REPORT
Discipline: Consumer Psychology
Topic: "Theory of Fashion" by Georg Simmel

Completed by: Mitev Alexander

In the history of sociology, G. Simmel is known as one of the prominent representatives of the analytical school, who anticipated many of the essential provisions of modern theoretical sociology. Thus, he studied “pure” forms of sociality, i.e. relatively stable formations, structures of social interaction that give integrity and stability to the social process.
In his works, G. Simmel described and analyzed many “pure” forms of sociality relating to various aspects of social processes: dominance, subordination, competition, fashion, conflict, etc., social personality types: “cynic”, “aristocrat”, “ poor man", "cocotte", etc.
G. Simmel is known for his original studies of social conflict, the phenomenon of fashion, urban life, culture, etc. Unlike social Darwinists and Marxists, who view conflict as a means of struggle between different social groups, the German sociologist drew attention to the positive functions and integrative aspects.
An analysis of the phenomenon of fashion led G. Simmel to the conclusion that its enormous popularity in modern society is due to the fact that it allows a person to assert himself, to be not only like others, but also to show his individuality.
G. Simmel laid the foundations for the study of urban lifestyle. He saw the positive role of large cities in the fact that they provide an opportunity to expand and deepen the division of social labor, increase the efficiency of the economy, allowing a person to satisfy various needs, thereby promoting personal development.
At the same time, he also noted “the increased nervousness of life, resulting from a rapid and continuous change of impressions.”
The spread of fashion in modern society is the result of a broader social process of liberating a person from the stereotypes and norms of traditional pre-industrial society, which limit the possibilities of personal development.
Fashion is a process. It did not exist in ancient times and in the Middle Ages. It replaces folk traditions and political despotism. Fashion is associated with urbanization and modernization. New layers coming to the forefront of life emphasize, with the help of fashion, their independence from old authorities and official power, and wish to quickly establish their special position. The need to identify with the advanced cultural layer manifests itself in the form of fashion in mass, democratic societies. In a caste-based, closed state, fashion is not needed. Venetian doges dressed in the same black clothes. The same tunics, jackets, and uniforms were worn by party functionaries in the era of Hitler and Stalin. Fashion demonstrates the possibility of individual achievement. After all, not everyone can “keep up with fashion.” A fashionably dressed person proves that he has taste, energy, and resourcefulness. Fashion is attractive because it gives a sense of the present, a sense of time. This is a self-accelerating process. What has become especially fashionable and widespread no longer indicates personal achievements and “goes out of fashion.” Fashion is universal. It concerns not only the length of skirts and trousers, but also political beliefs, philosophical ideas, scientific methods, religious quests, and love relationships. fashion simmel hierarchy consumption
Fashion, it would seem, is voluntary. But it is also forced. It can be considered the democratic equivalent of political and cultural tyranny. Peter the Great forcibly cut the beards of his boyars. A modern politician looks for a hairdresser himself, consults with psychologists in order to develop an attractive, popular image. Fashion is a field for mediocre, dependent fame-lovers. But it is functional: it makes industry work, helps unite new groups and classes, serves as an instrument of communication, and the promotion of gifted individuals “up.”
The German sociologist Simmel put forward a number of key ideas in fashion theory. He showed that fashion is based, on the one hand, on the desire of the highest...

FURTHER READING

Our lives are built on dualism: we need both movement and rest, both productivity and receptivity. In the life of the spirit, dualism is expressed in the fact that we strive for the universal and the individual. The same thing happens in emotional life: we also seek calm dedication to people and things as energetic self-affirmation. The entire history of society takes place in struggle, compromise, in slowly achieved and quickly lost reconciliations that are made between dissolution in our social group and leaving it.

Whatever forms dualism may take in social and cultural life, they are all only forms of manifestation of a more fundamental biological opposition between heredity and change - the first is the basis of unity, the second - diversity, the restless development of the individual content of life and its transition to another. Every significant form of life is a combination of similarity and diversity.

In social life, this opposition is associated with imitation. Imitation can be defined as a psychological heritage, as a transition from group to individual life. Its attractiveness lies primarily in the fact that it provides us with the opportunity for purposeful and meaningful activity even where there is nothing personal or creative. Imitation could be called a product of thought and nonsense. It gives the individual confidence that he is not alone in his actions and rises above his predecessors.

Imitation frees the individual from the pain of choice and allows him to act simply as a creation of the group. The attraction to imitation as a principle is characteristic of that stage of development when the inclination towards purposeful activity is alive, but the ability to obtain individual content for it or from it is absent.

These conditions are also characteristic of fashion as a constant phenomenon in the history of our species. It is an imitation of a given model and thereby satisfies the need for social support and leads the individual onto a path that everyone follows. However, it equally satisfies the need for difference, the tendency to differentiate, to change, to stand out from the general mass. She succeeds in this thanks to the change of content, which gives the fashion of today an individual imprint that distinguishes it from the fashion of yesterday and tomorrow.

It succeeds even more because it always has a class character, and the fashion of the upper class is always distinguished from the fashion of the lower, and the upper class immediately abandons it as soon as it begins to penetrate into the lower sphere. Thus, fashion is nothing more than one of the many forms of life through which the tendency towards social equalization is combined with the tendency towards individual difference.

Fashion means, on the one hand, joining with equals in position, the unity of the circle characterized by it, and precisely this, separating this group from those below it, defining them as not belonging to it. To connect and disconnect - these are the two main functions that are inextricably linked here.

Perhaps nothing proves more convincingly that fashion is simply the result of social or formally psychological needs than the fact that, from the point of view of objective, aesthetic or other factors of expediency, it is impossible to discover the slightest reason for its forms. If, in general, for example, our clothing essentially corresponds to our needs, then in the form that fashion gives it: whether to wear wide or narrow skirts, fluffed or round hairstyles, colorful or black ties, there is not a trace of expediency. Sometimes something so ugly and disgusting becomes fashionable, as if fashion wants to show its power precisely in the fact that we are ready to accept the most absurd things at its will: it is the randomness with which it prescribes something expedient, now meaningless, now indifferent, that testifies to its indifference to objective standards of life.

We know how in ancient times fashion was created by the whim or special need of individuals - medieval shoes with a long, narrow toe arose due to the desire of a noble gentleman to introduce a shoe shape that would hide a growth on his foot, skirts with hoops - due to the desire of a lady who set the tone to hide her pregnancy etc. In contrast to this origin of fashion for purely personal reasons, fashion in the present is increasingly associated with the objective nature of work in the economic sphere. Not only does an item originate somewhere and then become fashion, but items are specifically created to become fashion. At certain times new fashion is required a priori, and then there are inventors and enterprises founded exclusively in this area.

Activity in the field of fashion is a paid profession that occupies a “position” in large enterprises, which is as differentiated from the individual as an objective position is differentiated from the subject who occupies it. Fashion can, of course, sometimes receive objectively justified content, but it can act as fashion only when its independence from any other motivation becomes positively felt, just as our actions corresponding to duty only become completely moral when we are obliged to do so. not their external content and purpose, but only the fact that it is a duty.

Social forms, clothing, aesthetic judgments, the whole style of man are in constant change under the influence of fashion, but fashion, i.e. a new fashion finds application only in the upper classes. As soon as the lower classes begin to adopt it, thereby crossing the boundary set by the upper classes, breaking through the unity of their thus symbolized involvement with each other, the upper classes immediately

they abandon this fashion and adopt a new one, which allows them to again differentiate themselves from the wider masses, and the game begins again. After all, the lower classes look and strive upward, and they succeed most of all in those areas where fashion reigns, for they are most accessible to external imitation. The same process occurs between the various layers of the upper classes. One can often notice that the closer different circles come to each other, the crazier the desire for imitation becomes below, and the flight to the new at the top: the all-pervasive money economy noticeably accelerates this process and makes it visible, for fashion objects, like the external side of life, First of all, they are available in the presence of money, so in their possession it is easier to establish equality with the upper stratum than in other areas that require individual confirmation that cannot be bought with money.

The extent to which this moment of distinction - along with the moment of imitation - constitutes the essence of fashion is shown by its manifestations where there are no layers on top of each other in the social structure; then the process associated with the fashion involves layers located close to each other. It is reported of several primitive peoples that groups closely located and living under exactly the same conditions often follow completely different modes, by which each group expresses its unity within and differentiation without. At the same time, fashion is readily imported from outside, and within a given circle it is valued especially highly if it did not originate within it; Already the prophet Zephaniah speaks disapprovingly of noble, clothing-wearing foreigners. Indeed, it seems that the exotic origin of fashion especially contributes to the cohesion of the circle where it is adopted; it is precisely the fact that it comes from outside that creates that special and significant form of socialization, which is established through a general relationship to a point located outside.

Sometimes it seems that social elements, like the axes of the eyes, best converge at a point that is not too close. Thus, the role of money, the object of greatest general interest among primitive peoples, is often played by objects imported from outside; in a number of areas (in the Solomon Islands, in Ibo on the Niger) a kind of industry has developed for the manufacture of banknotes from shells or other objects, which then circulate not in the place of their manufacture, but in neighboring areas where they are exported - in exactly the same way as Things are often created in Paris with the intention of becoming fashionable somewhere else.

Where one of the two social tendencies necessary for the establishment of fashion - namely, the need for unity on the one hand and for isolation on the other - is absent, fashion will not be established, its reign will end. Therefore, in the lower classes, fashion is rarely varied or specific, which is why the fashions of primitive peoples are much more stable than ours. The danger of confusion and obliteration of differences, which forces classes of civilized peoples to resort to differentiation in dress, behavior, tastes, etc., is often absent in primitive social structures.

It is through differentiation that parts of the group interested in isolation are kept together: gait, pace, rhythm of gestures are undoubtedly determined to a large extent by clothing, similarly dressed people behave relatively the same. There is one more point to this. A person who can and wants to follow fashion often wears new clothes. New clothes

more determines our behavior than the old one, which eventually changes towards our individual gestures, follows each of them. The fact that we feel “cozier” in old clothes than in new ones only means that new clothes force us to accept the law of their form, which, with prolonged wear, gradually turns into the law of our movements.

Among primitive peoples, fashion is less diverse, i.e. more stable, also because their need for new experiences and forms of life is much less. A change in fashion indicates a certain loss of irritability in the nerves; The more nervous an era is, the faster its fashions change, for the need to change irritation is one of the essential components of fashion. This alone is the reason why fashion is established in the upper classes.

As for the social conditioning of fashion, two primitive peoples living next door can serve as an example of its purpose. The Kaffirs have a very fragmented social hierarchy, and their fashion, although clothing and jewelry are regulated by laws, changes quite quickly; on the contrary, among the Bushmen, who have no classes at all, there is no fashion, i.e. there is no interest in changing clothes and jewelry. It was precisely these negative reasons that prevented the formation of fashion in high cultures, and this was done quite consciously. Thus, in Florence around 1390 there was no fashion at all in men's clothing, since everyone tried to dress in a special way. Here, therefore, one point is missing, the need for connection, without which fashion cannot exist. On the other hand, the Venetian nobles had no fashion because, by a certain law, they all had to dress in black so that their small number would not be noticed by the masses. There was no fashion here because its other constitutive moment was absent - the upper layer deliberately avoided differences from the lower layers.

The essence of fashion is that it is always followed by only part of the group. Once the fashion is accepted, i.e. once what was originally done only by a few is now done by everyone, it is no longer called fashion. Each further spread of fashion leads to its end, since it destroys distinction. Thus, it belongs to the type of phenomena whose desire is aimed at increasing distribution, increasing realization - but achieving the goal would lead to destruction. Thus, the goal of moral aspirations is holiness and incorruptibility, while the true merit of morality consists, probably, only in efforts to achieve the goal and in the fight against temptation. Thus, work is often considered only as a means to achieve the pleasure of long-term peace and rest, but when this is fully achieved, the emptiness and monotony of life destroy the whole meaning of moving towards this goal.

From the very beginning, fashion is characterized by a desire for expansion, as if it must subjugate the entire group every time. However, as soon as this is achieved, the fashion disappears.

