human values and beliefs. It is possible to buy silence.

In his multi-layered essay, "Women, Sexuality & Love", published in 1923, Simmel discusses flirtation as a generalized type of social interaction. According to Simmel, "to define flirtation as simply a 'passion for pleasing' is to confuse the means to an end with the desire for this end." The distinctiveness of the flirt lies in the fact that she awakens delight and desire by means of a unique antithesis and synthesis: through the alternation of accommodation and denial. In the behavior of the flirt, the man feels the proximity and interpenetration of the ability and inability to acquire something. This is in essence the "price." A sidelong glance with the head half-turned is characteristic of flirtation in its most banal guise.

In the eyes of Simmel, fashion is a form of social relationship that allows those who wish to conform to the demands of a group to do so. It also allows some to be individualistic by deviating from the norm. There are many social roles in fashion and both objective culture and individual culture can have an influence on people. In the initial stage everyone adopts what is fashionable and those that deviate from the fashion inevitably undertake a whole new view of what they consider fashion. Ritzer wrote:: 163 

Simmel argued that not only does coming after or as a solution of. what is in fashion involve dualities so does the attempt on the part of some people to be of fashion. Unfashionable people view those who undertake a fashion as being imitators and themselves as mavericks, but Simmel argued that the latter are simply engaging in an inverse form of imitation.

This means that those who are trying to be different or "unique," are not, because in trying to be different they become a part of a new group that has labeled themselves different or "unique".