In modern culture, fashion, penetrating into the most remote areas of life, enhances the changes occurring there. Our internal rhythm requires increasingly shorter periods of changing impressions. This begins with minor symptoms, for example, with the increasingly widespread replacement of a cigar with a cigarette, manifests itself in a thirst for travel, which de-

span the year over many short periods with a sharp emphasis on farewells and returns. The “impatient” pace of modern life testifies not only to the thirst for a quick change of impressions, but also to the power of the formal attractiveness of the border, the beginning and the end, the coming and going. Fashion acquires a peculiar attractiveness of the border, the attractiveness of a simultaneous beginning and end, the attractiveness of novelty and at the same time transient. Its problem is not being and non-being, it is both being and non-being, is always on the divide between past and future and, while it is in its prime, gives us such a strong sense of the present as few other phenomena.

An object, being called “fashionable,” loses its meaning only when, for other objective reasons, they want to make it disgusting and discredit it; then fashion becomes a value concept. Something new and suddenly widespread will not be called a fashion if it causes belief in its long-lasting existence. Only those who are confident that the new phenomenon will quickly disappear will call it fashion. Therefore, one of the reasons for the dominance of fashion today is also that deep convictions are increasingly losing their force. The arena of the momentary, changing elements of life is ever expanding. The break with the past, which cultural humanity has been continuously trying to achieve for more than a hundred years, connects consciousness with the present. This emphasis on the present is at the same time, which is obvious, an emphasis on change, and to the extent that the class is the bearer of this cultural trend, it will be in all areas, not only in the manner of dressing, following fashion.

From the fact that fashion as such could not yet become universally widespread, the individual derives the satisfaction of believing that in him it is still something special and conspicuous, although at the same time he inwardly feels a community with others. Therefore, the attitude towards what is fashionable undoubtedly harbors a beneficial mixture of approval and envy. A fashionable person evokes envy as an individual and approval as a representative of a certain type. However, this envy also has a certain coloration. There is a tinge of envy that reflects a kind of ideal participation in the possession of the objects of envy. An instructive example is the reaction of proletarians who cast a glance at the festivities of rich people: the basis is that the contemplated content causes pleasure not associated with its possession - much like a work of art is perceived, the happiness of the contemplation of which does not depend on who owns it .

Due to the ability to separate the pure content of things from the problem of owning them (corresponding to the ability of cognition to separate the content of things from their being), the participation in ownership that envy brings about becomes possible. Perhaps this is not some special shade of envy, it is present as an element wherever envy exists. By envying an object or a person, we are no longer completely excluded from it, we have acquired a certain attitude towards it. In relation to what we envy, we are simultaneously closer and further than in relation to what leaves us indifferent. Envy allows you to measure distance. Envy may contain a barely noticeable possession of its object (like happiness in unhappy love) and thus a kind of antidote that sometimes prevents the manifestation of envy.

knowledge of bad properties. It is fashion, since it is achievable, that provides a special chance for such a pacifying coloring of envy.

It follows from the same relationship that fashion is a genuine arena for individuals who are internally dependent and need support, but who at the same time feel the need for distinction, attention, and a special position. This is the same thing when platitudes repeated by everyone spread most successfully, because their repetition gives everyone the feeling that he is a special mind, rising above the crowd.

Fashion elevates an insignificant person by turning him into a special representative of the community. It creates the possibility of social obedience, which is at the same time individual differentiation. In the dandy, the social demands of fashion reach a height in which he completely assumes the appearance of the individual and special. It is characteristic of the dandy that he takes the fashion trend beyond the usually preserved boundaries. If shoes with narrow toes have become fashionable, then the toes of his shoes turn into a kind of copies, if high collars have become fashionable, then his collars reach to the ears, if it has become fashionable to listen to scientific reports, then he can only be found among such listeners, etc. . He is ahead of others, but exactly following their path. Since he represents the pinnacle of society's taste, he seems to march at the head of everyone. In fact, what applies to him is what in many cases applies to relationships between individuals and groups: the leader is essentially the follower.

Sometimes it's fashionable to be unfashionable. Anyone who deliberately dresses and behaves out of fashion acquires, in fact, the associated sense of individualization not through his individual qualities, but through a simple denial of social example: if following fashion is an imitation of a social example, then deliberate unfashionability is an imitation of it with the opposite sign ; and it no less testifies to the power of the social tendency on which we depend, in a positive or negative sense. A person who deliberately does not follow fashion comes from the same point as a dandy.

Just as freedom, which has broken tyranny, often turns out to be no less tyrannical and violent than its overcome enemy, so the phenomenon of tendentious unfashionability shows how ready human beings are to absorb the complete opposite of contents and demonstrate their strength and attractiveness by denying what they affirm seemed to be inextricably linked.

Reluctance to follow fashion may stem from the need not to mix with the crowd, a need based on, if not independence from the crowd, then an internally sovereign position in relation to it. But it can also be a manifestation of weakness and sensitivity, in which the individual is afraid that he will not be able to preserve his not very pronounced individuality if he follows forms, taste, and the laws of community. Opposition is not always a sign of personal strength.

If people are attracted to imitation and difference in fashion, then this may explain the special predilection for fashion among women. The fact is that the weak social position that women have predominantly occupied in history has led them to a close connection with what is “custom”, what is “appropriate”.

For a weak person avoids individualization, the need to rely on himself, responsibility and the need to defend himself only

to your own strength. Such a person is protected only by a typical form of life, which prevents a strong person from using superior forces. However, out of a strong adherence to custom, women strive for individualization and distinction. It is precisely this combination that fashion provides them with: on the one hand, the area of ​​universal imitation, the opportunity to swim in a wide social channel, freeing the individual from responsibility for his taste and actions, on the other hand, difference, emphasizing one’s significance with the special individuality of the outfit.

It seems as if for every class, perhaps, and for every individual, there exists a definite quantitative relationship between the drive to individualize and the drive to merge in collectivity, so that if in a certain sphere of life the manifestation of one of these drives meets with an obstacle, the individual seeks another sphere in which he will carry out the measure required by him. Historical evidence suggests that fashion serves as a valve that allows women to satisfy the need for distinction and aggrandizement when they are denied it in other areas.

In the XIV and XV centuries. in Germany there was an extremely strong development of individuality. Personal freedom to a large extent broke the order of the Middle Ages. However, women did not yet take part in the development of individuality; they were prohibited from freedom of movement. Women compensated for this with the most extravagant and exaggerated fashions. In contrast, in Italy during the same era, women were given freedom to develop individually. During the Renaissance, they had such opportunities for education, activity, differentiation, which they did not have for centuries; education and freedom of movement, especially in the upper classes, were almost the same for both sexes. And we have no information about the extravagant women's fashions in Italy at that time.

In general, such uniformity appears in the history of women, in their general life, that they, at least in the field of fashion, need more lively activity in order to give their lives a certain charm.

A woman, compared to a man, is distinguished by greater fidelity, which expresses the uniformity and uniformity of mental life, requiring a more lively change in all areas to balance life tendencies. On the contrary, a man who by nature does not have such fidelity has less need for forms of external variety. Refusal to change and indifference to the demands of fashion in appearance are characteristic of a man, because he is a more diverse being and can more easily do without external diversity. An emancipated woman who strives to become like the male essence, its dynamism, emphasizes her indifference to fashion.

For women, fashion, in a certain sense, also represented compensation for their professional position. A man who has entered the circle of a certain profession finds himself in a sphere of relative leveling; within this class he is equal to many others, he is to a large extent only an example for the concept of this class or this profession. On the other hand, as if in compensation for this, he uses all the actual and social power of a given class; his membership in the class is added to his individual significance, which can often hide the inferiority and insufficiency of his personal existence.

If we try to trace the last and subtle movements of the soul, colored by all this, we will discover in them the antagonistic play of vital principles, aimed at restoring the constantly disturbed balance through ever new proportions. True, an essential feature of fashion is that it cuts all individuals with one brush, but always in such a way that it does not embrace the whole person, and always remains something external for him, even in areas outside the fashion of clothing; after all, the form of changeability in which it offers itself to him is, under all circumstances, the opposite of the stability of the sense of “I”.

Fashion always remains on the periphery of personality. This meaning of fashion is used by subtle and unique people as a kind of mask. Blind obedience to general norms serves as a means of preserving one’s feelings and taste only for oneself, so as not to make them open and accessible to others. Therefore, some people resort to the leveling disguise that fashion represents, for fear of revealing a feature of the inner essence by a feature of appearance. Sensitive and shy people want to hide their individual experiences behind the triviality of statements and conversations. All shyness is based on a person’s desire to stand out. It occurs when the “I” is emphasized.

People are often ashamed of precisely the best and noblest. If in “society” banality defines good form, then it seems tactless when someone comes out with an original saying that not everyone is able to express, not only out of mutual attention to each other, but also out of fear of feeling shame for trying to stand out from the same for everyone, everyone has the same accessible tone and behavior. Fashion, due to its peculiar internal structure, allows for difference, which is always perceived as appropriate. No matter how extravagant the behavior or speech may be, it is protected, if it is fashionable, from those painful experiences which the individual usually experiences when becoming the object of the attention of others.

All mass actions are characterized by a loss of shame. As an element of the mass, the individual does many things which he would resolutely resist if he were asked to do something similar when he was alone. One of the striking phenomena is that some fashions require shamelessness, which the individual would indignantly refuse if such a thing were offered to him, but as a law of fashion he unquestioningly accepts such a requirement. The sense of shame in fashion, since it is a mass action, is as completely absent as the sense of responsibility among participants in a mass crime.

As soon as the individual becomes stronger than the social demanded by fashion, a feeling of shame is immediately felt; so many women would be ashamed to appear at home in front of one man as low-cut as they appear in society, where fashion demands it, in front of thirty or a hundred.

Fashion is also one of those forms through which people who sacrifice the external side, submitting to the slavery of the common, want to more fully save internal freedom. Perhaps the most striking example is Goethe in his later years, when, through his willingness to follow the conventions of society, he achieved a maximum of inner freedom. In this understanding, fashion.

1. The path of life and creativity - 2 pages

2. Element of social life - 4 pages

3. The phenomenon of enmity - 7 pages

4. Formal sociology - 9 pages

5. Philosophy of life and culture - 14 pages

6. Women's culture - 19 pages

7. List of sources used - 24 pages

1. The path of life and creativity.

Georg Simmel (1858-1918) was already a popular philosopher during his lifetime. Thin

a feeling phenomenologist, a dialectician by mentality, he was deeply interested in

the fate of the individual and at the same time developed large-scale

philosophical and historical problems of culture, was acutely worried and tried to comprehend

crisis of European civilization. Weber, Sorokin, Durkheim and other authoritative

Philosophers highly valued the sophistication of thought and the abundance of Simmel's ideas. But they also reproached:

in fragmentation, lack of a system and a clear philosophical worldview.

They called him a “brilliant amateur.”

articles do not fit within the framework of one scientific discipline. Elements of ethics,

aesthetics, psychology, sociology are intertwined in his thoughts. Exactly

therefore, he can be considered a cultural scientist par excellence. Simmel was passionate about building sociological theory and put forward many fruitful ideas. But, feeling an intuitive dislike for “sociological fictions” - hyperbolic systemic constructions - he often preferred the genre of philosophical studies, choosing for research such seemingly insignificant topics as “Laziness”, “Wonderfulness”, “Gratitude”, “Coquetry”, "Fashion". From them he stretched threads to fundamental questions of philosophy and cultural theory.

In the period between the two world wars, sociologists rarely turned to Simmel's work. But in the 60s, due to the crisis of sociology and the advent of the postmodern era, Simmel turned out to be very modern. Its fragmentation is in tune with the spirit of the times of the second half of the twentieth century. Today, among its advantages they note the development of “understanding sociology”, microsociology, conflictology,

personology, communication theory, the idea of ​​the plurality of cultural worlds and

much more. Against the backdrop of the progressive “fragmentation” of sociology and the rejection of

construction of a general sociological theory, Simmel's texts do not seem so

fragmentary. Behind his emphasized subjectivism and skepticism

a philosophical vision of culture is visible.

a merchant, baptized in the Lutheran Church, was the youngest of seven children. His father

died early. My father's friend, the owner of a music publishing house, took charge of

about a talented young man. Georg made his own way in life. Often he experienced

sadness and loneliness. Graduated from classical gymnasium, then - philosophical

Faculty of the University of Berlin. His teachers were Mommsen, Lazarus,

Steinthal, Bastian.

Simmel's doctoral dissertation was devoted to Kant. He became a privatdozent early on, but in academic circles they were wary of him and did not want to elect him.

a full-time professor, which he became only four years before his death. Almost all

life Simmel did not receive a regular salary and lived on fees from lectures and

student fees. He was a type of philosopher-publicist and salon speaker.

He often performed in front of theater bohemians and became famous as a brilliant lecturer.

He knew how to think out loud and speak insightfully about pressing issues. Exciting

listeners with the energy of his thoughts, Simmel wrote and spoke simultaneously for two

audiences - professional scientists and curious intellectuals. Interest in

exotic themes and a penchant for improvisation gave rise to Ortega and Gasset

compare Simmel to a squirrel jumping from branch to branch and biting off little by little

from every nut.

Simmel was also a “marginalist” because he did not want to occupy a certain

political and ideological position, did not belong to any party or

philosophical school. He felt like a fish in water in the stream of new problems,

was at the same time a romantic and a positivist, a liberal and a socialist,

nationalist and cosmopolitan. When during a lecture it occurred to him

good idea, he changed his point of view “on the fly” and deployed the chain of his

associations in a new direction. Simmel was a skeptic, an analyst. His lectures

captured, aroused thought, but did not contain any positive credo,

faith, beliefs that he could not develop, or carefully concealed.

Today no one would demand such a credo from him. Many of us -

witnesses of the end of the millennium - have long been accustomed to living without faith, without seeing in life

sense. But at the beginning of the twentieth century, the “climate of opinions” was different; the intelligentsia believed in

future, lived with ideas and global projects. Unbelief, Simmel's "omnivorousness"

undermined his reputation. He willingly talked with theatergoers, scientists, poets,

politicians. He shone everywhere, received applause and felt everywhere

a stranger. This life strategy corresponded to his ideas about character

era, its main trends: the enrichment of the universal “objective

culture", the liberation of the individual from group, corporate ties and his

progressive differentiation, erosion of a single self-identity into many

independent selves.

His passion for sociology, which was not on the list of academic disciplines, also did not add scientific weight to him. Germany has a strong scientific tradition in

fields of social and human sciences, each of which had its own specific

subject and methods of research. Simmel's attempts to create sociology as

independent methodological science about society, were perceived as

extravagance.

For Simmel, the source of creative impulses and grateful audience was

"informal Berlin culture". This was the name of the community of scientists, poets,

politicians, lawyers, inspired by the victorious pathos of natural science and

anticipation of great changes. In the 80s of the last century, when Simmel

was just beginning its activities, the spirit of the Prussian soldiery and feudal

bureaucracy coexisted peacefully with the dialectical spirit of Hegelian philosophy. But not

Fifteen years have passed since Berlin began to rapidly transform into a new

capital of Europe. Science, technology, powerful corporations, imperial ambitions have reached

first plan. Krupp, the king of the steel industry, succeeded Kant in

as the leader of the nation. Thermodynamics began to crowd out dialectics. Increase in wealth

military and technical power, was accompanied by sentiments of spiritual emptiness and

confusion. The liberation of the thinking mind from national tradition turned into

cultural groundlessness, lack of incentives to develop philosophical

New ideas came to Germany from abroad. The Russians were especially popular - Tolstoy, Dostoevsky; Scandinavians - Strindberg, Ibsen, Hamsun; French - Zola, Maupassant.

Spiritual confusion, pluralism of worldviews, the fall of authorities - all this, however, also had a positive significance for science. It was pulled away from the surface of life

the veil of his decency. Culture appeared in its irrational

nudity, contradiction, exoticism. Ideological movements of various kinds:

positivism, Kantianism, Marxism, social Darwinism, racism, idealistic

philosophy of history coexisted peacefully and interacted fruitfully until

remained within the scientific community. Later - in the 20-30s, an explosive mixture

Marxism, Darwinism and ancient Germanic myths, seasoned with Nietzschean

romanticism, will spill out into politics and give rise to fascism. The image of a "superman"

future" will capture the minds of advanced German youth. But at the turn of the century

the interaction of science, philosophy and ideology activated minds and prepared the ground

for cultural studies.

At different periods of his life, Simmel was attracted by different problems and different methods

research. Initially, he had an interest in communication, sociality in its

immediate manifestations. Awkwardness at meeting, conflict, love, temptation,

intimacy, internal barriers between people, the secret of identity - someone else's and one's own - here

which excited him and pushed him to explore society. At the same time, Simmel wanted

follow Spinoza's motto: "Do not cry, do not laugh, but understand." He thought that

To achieve success, a sociologist should abandon not only estimates, but also

some specific role or position in society.

In methodology, Simmel initially leaned towards positivism: Spencerianism and

Darwinism. Then he began to look for a priori forms of social cognition, based on

Kant. It was then that his “formal sociology” was born. At the same time there was

"breakthrough" into the phenomenology of culture, in which the dialectic of form and content

are in the spotlight. The last - cultural and philosophical period of life -

painted in aesthetic, romantic, tragic tones. Repulsion from bourgeoisism

and rationalism are now combined in Simmel with conservative patriotism and even

the pathos of militarism. Despair because life seemed to be a failure, and history

It did not live up to expectations, giving rise to internal discord. Deep skepticism of the late

Simmel is combined, however, with an enthusiastic hymn to the eternally young, seething

2. The element of social life.

Refraining from recognizing "social substance", Simmel spoke of a plurality

qualitatively special, large and small forces, elements that make up

social process. He attributed these forces to love, gratitude,

competitiveness, hostility, fashion, the desire for self-affirmation, novelty and much more

Formless and essentially meaningless social elements,

including instinctive, social and spiritual forces, diverse

are combined in society, “stratified” into “form” and “content”, which then

interact with each other. Form is impersonal, universal, inert.

Initially, Simmel relied on physicochemical and biological analogies: he talks about social atoms and molecules, differentiation and integration, social matter, which can be “condensed” and “rarefied.” Social elements can spread like a hurricane wind or freeze in the form for a long time

social institutions, dogmas, customs. Forms, absorbing newly emerging

the elements process them in their own way. Church, state, science are forms.

They draw in love, greed, lust for fame, competitiveness, endowing them with

special symbolic meaning. Later, as they decay, social forms transmit

accumulated energy to other, new forms that will comprehend these forces and

symbolize them differently.

Thus, scientific polemics are born from theological disputes, from Protestant

anxiety and preoccupation - passion for money and accumulation, from the monastic

obedience - secular education, from the Orthodox-Russian dream of the Kingdom of God

on Earth - we could add to this - the construction of communism in the USSR.

Simmel did not seek to reduce the complex fabric of social relations to any one

strength, form, as other philosophers did. Durkheim's "solidarity" works

as a unifying force, but only along with hostility and competition. Labor and

capital is, of course, powerful socializing forces, but only in combination with

religion and ethics.

Of the many elements and forces, Simmel singles out money and

socialized intelligence (rationality). These elements are objective and

subjective, constructive and destructive, meaningful and formal at the same time

same time. They create both real institutions and ideological fetishes.

Together with Weber, Simmel introduces the concepts of rationality into sociology,

rationalization, socialized intelligence. Social rationality is not

similar to the absolute Mind of the Enlightenment. She is not pure, selfless

public consciousness. Rationality in society is represented by many

divergent minds. It is not formalized into a strictly logical discourse, it includes

themselves contradictions, unclear, irrational moments. Motivating force

social rationality is not only the “will to power”, as Nietzsche thought.

Perhaps it is the will to serve, to sacrifice, to agree on means and ends, to find

practical benefits. From public rationality is being repressed to the extent that it

perhaps - unexpected, unmanaged components. A specific example would be

serve in the army or bureaucratic chain of command. No specific

rationality does not embrace the entire society. Attempts to plant the same thing everywhere

same discipline, logic, system of ranks, usually encounter powerful

resistance of the “primary” elements. The more totalitarian the system, the more

likelihood of opposition, split, civil war. The most stable and

those societies are effective in which, in the presence of some dominant order,

a certain degree of freedom is retained for all social forces.

Rationalization is replacing tribal consciousness and is gaining strength as traditional societies collapse. Science, technology, bureaucracy, mass systems

communications serve as its support. But rationality is not monolithic, not transparent.

It includes as elements law, tradition, material interests,

good will, ideological myth, moral enthusiasm and even religious zeal.

Rationality is valuable because it binds these disparate elements into one

whole. Economy, morality, religion, family, work become parts of a single

socio-cultural system. Rationality can be interpreted as a common name for everyone

legalized ideologies when they reach consensus. Rationality -

management tool. We are called upon to support, develop and improve it

politicians, scientists, the entire ruling elite and intelligentsia.

The second social element is money, monetary circulation. The birthplace of money is urban

society with its fleeting, anonymous market connections, vitally important

only for commodity exchange, but also for spiritual interactions. Money is

"perpetual motion machine" of the "social machine", allowing it to be deployed in different

directions. They will unite the efforts and thoughts of millions of people. Circulation of money

similar to the circulation of knowledge and information. Money - in phenomenal terms - is

remuneration for work, generally recognized value, instrument for distribution of benefits,

accepting the type of taxes, duties, interest; instrument of culture, science, education

In the form of investments. Money is a pure function, a medium of exchange - for anything

for anything. But, paradoxically, also independent of will and

element of reason. It can "rage", and then banks, presidents and

states are losing control over it. In the hours and minutes of economic crises

some become beggars, others become millionaires. The power of money has driven out of the sphere

labor and management tools such as slavery, direct violence, personal

devotion. But it also replaced morality, honor, dignity, and faith in goodness.

Money forms the plot basis of many novels, plays, and films. U

they have neither intelligence nor conscience. Money is a fetish, a tool of Satan.

All this was well known to many writers and philosophers, in particular, Marx, who saw in money a legalized instrument for the exploitation of man by man and

demanded their abolition in communist society. Following Marx, Simmel

indicates the irrational and antisocial forms that it can take

money element. This is the stratification of society into rich and poor, meaningless

luxury, overconsumption - at one extreme there is also beggary, the death of talents,

spiritual degradation is on the other.

Money frees an individual from the care of family, community, church, corporation. In them a person finds the realization of the great ideal of Personal Freedom. How?

Firstly, by concentrating the money supply in one hand. Secondly, by

liberation of a person from duties and responsibilities to the master, from

which can be "bought off". Thirdly, by receiving benefits and privileges from

with the help of bribes. Fourthly, by increasing the mass of “services” received from

other persons, while maintaining personal independence from them. Fifthly, by

expanding your social circle. It is clear that money in its liberating function

are destroyers of kinship and tribal relations, a tool

modernization of traditional societies and at the same time the destruction of small cultures.

Money promotes the formation of groups based on common goals, regardless of

social utility, morality of these goals. Hence the organized

crime, brothels, etc. At the same time, an individual, communicating with people

mentally and morally strangers, learns a lot and becomes internally freer.

Therefore, through money circulation lies the path to self-realization and awareness

each individual his own recognition.

Simmel's eight-hundred-page book "The Philosophy of Money" talks about how effective an invention money turned out to be. They materialize the eternal dream of a person with the help of a symbol, a talisman, to have power over the world and one’s own destiny. Money is a “despicable metal”. But for his sake people die, go to

crime, selling body, soul and mind.

Of all possessions, money seems to be the most “obedient”. They do not require “repair” or maintenance. But transactions with big money are risky. A successful investment allows you to make a million overnight, but a unsuccessful one leads to loss

condition.

Money holds together the heterogeneous elements of society, competing in this regard with ideology, religion, and ethics. The introduction of a global currency would greatly weaken

sovereignty of individual states.

It is not easy to explain from what sources money draws its strength. It is clear, in any case, that not only from accumulated labor, but also from various human

needs and fantasies, as well as from the dynamics of demand and social relations.

Money confirms the idea of ​​the symbolic nature of culture. They

are a tool, but easily turn into an end in itself, reducing genuine

values ​​to the level of funds.

The alternative to money fetishism may not be socialism, but a new, genuine spirituality. After all, with the help of money you can build any form of statehood.

It all depends on the person. Money is the energy carrier of culture. They allow

transform social chaos into order. Money is a good example

an “objective”, alienated culture that is opposed to life.

Money and intelligence are the main elements of civilization - objective, impersonal and

spiritless culture. It is they who determine the power and complexity of modern

life, its increasing systematicity and at the same time chaos. Destroyed

emotional-volitional connections between people, alienated forms grow

relationships. Money can give scope to any talent, free from any

dependencies. But at the same time they pull the rug out from under our feet. Freedom is bought

through mental and spiritual devastation, loss of homeland, kinship, love.

Rationality and money are opposed and at the same time supported -

numerous irrational forces of life itself: passions, lust for power, love and

enmity. The conflict between the elements of life and forms of culture was studied in detail by Simmel in

his later articles. But already during the development of formal sociology, Simmel

analyzes a number of forms that are essentially identical to life, are its

elements. These are, in particular, love, gratitude, enmity.

3. The phenomenon of enmity.

Enmity is a particularly characteristic phenomenon, which is both content and

form of life. From Simmel's analysis of enmity grew modern

conflictology. Widespread hostility in the form of wars, class and religious

hatred, ethnic conflicts are obvious. Enmity lends itself to rationality

explanation and settlement. But a correct understanding of enmity requires a combination

scientific-rational and intuitive-personal approaches. The point is that the enmity is

one of the world's elements, acting both in society and in the objective world, and in

the subject itself. It can be minimized, introduced into cultural forms,

rationalized in the form of economic competition, scientific discussion, dispute, but

cannot be completely eradicated. Games, competitions between the parties in court - also

serve as examples of socialized hostility. Hostility is present in the economy,

politics, religion, family relationships and even love itself. It manifests itself in

powerful, short-term discharges, flashes or in sluggish processes, when

There are cyclical rises and falls in tension. Enmity between people -

is natural, as evidenced by the famous saying: “All people are enemies,” which

is as true as its contradictory: “All men are brothers.”

We feel the originality, the origins of enmity in our existence, in that special

the interest we feel in the misfortune of our neighbor, as well as in the “spirit

contradictions", which sometimes arises between the closest people, actively and

deeply exciting each other. "Oppositional instinct", as he suggests

Simmel, “mixes” with human behavior in any situation: a person

asserts itself while denying the other.

In the article "Man as an Enemy" Simmel talks about many cases where small,

even ridiculous reasons served as the cause of bloodshed that lasted for years,

struggle. Here we can recall the struggle between the “Right” and “Left” hand parties in India,

"Scarlet" and "White" Roses in England. It seems that the reasons for hostility

are sought specifically when the energy of tension in society reaches a certain level

limit. The soul has a need to love and hate.

Moralists of all times called on people for peace and harmony. Meanwhile, humanity has always been at war. There was hardly a period in history when there was no

armed conflict. The relationships of primitive groups are almost always -

hostile. Greek cities were constantly at war with each other. They behaved the same way

Russian principalities and Indian tribes. In civilized societies they do

vigorous attempts to eliminate hostilities. Many treatises have been written on “eternal peace”,

which should come as a result of growing up and admonishing a person. However

two world wars between the civilized peoples of Europe are refuted, throughout

apparently this theory. And yet the functionality of consent and love in society

seems more obvious than the need for enmity and hatred. And it's unlikely

it is necessary to explain what a large-scale war threatens humanity in modern

conditions at the turn of the third millennium.

Love is less common than enmity, because it arises when

many circumstances related to age, inclinations, social and

family relationships, similarity of deep interests. To create enmity

Even one small reason is enough. Using the law of thermodynamics, we can

to say that enmity expresses a tendency towards a spontaneous increase in entropy, towards

chaotization, while love is a non-entropic process and, for it to increase,

soul work is required. However, Simmel emphasizes the close connection between

enmity and love and focuses on the functionality of enmity.

There is no spontaneous disgust, even a feeling of hatred, between a man and a woman

certain reasons. However, it is a symbol of a healthy, holistic being,

often a prelude to passionate love.

Close intimacy between people is difficult to maintain, because mental and spiritual relationships, unlike material and economic ones, cannot be static.

The human soul is always in motion and each soul has its own path. Therefore, society, in need of guarantees of reliability and spiritual closeness, puts forward many

prohibitions on innovation in action and thought. To reconcile the two imperatives:

social reliability and spiritual closeness, the church puts forward the dogma of sacrament and

indissolubility of marriage.

The thinner, deeper, more vibrant the connection between people, the easier it is to break. Brilliant

creative personalities come together for a short time, and then disperse. Are common

interests and common ideology especially strongly provoke enmity. If unity

community has become something taken for granted, then any deviation from them

perceived as painful.

We come into contact with a stranger only at separate “points of the soul,” hiding ourselves in a “shell of restraint.” But in a family or political party, conflicts can

flare up over trifles. Accusations of treason and heresies arise on the basis

ideological or spiritual affinity. However, well-mannered and harmonious

It is precisely at the moment of conflict that people realize how insignificant it is compared to

a blessed feeling of intimacy, love or friendship. This is possible because it is high

developed people are able to combine complete dedication with complete inner freedom.

However, for most people in close relationships,

unconscious dependence, reticence, desire to dominate. To

to limit these destructive tendencies, it is necessary to maintain some

optimal distance

The meaning of love, its functionality are clear. Love helps you survive

provides support, reliability, and strength of public relations. But why

need hostility? Why is it more widespread than love? Why is she so easy

flares up and is it so difficult to extinguish it?

Hostility will be “required”, firstly, to maintain competition, which is necessary in economics, science, and art. A certain amount of hostility activates

relationships, makes them more lively and interesting. Secondly, enmity

acts as a defense mechanism. We are hostile to those who humiliate us, force us

question our worth and dignity. Thirdly, enmity is a tool

life renewal. The enmity of “fathers and sons” helps society develop faster

abandon outdated traditions. The feud draws attention to new controversial

points, makes you focus on them. Conflict serves as a signal to begin

change and even rapprochement. The introduction of innovations is often associated with hostility, with

preparation for war. Many scientific discoveries are known to have been made thanks to

arms race. Fourthly, enmity, according to Simmel, precedes rapprochement

and love, serving as a “retreat for a running start.” Hostility helps interaction

crops A fruitful synthesis of many ethnic communities occurred as a result

wars. Fifthly, enmity fuels the dispute in which the truth is born. True

is often clarified and established as a result of a long struggle between parties, at the cost

blood and victims. It is not always possible to come to the truth in a direct and peaceful way.

Simmel considers conflict a constructive mechanism of social life. In contrast

from Marx, who sought to understand the antagonism between classes in order to

to start a war, a revolution, Simmel believes that the closer we come to

awareness of the conflict, the easier it is to overcome it through compromise. In development

In enmity, as in love, the intellect follows the feeling. Into a minor conflict

More and more powerful forces are gradually involved. Hostile confrontation is more common

in all is the result of the spontaneous development of the conflict that arose due to

for a minor reason.

4. Formal sociology.

Natural science differs significantly from sociology. The first is an example of science,

and it is strictly organized. The second consists of knowledge scattered in all areas

culture: myth, religion, art, historical chronicles and biographies. Why

is natural science possible as a science? Firstly, because we can perceive

natural objects using sensations (color, heat, movement, etc.). Secondly,

there are, as Kant showed, universal forms inherent in all consciousness

perceptions (time, space, causality, law, fact) under which we can

“to let down” everything that we see and imagine. Thirdly, a person who knows

nature, can separate itself from the object of knowledge. We are "built" into nature as

living beings, but in the process of cognition they are able to be distracted from our natural

connections and needs, be impartial. Fourthly, our cognizing

consciousness is one thing, but a cognizable object is something completely different.

All these conditions are absent in sociology. Firstly, there are no sensations here that would come directly from the object - society. It is invisible

intangible. The very existence of society as a special reality is subject to

doubt. Sociological "nominalism" derives the concept of "society" as a whole from

the sum of the ideas of individuals who, based on their experience and in

in accordance with their practical tasks, construct an image of society,

which is then “socialized”. Secondly, there are no universal

a priori forms of social cognition. In each specific era, people start from

immutable for them ideas about rights, freedoms, sacred and criminal,

noble and base, about the hierarchy and functions of various classes. But already during life

the next generation, these seemingly unshakable ideas can be

overthrown and ridiculed. Thirdly, the researcher of society himself is his

member and subject to all the prejudices and influences of his time. Universal

natural scientific reason corresponds in the science of society to some

cultural-historical type of rationality - the ability to social generalization,

oriented toward compromise, a combination of realities and symbols in a single picture,

different, sometimes opposing, points of view. Moreover, consciousness itself is in

a significant part of it - in content, motivation, orientation - is social

phenomenon, element of society. It is through consciousness and purposeful contacts

a network of interactions that make up the social system is constituted.

Through language, beliefs, information, holistic attitudes, foundations are formed

society, while natural - age, gender, food, herd forms

interactions constitute only its natural basis.

Fourth, natural science is morally neutral. Doesn't hurt anyone, let's say

study of mating in animals. But a person classifies not only his own

natural functions, but also many motives of social activity and

communication. Lust for power, lust for fame, lust for greed, all kinds of “complexes”

inferiority" are rarely recognized as motivating forces of social action.

The sociologist searches for such an essence, such deep interests, imperatives, carefully

camouflaged, which, if they were explicit, would cause an explosion in many

indignation and sociology itself turned out to be a “subversive science”. Not to be

as such, it often becomes an apologetic science and justifies actions

The most important political decisions are secrets that arouse intense interest. The deep and true truth of sociology would be the revelation of a mystery. And as soon as such a disclosure occurs, sociological knowledge becomes part of

ideology - dominant or revolutionary. In fact, sociology is all the time

fluctuates between criticism and apologetics, taking risks in both cases

its scientific reputation. Attempts to build politically and morally

neutral sociology leads to the fact that it becomes uninteresting to anyone

not necessary. These are some of the obstacles that stand in the way of constructing sociology as

Realizing them, Simmel proposes to build it not as a science of “society”

in general", but as a science about typical, recurring social situations, connections,

situations that are observed in many societies. He calls them "social

forms." They are subject to evaluation, moral interpretation - in accordance with

historical context and the values ​​of the researcher.

Sociology arises from practical problems of management, social work,

education, political struggle. And it can become a science if it is put into

focus on sustainable forms of communication, social interaction,

which are already visible at the group level. These are, for example, dominance, submission,

fashion. Social forms can be filled with broad political, moral,

religious content. We are talking about “pure forms of socialization”, defined

human nature and the character of society. They are also forms of knowledge,

similar forms of knowledge to Kant. Social forms are a product of practical

the interaction of individuals and the associated experience and awareness of reality.

War, family life, scientific communication are examples of forms of interaction. Their

awareness is included in these forms.

The task of identifying the main forms of sociation greatly fascinated Simmel. However, it was possible to solve it only in simple cases. For example, Simmel notes the importance of the number of people in a group from the point of view of possible processes and states in it. Thus, a “dyad” can exist in the form of rivalry, enmity, friendship, dominance and

submission. But in the “triad” more complex combinations are possible. Two faces

compete. The third, which is lower in level of development than the other two, may be the more

however, lead the group, performing a mediating role and representing the group in

society. The larger the group, the less role intelligence and morality play, and

the greater the importance of power, communication qualities, as well as appearance

individuals - in the process of gaining power and social status. Numerous

It is easier for one person to manage a group. Therefore, large countries gravitate towards monarchy,

and small ones - to democracy.

Forms are directly related to processes of change in social order,

social structure. But these processes are inseparable from the “contents”, that is

experiences, interests, moods. Thus, the process of stratification of society into elite and

masses, aristocrats and commoners, is associated with the struggle of material, power

interests, which, in turn, are determined by the content of the people's

mentality and values ​​of society.

Simmel likens formal sociology to geometry, which studies forms and

distracted from the content. Another analogy is grammar, which explores

linguistic constructions regardless of the meaning of statements. Third example -

formal logic. Logic, after all, is not only and not even so much a science as

a practical form of organizing and transferring knowledge from one person to another.

It helps protect transmitted information from distortion and does not allow

turn communication into a well-known game called “damaged phone”.

However, when a human relationship or a particular conversation tries entirely

subordinate to the rules of logic, it looks as if the whole meaning of human

Communication comes down to the transfer of information. And in knowledge itself we constantly see

the presence of random associations, insights, intuitions that violate logic.

All this must be taken into account if we want to understand the essence, functions

social forms. Simmel speaks, for example, of bureaucracy in Weber's sense as

natural, normal, effective form of management and maintenance of order. But

what happens when the bureaucracy hardens with the growth of the army, officials,

a decrease in their competence or the penetration of bureaucracy into such creative

spheres like science or art? In these cases, bureaucracy ceases to be

adequate form of management, it “peels away” from the content, activities and

turns into a hindrance to the development of the group.

Pure forms are discovered only in rare cases, since form and content inevitably transform into each other in society.

What do “forms” represent when translated into everyday language, into the practical level of consciousness?

Firstly, these are the boundaries of freedom set by the class or estate framework of life. Secondly, universal moral and legal norms. Thirdly, the methods of communication and achieving communication goals accepted in a given society. Fourthly, ideal types in the Weberian sense, serving both in science and at the everyday level of consciousness for classification, ordering and understanding of the motley stream of life phenomena.

Thus, there is something in common in such institutions as the Court of Louis XIV,

US State Department, Central Committee of the CPSU, Board of Directors of the Industrial Trust. All this -

representative, power, organizing centers in which they collide,

different opinions are coordinated, the interests of peripheral groups are “lobbied”,

decisions are made, political lines are formed. Similar in shape:

political party, gang of thieves, religious sect, teenage group,

scientific school. What do they have in common? Its own “climate of opinions”, “language”, internal

structure of leadership and subordination, the presence of "orthodoxy", the emergence of time from

the time of "heresies" and "schisms", the fight against apostates, traitors,

dissidents.

Finally, fifthly, the form acts as a model of behavior, a social role, a discourse (for example, paternal, superior, propaganda, confessional). Discourse is acquired in the process of learning and socialization and can be enriched or

weaken and degenerate in each subsequent generation. But, be that as it may,

discourse and role - as forms - significantly influence the content of consciousness,

transform the thoughts and feelings of individuals in a certain direction.

Emphasizing the importance of social forms, Simmel “starts” from common

mystical concepts of “national spirit”, “soul of the people”, “historical mission”,

“folk idea”, which supposedly help to comprehend society, historical

era. He would like to present history and changes in social structures as

the process of transformation of impersonal social forms. But being

personalist thinker and aesthetician, he was unable to make deep progress in this

direction. After all, the “projection” of personal subjective contents into images

social phenomena and historical processes - an inevitable moment of social

knowledge. War, revolution, social reform, coup d'etat often

take the form of “courageous deeds”, “betrayals”, “fatal mistakes”,

"troubles", "timelessness". This should not interfere with the study of objective factors, but

may contribute to a better understanding of historical and human significance

Simmel could not help but feel the one-sidedness of his formal sociology and

sought to fill it with a “theory of understanding.” He said that understanding the form,

social phenomenon, is achieved through the process of criticism, doubt, problematization

topics in a way that is understandable to contemporaries. Even distant events

antiquities are subject to “understanding interpretation.” But that's not all. Recognizing

subjectivity of his postulates and assessments, the sociologist must identify and describe more

and personal values ​​that influenced the choice of subject and methods of study. It is forbidden

base knowledge of society on personal experience. But also avoid it in the process

research is impossible. The entire rich spectrum of human feelings;

love, hatred, contempt, admiration, godless aspirations and fanatical

faith is necessary in the work of a historian and sociologist, theorist and phenomenologist. Culture

is realized only on the basis of a full-fledged personal experience of life.

Simmel proposed an extensive list of social forms. Some of them are deeply analyzed. But there is no clear, generally accepted classification of them.

Different researchers group forms in different ways.

Forms differ from each other in the degree of their distance from the flow

life, from its elemental contents. Closest to life, to its content, are

personal, intimate forms - friendship, love. However, they can also become formal,

turning into stereotypes of mass culture. A little further from life

there are economic, political, household and public

creative forms in which the direct movements of mental life are mixed with

powerful ideologies and also interact with power structures. More

strive for complete independence from mass consciousness and from the “social

order." Finally, the “purest” forms of sociation are playful forms. Here

include specially organized games for children and adults and, in addition,

“incorporation” of archaic ritual and festive forms into natural society. Finally,

relict forms of behavior are possible, carried out according to the principle: “art for

art" or "science for science's sake."

Many attempts have been made to classify social forms. Thus, the following were highlighted:

Situations: litigation, exchange, betrayal, bribery;

norms: legal, moral, psychological;

Social personality types: stranger, poor man, aristocrat, leader;

groups: family, secret society, political party, love couple, corporation,

Group structures: hierarchy, centralism, liberalism;

stable forms of interindividual interaction: conflict, compromise,

domination, submission;

Large-scale sociocultural processes: division of labor, urbanization,

secularization, colonization.

It is clear, however, that sociological and cultural analyzes of forms are productive only in a sociocultural and historical context, taking into account form and content.

In its roughest approximation, the form is objective culture. Contents -

subjective. Forms are social, impersonal. Contents are individual,

personal. Forms are the outer layer of consciousness. However, their stability and repeatability

are due to the fact that they grow from deep - innate, unconscious -

"archetypes" (in Jung's sense). So, for example, an aristocrat is a position in a group,

status, a set of group opinions. But the essence of aristocracy "is

nobility of blood, birth", that a person is convinced of his belonging

to the privileged layer. The poor man is also a form. It is not necessarily related to

lack of money. The poor man is pitied, despised, looked down upon or

help. The essence of poverty is “unhappy consciousness”, deprivation of something like that,

what everyone has at their disposal due to the normal order of things.

Simmel's threefold classification of social forms is also common:

processes, types, development scenarios.

Fashion is a process. It did not exist in ancient times and in the Middle Ages. She

comes to replace folk traditions and political despotism. Fashion is associated with

urbanization and modernization. New layers coming to the forefront of life

Using fashion, they emphasize their independence from old authorities and

official power, want to quickly establish their special position. Need

in identification with the advanced cultural layer manifests itself in the form of fashion in the masses,

democratic societies. In a caste-based, closed state, fashion is not needed.

Venetian doges dressed in the same black clothes. Identical tunics,

French jackets, uniforms, were worn by party functionaries in the era of Hitler and Stalin. Fashion

indicates the possibility of individual achievement. After all, “keep up with fashion”

not everyone can. A fashionably dressed person proves that he has taste, energy,

resourcefulness. Fashion is attractive because it gives a sense of the present, a feeling

time. This is a self-accelerating process. What has become especially fashionable

widespread, no longer indicates personal achievements and “comes out of

fashion". Fashion is universal. It concerns not only the length of skirts and trousers, but also

political beliefs, philosophical ideas, scientific methods, religious quests,

love relationships.

Fashion, it would seem, is voluntary. But it is also forced. It can be considered

the democratic equivalent of political and cultural tyranny. Peter the First

forcibly cut the beards of his boyars. The modern politician is looking for himself

hairdresser, consults with psychologists to develop an attractive,

popular image. Fashion is a field for mediocre, dependent fame-lovers. But she

functional: makes industry work, helps unite new

groups and classes, serves as a tool for communication, promotion “up” of gifted

personalities.

The types, according to Simmel, are: rich man, poor man, adventurer, aristocrat, cynic,

coquette, professional, amateur, “insider”, stranger and a number of others. As in

example with fashion, Simmel’s thought when characterizing social types moves

dialectically: from subjective - to objective, from symbolic - to

functional, from external, formal - to substantive, internal.

For example, the characteristics of an aristocrat are interesting. This guy is proud of his

pedigree. He will not fight for “individual rights and freedoms.” It is characteristic of him

an innate sense of equality with all living things and, at the same time, belonging to

elite. An aristocrat values ​​his personal freedom and independence. He is not

displays his hobbies. Outwardly remains calm - both in joy and

in grief. Limits his contacts to a circle of “decent” people. Avoids

professionalism, standardized work for the sake of earning money. He may know more

than a professional, but always emphasizes his belonging to the leisure class,

proud of his amateurism.

An aristocrat is a man of leisure. The snobbery of many aristocrats, their artificial

coldness and harshness in communication allow them to maintain the unity of the class

life, have high standards of personal achievements, including in philosophy and

science, art, collecting paintings, rarities. Aristocratism demands

wearing a mask sometimes weakens mental strength and leads to the degeneration of noble families.

But it has value as an example of impeccable behavior, exposing

"plebeians", vulgarity and bad manners of the "nouveau riche".

The aristocrat is in no hurry, is not particularly interested in anything, and often looks bored. Nevertheless, every mature nation must support the aristocracy with its traditions. Characterized by the popularity of aristocrats among the British, inclined

is proud of its liberalism and democracy.

An interesting and promising form for sociological forecasts is

development scenarios. They replace simple extrapolations and linear

forecasts. Scenario for the development of a group based on an increase in its number

members, outlines as a consequence a whole fan of mutually complementary or

conflicting trends: division of labor, increased competition, intensification

exchange, decreased cohesion, increased freedom and responsibility

individuals, strengthening the unique and social characteristics of the individual. At

building development scenarios combines accurate analysis, intuition and

sociological imagination. It is this type of form that shows the specificity

social science: growing out of practical problems and observations, it rises

to complex abstraction, and then again transforms into practice.

The social forms outlined by Simmel are close to artistic forms and easily

can be illustrated by types of heroes and plots of literary works.

The convergence of sociology and fiction is a characteristic symptom of the transition

from “positivist” sociology to cultural studies.

5. Philosophy of life and culture.

In his philosophy, Simmel relies on the ideas of Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche,

Bergson, anticipates the later ideas of the existentialists, adding to this

his own characteristic psychologism and skepticism. Categories that are the most

Spirit, Society, Culture.

Life is the original, deepest concept. She is irrational, self-sufficient,

capable of mobilizing and transforming any natural objects. Only through her

the spirit can be actualized. Life is a continuous flow of being. In her

The rapid pressure differentiates between reality and what should be. Life

strives for the proper, the ideal, for that which is higher and more significant than itself.

At every given moment, the spiritual content of life confronts it like a duty,

ideal, value, meaning. Having achieved them, life throws off material,

ideal and social shells, forms that served as steps on the way to

freedom, and is established in pure spirituality. Society and culture turn out to be

thus the products and instruments of life, and the animal vitality and spirit are

its lower and higher essences. This is the general philosophical picture of existence according to Simmel.

Culture is divided into objective and subjective. The first is the product of labor and

thoughts of many generations who lived and created, not knowing what, in the end,

the total result of their activities will result. Ideas, things, social norms

multiply with each new era, merge with each other due to the incomprehensible

for us the law, striving for something holistic. Objective culture grows

as if by the will of some Absolute Subject, who uses people as

temporary “hired workers” to achieve goals unknown to us. But man

has its own requirements for culture. An individual acquires knowledge, norms,

artistic images in order to express and develop your own “piece”

nature given to him from birth. This is how a subjective culture arises, which

shapes, organizes and harmonizes the personality from the inside, determining the place of all its

inclinations and talents, giving scope to each of them. At the moment of creativity

cultural phenomena correspond to life, but as it becomes enriched and affirmed

become alien to her, even hostile. There are many examples of this: astronomy,

serving the needs of agriculture and navigation, begins to develop as

independent science; social roles, deprived of practical content,

become theatrical characters; political and economic struggle

becomes a game; wars are gradually being replaced by sports competitions; Love

takes the form of coquetry, etc. Cultural form embodies a certain permanence

being. The flow of life demolishes the outdated form and replaces it with a new one. Moreover, the process

this is repeated again and again. Life in itself is formless, but

appropriate. Culture is formalized, but the alternation of its forms has no purpose other than

life itself.

Objective culture is absorbed by life, becoming the culture of the individual. She

is an educational and educational resource for humanity. The richer

The more diverse the objective culture, the more meaningful life. But the growth of freedom and

educational potential of culture is just one of the visible trends that

inferior in strength to others, much less favorable. Among them stands out, according to

at least three: professionalization, individualization and massification.

Culture is being professionalized. The highest levels of science, technology, art,

political governance are becoming less and less accessible to the masses, they require everything

greater training and appropriate abilities. Professionalization alienates

people from each other and makes them deaf and blind to the general movement

The choice of life path is individualized. Traditions, group interests, even the education and upbringing already received constrain the individual less and less in his

life choice. It gives a feeling of hope. But along with it, the conflict intensifies

objective and subjective cultures. Personality, even if it evaluates correctly

its capabilities, realizes the importance of universal human values, yet

turns out to be negligibly small, increasingly becoming a toy, paper

a boat driven by the winds of the objective elements of culture: migrations, wars,

revolutions.

Finally, the mass character of culture is increasing. Culture from the centers of its production,

located mainly in the USA and Europe, spreads spontaneously in the form of

information, books, films, fashion, political stereotypes and deliberately

imposed by the ruling elites in order to make the masses more obedient, less

conscious. Education and upbringing are not protected from mass culture.

Choosing your path correctly, realizing your calling becomes everything because of this

more difficult. A person is less and less able to achieve a coincidence of the “center” of his personality with

the center of objective culture and even that part of it that he has chosen as

their destiny (language, confession, craft, social circle, political party and

The result of all these trends is that the world of spirit, involving man,

reveals many autonomous centers of development: religious, philosophical,

ethical, national. Man cannot live without gathering around himself a single

personal center. However, the components included in it are increasingly

autonomous, fragmented, inconsistent with each other. Personality is made

kaleidoscopic. One can say about a person that he is a “weaver who himself is not

knows what he is weaving."

Thus, Simmel adds his voice to the critics of "alienation", especially Feuerbach and Marx. The essence of alienation is that the products of creativity

separate individuals, being objectified and included in the dynamics of social

elements are no longer controlled either by the individual or by any social institution.

Adherents of religious and philosophical-political teachings go so far from their

teachers, founders of any doctrine, that its main core is

is forgotten, repressed, and secondary motives begin to dominate. Core -

fragments, secondary ideologies grow from it, which enter into battle with each other

with a friend. Ideologies are fragmenting. A powerful fragmentary layer of objective

culture. In its integrity it becomes more imaginary, “virtual”, like

we would say in the age of the Internet. System constructs that model culture

no matter how verified they are, they turn out to be far from life. Life is not

wants to be formalized into a system, cannot be comprehended as such. This

the situation can be expressed in another way: modern man is less and less clear

understands where, as whom and why he lives. Objective culture

enriches itself, and the personality becomes less and less enlightened. Pluralism

the fragmentation of objective culture corresponds to the fragmentation of personality,

relativism of values. The individual seems to be “pulled apart” in different directions

conflicting streams of life. Products of cultural creativity

are becoming more and more advanced - thanks to the development of technology and the fact that

There are many hands and minds working with them. But mastering them is becoming increasingly difficult.

The enrichment of objective culture leads to the fact that the degree of participation in it

each individual decreases. It is becoming increasingly difficult to understand the integrity of culture

and how it can be managed. Even the development of science is not so much

As reassuring as it is alarming. We gain more knowledge, but to anticipate it

we cannot influence society or the course of the historical process. Turns out,

that only in the most primitive forms are science and technology subject to the will and

reasonable control. In developed forms, they subjugate a person. This thought

religion - "these wings of the soul, designed to lift it into the world of spirit" - acquires

own logic of development and instead of awakening a dormant spirit -

binds him.

In Simmel's philosophy one can distinguish at least three aspects: ethical,

philosophical and cultural.

In the ethical aspect, the most popular, usually associated with Nietzscheanism,

philosophy of life looks like a call to identify oneself with life, throwing away everything

artificial, giving complete freedom to her creative flow. healthy life

instinct is aimed at growth, accumulation, realization of forces, increase in creativity

Vegetation, fauna, physiological instincts - this is only the lowest

the foundation of life, which reaches its apogee in man, spiritualized and

enriched with culture. Greatness of goals, power of thought, purity of heart,

the ability to create beauty is where the color of life manifests itself. "Ethics

life" is incompatible neither with complacent hedonism nor with self-denial and

humility. Both sensual pleasures and strict discipline are possible and even

necessary for those who have mastered the art of life and firmly embarked on the path

self-development. But social forms, as well as dogmatically understood values, are not

must suppress life, which is in perpetual motion and on nothing

calms down.

Agreeing with Nietzsche, Simmel protests against alturistic-democratic

demands, with the help of which they try to make a strong person a servant

the weak, “healthy - turn into a nurse at the patient’s bedside.” Main vector

life is aimed at increasing its internal power and wealth. The meaning and purpose of life

Not in building something external, distant, but in what we do “here and

now." The meaning of this historical moment is to overcome the current

of a person - a subsequent, higher type. "Ethics of life" combines

Hellenistic Stoicism, Kant's categorical imperative and the idea of ​​the "eternal"

return" Nietzsche. Its essence is not to build your happiness or

promote the good of the majority. You need to look for your business, duty, calling.

The one who finds them becomes free and finds the meaning of life. Accepting life in all of it

completeness, he surrenders himself to the power of courageous, “victorious” instincts. He

"tramples under foot" the dream of prosperity - the dream of traders, moralists and

Democrats. “Everything great in life was created by the discipline of intense suffering.”

The projection of the philosophy of life onto morality and politics requires the recognition of hierarchy in

society, "the pathos of distance between people." This pathos should inspire those

those who are “down” should strive “up”, and those who are “above” should do their job honestly.

In the philosophical aspect, life turns out to be the most “meaning-intensive” concept,

overcoming old philosophical antitheses. Life is the unity of subjective and

objective, material and spiritual, become and becoming, natural and

cultural, mortal and eternal. Life reaches its climax in man. In him

it becomes maximally spiritualized, becomes supernatural and acquires

cosmic scale. All streams of life and being intersect in a person. In him

life moves “from inside to outside,” that is, it turns into creativity of “subjective

culture." And "from outside to inside", becoming "subjective culture". Culture

is born precisely at the point of intersection of centrifugal and centripetal

streams of life. She is a form of life that allows her to "awaken"

having joined the spirit, manifest what is in a “dormant state.”

Life is a series of contradictory experiences in which being and

consciousness. Such as love, fear, enmity, debt, guilt, repentance. Culture is

religion, science, philosophy, morality, art. All this is transitory,

materialistic forms of life, thanks to which it asserts itself, acquires

meaning. But life is endless, immortal, incomplete. Culture is finite,

Brenna strives to become complete and perfect.

At some key points, culture and life, form and content, coincide.

Thanks to this, the flow of history takes on the appearance of continuity. Chaos of life

becomes the order of the culture. But as soon as the system of cultural forms ceases

contain new surges of vitality, it becomes dead, cracks,

turns into ruin. Life has a great need for culture. Only in it

she sees the purpose of her movement. But there is a deep and abiding enmity

between the vital-creative, mental process and objective forms of culture.

Life is always moving forward. A talented, insightful person who has mastered

the art of life, constantly changing its strategy. Mastering new forms

culture, he tries to stay in the “center of his personality,” combining

plasticity and stability. But the broad masses behave differently. They are waiting for reforms

revolutions, new philosophical concepts in which the same

truth for everyone and who will bring life into final order. However

A little time passes and the cultural form, which just seemed perfect,

becomes tight and collapses.

Simmel notes that the struggle between life and culture was clear for the first time

demonstrated by Marx using the example of the history of the world economy. Economic

forces create corresponding forms of production relations, ideologies,

outgrow them and replace them with new ones. But economic forces are only part of life's

strength Culture strives to embrace the entire “living space” with a single idea.

The typical features of each great era appear, according to Simmel, in its central

an idea in which the real, the proper and the ideal merge.

For the classical Greek world, the central idea was the One Divine, Substantial Being, embodied in plastic forms, easily felt thanks to man's receptivity to beauty. In its place, the Christian Middle Ages put God, in whom they saw the Truth, Cause and Purpose of everything that exists and who differed from the pagan gods in his intimate connection with

the soul of a person, illuminated his inner world, demanded free obedience and

devotion. Since the Renaissance, the highest place in the spiritual world began to be occupied by

concept of Nature. At first it seemed like the only thing for

aesthetic contemplation, science and philosophy, behavior for the individual,

a source of knowledge necessary for life arrangement. In the 17th century, under

the influence of the reformation, deepening philosophical reflection, the predominant importance

receives the concept of “personal self” as a given and at the same time -

opportunities that require implementation. Personality of a creator, thinker, reformer

finds himself at the center of the world. An individualistic worldview increases chaos in

society and pushes for the creation of bold, comprehensive social projects.

The concept of “society” developed in the 19th century did not become a sign of the era.

The social movements based on it covered only a small part

intellectual and political elite. Socialist demand for "dissolution"

individuals" in society or the opposite liberal principle of "human rights"

they remained mostly fictions. And only on the threshold of the 20th century broad layers

intellectual Europe began to unite on the basis of a philosophy of life. Idea of ​​life

has become a “reference point” for intellectuals, politicians, entrepreneurs and creators

art. Its significance was confirmed by Nietzsche and Schopenhauer, who put

the will to life and power ahead of reason - as the main motivating force.

At the same time, Simmel notes that the philosophy of life outgrows the requirements of any

specific idea, form, social group. And here is his main conclusion: modern

The era is characterized by the struggle of life against all forms. Formless life

loses its expediency, becomes meaningless and chaotic. In that

is the deep cause of the crisis of modern culture. Simmel illustrates it

examples from art, science, philosophy.

Thus, expressionism is popular in art. Its meaning lies in the desire

directly manifest or enhance in a work of art the inner

the artist's excitement and tension. Expressionism avoids the finished,

harmonic forms and even deliberately breaks them to show how they

hamper the creative element of life. In expressionist art the idea of ​​life

perceived not only and not so much by reason, but by intuition and will.

The thought, as it were, merges with the life process, becomes a gesture, a cry,

with a loose brush stroke. Such art, like life itself, destroys all

form. It is indifferent to good and evil, beautiful and ugly. With another

On the other hand, expressionism is form for form's sake, art for art's sake.

A similar tendency is evident in the philosophy of American pragmatism. Being

superficial, intellectually untenable teaching, pragmatism, however

less, it correctly grasps the main motive of the modern worldview. Cognition

was previously considered the activity of the mind, striving towards objective truth.

The independence and objectivity of truth is challenged by pragmatism. Pragmatists

claim that practical interests push us towards knowledge, and truth is

what is “profitable”, favorable for life, is justified in practice. Not the truth

the flow of life is directed, and life, on the contrary, creates and shapes the truth in such a way

to give yourself maximum freedom.

The third example is from ethical culture. We are talking about two false unproductive

forms of sexual relations: marriage and prostitution. Many marriages take place according to

reasons that have nothing to do with eroticism and love - for the sake of inheritance,

maintaining status due to emotional underdevelopment and inexperience. It was

Always. Life in such a marriage turns out to be empty and painful. Prostitution -

the oldest of professions has become almost legal. The love in her disappears or

turns into a caricature. Marriage and prostitution are two forms against which

Life is rebelling today, because they are drowning out its most hidden sources. But

instead of traditional marriage and prostitution, no others have been proposed yet

acceptable forms.

All three examples, according to Simmel, are about one thing: history has reached such a point

when the mechanism that was usual in the past for replacing one form of culture with another is no longer

works. Life, wanting to free itself from all forms, strives for the unattainable.

Instead of the utopia of spontaneously flowing free life, Simmel proposes to create

a culture that will always be spiritually meaningful for everyone,

personally significant formative process. "The entire space of life must

be filled with cultural content, thoughts and feelings, actions and destinies,

and they will all be imbued with that peculiar unity of humility and pride,

tension and peaceful rest, activity and contemplation, which can be called

religious. A life with such content will have absolute value, sooner

belonging only to its individual formations." Wanting to illustrate

Having said this, Simmel quotes the verses of Angelus Silesius:

Holy when he drinks

No less pleasing to God,

Than when he sings psalms."

6. Women's culture.

The opposition of “male” and “female” in nature and society is a mystery that has not yet been solved. It is obvious that “pure” men and “pure” women do not exist.

Masculine and feminine qualities are present in different proportions in representatives of both sexes, but what is the meaning of the opposition itself?

A man, according to Simmel, is an extroverted being, becoming, not having

sustainable center. The meaning of male existence is in the creation of things, works of the spirit,

forms of objectified life. Male strategy taken to the limit

would lead to the transformation of man into a tool, to the devastation of personality in the name of

external achievements. The center of the male personality is weakly connected with the periphery. That's why

a man can enthusiastically indulge in activities that do not suit his

nature. It is more difficult for him than for a woman to realize her calling. Expansion outward -

a constant dominant of his reality, which approaches the dominant of life

as such, also striving to break out of all boundaries. Totalitarian system and

the chaotization of the world is an equally probable result of “purely” male activity. Even

the appearance of a man: the angularity of the muscles, the roughness of the outlines of the hand speak of

strength, aggressiveness, characterize a man as eccentric, instrumental

creature.

A woman is by nature introverted, holistic, inert. She has a stable personality core that is easily and directly expressed even in the most

minor actions. A woman is not inclined to think about her calling and

purpose. She finds the meaning of life not in external action or realization

distant goal, and in momentary actions - gesture, facial expressions, speech. A woman is always

“at home,” while the man is “always on the go.” If the women's strategy

taken to the extreme limit, then we will come to an animal existence or pure

spirituality that does not have any external, utilitarian tasks. If male nature

congenial to life, then female nature is congenial to human nature. After all

The peculiarity of man is that he, in principle, is capable of not having

external goal, while every animal is faced with the need to live for

account of something or someone. A woman rises above the passage of time. Man

is satisfied when it “dissolves” in it. Women's activities are aimed

not to reorganize the world, but to strengthen one’s own soul and the nearest

environment, which is for her a continuation of her inner life. The man lives

future and distant. A woman is real and close.

A woman serves the interests of today, creates a home, a family, protects those

borders and foundations that exist today. "Loyalty" is its existential

characteristic. The idea that a woman is “prone to cheating” is false. It is

only the fruit of hyperbolic male jealousy, which has its root in

to possess a woman as a thing. A man is a born boundary violator, often not

in harmony with the law. There are more criminals, traitors, immoralists among men,

than among women. The appearance of a woman is a floating softness of gait, ease,

natural beauty of body movements speaks of strength and emotional

the richness of her inner world, the unity of internal and external. True

a woman is in herself, and a man must find and create his own truth. Men's

truth is instrumental, corresponds to the tasks of the business in which he is engaged.

Women's truth is ontological and coincides with her being. It is not divided into

“segments” of rational projects that replace each other in the process of life.

A woman easily, without hesitation, realizes her spiritual aspirations, regardless of

often with neither logic nor etiquette. Inconsistency, tactlessness,

excessive frankness is characteristic of a woman, but not because of her inner

"unreliability", but because its essence does not correspond to the impersonal requirements

dominant male culture. Feminine energy flows freely into action

and into speech, while a man doubts and hesitates for a long time before

decide something.

A man is more logical, rational, and impartial than a woman. Abstract philosophy

corresponds to his spiritual needs. But why is he philosophizing? Because

does not feel the immediate meaning of life, sets doubtful goals for himself,

difficult to achieve goals. A woman is less inclined to philosophize, because the meaning of life

she feels directly.

The great creation of a woman is the House. The importance of home for culture is often misunderstood and underestimated. Home life is considered to be of little importance compared to public life. However, it is the house that is the primary “cell” of culture. In the house, the contradiction between the objective and the subjective is removed, and the disturbing fluidity of life is miraculously stabilized within certain boundaries of time and

space. Only a woman can breathe life into a chaotic conglomerate

things, habits, memories that we call home. A man comes to

house, but does not create or support it. Objective male culture is

a “homeless” space, but each time newly organized and filled.

The female profession of housewife does not exclude public spiritual and creative

functions. "Small" spaces of public life - salon, club, theater stage -

They become lively and cozy as soon as a woman makes them like a home.

Today's culture - science, technology, trade, military affairs - masculine

a creation focused on an external, distant goal, and not on personal development

and ennoblement of life. A man feels free in a fragmented world

external, alienated forms.

This gives him an everyday advantage over a woman, but does not elevate him spiritually. There is no certainty that culture will continue to maintain its alienated,

non-domestic character. The feminist movement, as Simmel believes, had

initially, although a vague, but true goal: to end alienation, to create

a world like home is “transparent” for personal relationships. However, under the influence

male attitudes that were assimilated by women who began to engage in

politics and administration, feminists “lost their way” and began to seek

equality of rights "within" specialized areas of male culture, reconciling

with its fundamentals. Success here accompanied only a minority of women who were ready

It is treacherous to identify with the male role. For the female majority

only “gaps”, “backyards” of male culture are accessible, which men themselves either

they don’t want or can’t master it.

However, the successes of women in these “gaps” eloquently testify to their unique abilities, many of which are not disclosed, not identified, specifically

are not cultivated in any way. There are a number of cultural areas in which women act

especially successful.

Firstly, this is medicine. Not only treatment, but also medical examination

often turns out to be ineffective due to the fact that the male doctor is unable to

empathize with the patient's state of mind. He studies and treats "symptoms". A

a female doctor enters into emotional contact with a patient and captures subtle connections

between character orientation and illness. Her sympathetic attitude helps

the patient will recover faster.

The second perspective for a woman is historical science. Nothing significant can be done in history if we limit ourselves to a rational statement of the objective

sequences of facts. A huge number of intersecting

cause-and-effect relationships exclude the possibility of a strictly linear, rational

diagrams of the historical process. A female historian creates an understandable and impressive

picture of events intuitively, since it can easily - as a thinking,

an empathetic personality - to place oneself at the center of the process under study.

Fantasy, feeling, imagination are stronger in a woman than the tendency to factualize and

logical thinking. Therefore, the secret plans of government officials are clearer and closer to her.

figures, the vague goals of popular movements and even the hidden meaning of the ancients

inscriptions on stones.

The third area, especially rich in opportunities for women, is art. Is it true,

due to the significant weight in the artistic creativity of men - linguistic and

logical-ideological canonical forms, many creations of women in the field of poetry and

literature looks pale. But in those genres where the form is unstable or merged with

women's creativity is rich and soulful.

An artistic form that seems specially designed for women is the novel. Strictly speaking, a novel has no form at all. There is a love affair

historical, adventure, biographical, production, political,

poetic, etc. An ideal novel is a fragment of life and at the same time something

self-sufficient. This is a house, a world in miniature. Moreover, no novel is ever

happens to be completed.

The female personality, according to Simmel, clearly appears in the early and late stages of development - when the forms of culture have either not yet taken shape or are already “peeling away” from the content and creativity becomes a free play of the mind and imagination.

Examples include folk song on the one hand, and mathematics on the other.

Even philosophy may be richer and more fruitful if it becomes

property of the female mind. Today's European philosophy has a masculine flavor

rudeness, homelessness and provincialism. She is devoid of lightness, spontaneity,

which were characteristic of Greek philosophers who understood the meaning of androgyny,

a harmonious fusion of feminine and masculine qualities in one person. Full

self-realization and creative power are available only to the androgyne.

The lower - material and higher - spiritual forms of culture - seem to be genderless.

Therefore, they are more organic for women. If technology, science, trade, business,

finance, architecture are “average spiritual”, masculine concepts, then embroidery,

kitchen cooking, on the one hand, pure mathematics and philosophy, on the other,

attract women. In handicrafts, body decoration, clothing making,

By cultivating gestures, facial expressions, and gait, a woman is superior to a man.

Evidence of greater physical similarity between men and women among primitive

peoples than among civilized ones and the erasure of gender differences in clothing and manners

behavior among the current cultural elite, among “emancipated” women, also

they talk about the “genderlessness” of the lower and higher levels of objective culture.

The dominance of “average” forms in modern culture makes it masculine,

patriarchal.

Where impulsiveness and spontaneity are more easily manifested, where they are not

fall out of the cultural context, where the feminine essence is more fully expressed.

In the light of what has been said, the actor’s author’s performance on stage looks 100% feminine.

The “center” and “periphery” of the personality must coincide. The ideal actor feels

thinks and acts at the same time, as is typical for a woman. Great actress on

stage, completely dissolves in the role, has no personality of his own. If

a male actor achieves the same thing, this may be the result of being in his

personality of strong female components of what he “does not play”, but invests in

your role, personal. It is no coincidence that it was the Romanesque peoples who have long been

attributed femininity to the character, created a theater and generally more successfully

showed themselves in art than the Germans and the British, to whom

reputation of "courageous", economic and technical nations.

Thus, “objective culture” is adequate to male nature. But you can't

to say that “subjective culture” is female. Rather, in a woman we see

erasing the opposition “objective - subjective” and even erasing

contrasts between natural and cultural elements. This is illustrated

symbolism of the House as a female creation. On the one hand, the house is the whole culture,

the abode of man, a special way to form and organize Life as a whole.

We can say that the House is female rationality. In utopian projects she

strives to reach the entire society. The state is male rationality,

which can organize only the external, peripheral elements of life. In the state

form, law, always prevail over content, while in the house they are combined

Those who study the process of humanization of laws and softening of morals in history,

They are often associated with the growing influence of women. However, neither the abolition of slavery nor

serfdom, nor the humanization of military customs, nor the abolition of torture and assistance

poor on a national scale are not, as far as we know, associated with

the actions of women. The influence of women on male objective culture, on

the men themselves are really great. But it does not consist in direct

in the assimilation by men of women’s feelings and assessments, and in imparting value, cultural

objectivity to what a man already has in latent form. Next to the woman

a man feels his strength and importance. Definition of a woman as "beautiful"

gender" is not a simple banality. If we combine all the signs of "masculinity" and

"femininity" and expressed in two words, then we can say that a man should

to be "significant" and a woman to be "beautiful." Significance is the ability to

purposeful, effective action. Beautiful is self-sufficient,

perfect and harmonious. But the goal is to achieve beauty

a person in general.

Simmel doubts that a male, predominantly objective culture can be reformed into a female one, as well as the feminist dream of a parallel female culture, independent of men. Rather, women should be educated in such a way as to form and cultivate the feminine essence in them.

7. List of sources used

1. Sokolov E.V., Georg Simmel: philosophy of culture, St. Petersburg, 2003.

2. Internet: http://www.krotov.net

3. Internet: http://www.countries.ru/library/rspersons/index.htm

4. Internet: http://sociology.agava.ru

In the history of sociology, G. Simmel is known as one of the prominent representatives of the analytical school, who anticipated many of the essential provisions of modern theoretical sociology. Thus, he studied “pure” forms of sociality, i.e. relatively stable formations, structures of social interaction that give integrity and stability to the social process.

In his works, G. Simmel described and analyzed many “pure” forms of sociality relating to various aspects of social processes: dominance, subordination, competition, fashion, conflict, etc., social personality types: “cynic”, “aristocrat”, “ poor man", "cocotte", etc.

G. Simmel is known for his original studies of social conflict, the phenomenon of fashion, urban life, culture, etc. Unlike social Darwinists and Marxists, who consider conflict as a means of struggle between different social groups, the German sociologist drew attention to the positive functions and integrative aspects.

An analysis of the phenomenon of fashion led G. Simmel to the conclusion that its enormous popularity in modern society is due to the fact that it allows a person to assert himself, to be not only like others, but also to show his individuality.

G. Simmel laid the foundations for the study of urban lifestyle. He saw the positive role of large cities in the fact that they provide an opportunity to expand and deepen the division of social labor, increase the efficiency of the economy, allowing a person to satisfy various needs, thereby promoting personal development.

At the same time, he also noted “the increased nervousness of life, resulting from a rapid and continuous change of impressions.”

The spread of fashion in modern society is the result of a broader social process of liberating a person from the stereotypes and norms of traditional pre-industrial society, which limit the possibilities of personal development.

Fashion is a process. It did not exist in ancient times and in the Middle Ages. It replaces folk traditions and political despotism. Fashion is associated with urbanization and modernization. New layers coming to the forefront of life emphasize, with the help of fashion, their independence from old authorities and official power, and wish to quickly establish their special position. The need for identification with the advanced cultural layer manifests itself in the form of fashion in mass, democratic societies. In a caste-based, closed state, fashion is not needed. Venetian doges dressed in the same black clothes. The same tunics, jackets, and uniforms were worn by party functionaries in the era of Hitler and Stalin. Fashion demonstrates the possibility of individual achievement. After all, not everyone can “keep up with fashion.” A fashionably dressed person proves that he has taste, energy, and resourcefulness. Fashion is attractive because it gives a sense of the present, a sense of time. This is a self-accelerating process. What has become especially fashionable and widespread no longer indicates personal achievements and “goes out of fashion.” Fashion is universal. It concerns not only the length of skirts and trousers, but also political beliefs, philosophical ideas, scientific methods, religious quests, and love relationships. fashion simmel hierarchy consumption

Fashion, it would seem, is voluntary. But it is also forced. It can be considered the democratic equivalent of political and cultural tyranny. Peter the Great forcibly cut the beards of his boyars. A modern politician looks for a hairdresser himself, consults with psychologists in order to develop an attractive, popular image. Fashion is a field for mediocre, dependent fame-lovers. But it is functional: it makes industry work, helps unite new groups and classes, serves as an instrument of communication, and the promotion of gifted individuals “up.”

The German sociologist Simmel put forward a number of key ideas in fashion theory. He showed that fashion is based, on the one hand, on the desire of the upper strata to break away from the masses through consumption, and on the other, the desire of the masses to imitate the consumer models of the upper strata. Simmel drew attention to the fact that consumption acts as a tool of flirtation, and gave an analysis of this form of gender relations.

The German sociologist and economist Sombart proposed the concept of luxury. He also gave an analysis of the phenomenon of early consumerism - philistinism. Another German sociologist, Weber, formulated the concept of status groups and the Protestant ethic. However, the ideas put forward at the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries. did not attract much attention at the time. They were not assembled into a coherent body of ideas, which would give grounds to talk about the emergence of the sociology of consumption as an independent discipline. Many fruitful ideas are almost forgotten. The sociology of consumption never had time to be born, remaining a complex of interesting and fruitful, but disparate approaches.

Anthropology of consumption. In parallel with classical sociology, the problem of consumption was mastered in cultural anthropology. Its main object was initially primitive exotic societies. Accordingly, consumption patterns were examined based on their material. However, Malinovsky and Moss’s study of the gift provided the key to understanding the modern phenomenon of the gift as an instrument for the reproduction of various kinds of social relations.

Georg Simmel's essay on fashion appeared in 1904, and was an early articulation of what would become known as the trickle-down theory of fashion diffusion. Simmel takes a dualistic view not only of fashion, but also of society as a whole. There is a relationship between the principles of generalization and specialization. As Simmel writes:

Significant forms of life in the history of our race have invariably shown the effectiveness of two antagonistic principles. Everyone in his field tries to combine an interest in longevity, integrity and uniformity with an interest in change, specialization and particularity. It becomes self-evident that no institution or law or sphere of life can fully satisfy the demands of two opposing principles. The only possible way for humanity to realize this condition is to find expression in ever-changing approximations, in everlasting attempts and everlasting hopes.

So change results from a constant tension between two opposing principles, a tension that is never released and never comes into equilibrium. Simmel then translates the opposing forces into two different types of individuals. The first type correlates with the principle of generalization and is embodied in the imitating individual. He comments: "By imitation, we transfer not only the requirement of creative activity, but also the responsibility for action from ourselves to another. In this way, the individual is freed from the need for choice and becomes simply a creation of the group, a vessel with social content." Recall that Tarde made a similar statement when he wrote about fashion “the transformation of one personality type into hundreds of thousands of copies.” So the imitator is a proper member of the group who doesn't have to think too much about it. The imitator is contrasted with a type that correlates with the principle of specialization, called by Simmel the theological individual. By this he meant someone who is “constantly experimenting, constantly struggling, and relying on his personal beliefs.” It will not surprise the reader that Simmel sees fashion as an ideal example of the result of the relationship between two opposing principles. According to him:

Fashion is an imitation of a given sample; it satisfies the need for social adaptation; it leads the individual along the roads along which all travel; it creates a general condition which reduces the behavior of each individual to a simple example. At the same time, it no less satisfies the need for differentiation, the desire for difference, the desire for change and contrasts: on the one hand, through a constant change of content, which gives today's fashion an individual imprint, contrasting it with the fashion of yesterday and tomorrow, on the other hand , because fashion differs for different classes - the fashion of the highest stratum of society is never identical to the fashion of the lower. In fact, the first one abandons it as soon as it adapts to it. Thus, fashion is no more than one of the many forms of life through which we try to combine in one sphere of activity the desire for social equalization and the desire for individual differentiation and change.

Figure 1. Fashion as a result of tension between oppositions, Simmel

If we accept that there are different fashions for different classes, we can see that fashion performs the dual function of inclusion and exclusion at the same time: it unites all those who have adopted the fashion of a particular class or group and excludes those who do not. didn't. Thus, fashion produces sameness, unity and solidarity within a group and simultaneous segregation and exclusion of those who do not belong to it.

Simmel's idea of ​​class is central to understanding fashion change. If everyone successfully imitates every other, then there will be no fashion, because we will have a society of one external appearance. If no one imitates anyone, there will be no fashion either, because we will end up with a society of unrelated individual appearances. By adding class to the equation, we end up with groups trying to look the same within a group, but different from other groups. However, this does not necessarily lead to fashion either, since groups can happily display differences and not strive to look like others. But if groups really want to look like those higher up in the class hierarchy, then we get a change in fashion, as Simmel thought: “As soon as the lower classes begin to copy their style, the upper classes abandon this style and adopt a new one, which, in their turn distinguishes them from the masses; and thus the game happily continues." This, of course, presupposes a society that accepts the legitimacy of hierarchy and believes that one can, in some sense, rise in that hierarchy by imitating the upper classes.

The phenomenon of fashion arises on the threshold of the New Age, when the class regulations that were in effect throughout the Middle Ages weaken and clothing (like luxury) becomes one of the forms in which the lower social strata imitate the higher ones. It is blind adherence to fashion standards, replacing genuine taste, that becomes the main motive for fashion criticism from the 18th century to the end. 19th centuries I. Kant in his “Critique of Judgment” contrasts “good taste” and bad taste with fashion. Fashion leaders in the 18th and early 20th centuries. are the elite. Therefore, initially in sociological theories it is considered as a process of production of fashionable standards and their subsequent drift from top to bottom. Accordingly, the main categories in discussions about fashion are the concepts of “imitation” and “isolation, elites maintaining their group distinctiveness from other layers.” Thus, G. Simmel writes: “Fashion... is an imitation of a given model and thereby satisfies the need for social support, leads the individual to a path followed by everyone, provides a universal, turning the individual’s behavior simply into an example. However, it is to the same extent satisfies the need for difference, the tendency to differentiate, to change, to stand out from the general mass... It always has a class character, and the fashion of the upper class is always different from the fashion of the lower, and the upper class immediately refuses it as soon as it begins to penetrate into the lower sphere".

This concept of “fashion production” persisted throughout the first half of the 20th century: only the image of the elite changed. Thus, in T. Veblen’s theory of the leisure class and conspicuous consumption: in the USA, fashion is set not by old aristocrats, but by nouveau riche, emphasizing their high, but recently acquired status. In “autocratic” theories of fashion (Beau Brummel, Mlle De Fontanges), the elite can also mean fashion designers, experts, and fashion trendsetters. The search for the main motive driving the development of fashion is the other side of these “one player” theories: not only imitation is proposed as such, but also, for example, eroticism. Fashion is interpreted as a “change of erogenous zones,” in which a part of the body that has been exposed for a long time, and therefore no longer speaks anything to the imagination, is covered and thereby acquires symbolism, while other areas, on the contrary, are opened.

The situation changed dramatically in the 1950s. Fashion is turning into an industry, fashion standards are being replicated and distributed to the masses. The development of mass communications makes it possible to impose the same model on millions of consumers. This is what Christian Dior’s “New Look” became in 1947. It was at this time, in 1947, that the term “cultural industry” itself appeared. It is characteristic that if Jeanne Lanvin at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries it took 300 years to open her own business francs, then Marcel Boussac invests 500 million dollars in the House of Dior. The female fashion designer on the captain's bridge of fashion is replaced by men: the fashion house turns from a small luxury studio into a large international industrial and trading corporation. In the sociology of fashion of the 1950-1960s, it wins the so-called "theory of collective acceptance" of fashion standards. According to the leading representative of this concept, G. Bloomer, fashion leaders are no longer elites, fashion standards are formed by the masses. Those styles that most fully coincide with already existing mass taste trends and lifestyles become fashionable , and the behavior of innovators must, as it were, “grow” out of tradition in order to be accepted and legitimized by the majority.

The formation of fashion is translated into technology, so socio-psychological theories of fashion are being actively developed, empirical sociological studies are being conducted, and mathematical models of fashion cycles are being built.

The departure from the class concept of fashion can be noted in other theories of fashion. Thus, from the point of view of the “mass market theory,” fashion spreads not so much vertically (from top to bottom) as horizontally—within the same class, between colleagues and friends, through reference groups specific to a particular social environment.

In the 1960-1970s. Fashion trends were greatly influenced by youth counter-cultural movements (primarily hippies). Therefore, according to the “concept of subcultures,” fashion leaders become separate communities based not on a common social status, but on the coincidence of tastes, cultural traditions, and ideologies (youth groups, ethnic minorities, blue collar workers, etc.

Hippies, through their denial of fashion as an attempt to “suppress personality,” achieved the opposite: the fashion industry has absorbed this logic of individuality and meaningful “anti-taste”: marketing technologies and commercials include the vocabulary of “freedom,” “choice,” and “independence” of the consumer. The characteristic title of a book about fashion, published in 1976: "Looking Good: The Liberation of Fashion."

The universality of the language of fashion, equally suitable for the expression of group affiliation and eccentric individualism, sexuality and restraint, status and social protest, prompted French intellectuals to describe the “fashion system” as the realm of the pure sign (“The Fashion System” by R. Barthes (1967), “The Fashion System” things" by J. Baudrillard (1968), "Empire of the Ephemeral" by J. Lipovetsky (1987)). In J. Baudrillard’s book “Symbolic Exchange and Death” (1976) we read: “Fashion signs no longer have any internal determination, and therefore they acquire the freedom of limitless substitutions and permutations. As a result of this unprecedented emancipation, they, in their own logical way, obey the rule of madness. strict repetition. This is the case in fashion, which regulates clothing, the body, household items - the entire sphere of “light” signs.”

In the 1970s - 1980s. segmentation of the fashion market is taking place, instead of one “look” for everyone, a set of equally fashionable styles (looks) is gradually emerging, a kind of artistic worlds, between which you can only choose: Modernist, Sex Machine, Rebel, Romantic, Status Symbol, Artistic Avant-Guarde and Dr. Gilles Lipovetsky describes this process as a change from a century-old “dirigiste” uniform fashion to an “open” fashion with an optional, game logic, “when one chooses not only between different models of clothing, but also between the most incompatible ways of presenting oneself to the world.”

In the 1990s. this trend is intensifying, the focus is no longer so much on generations, classes or professional groups, but on virtual “taste cultures” (taste cultures, style tribes) and even individual consumers: the Internet, cable television, space- and time-burning airlines allow you to choose your style on-line. Fashion cycles are increasingly accelerating, turning into a continuous online flow, not tied to any place or time. Daily choice of identity, arbitrary changes in body and mood become possible. Each participant in mass communications becomes an agent of fashion; many authors state the end of fashion - the fashion that was known in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Fashion is already inseparable from the media industry, show and film business, from a vague, all-encompassing “visual culture”. One of the consequences of these processes was the loss by fashion historians of clear boundaries of their subject. Works about fashion include seemingly unexpected topics. The connection between fashion, the body and identity, power, ideology is becoming key for fashion theory; attempts are being made to deconstruct fashion as a socio-historically determined concept. The postmodern mistrust of metanarrative also affects the discourse about fashion itself: now it is an essay, sketches, a search for an unexpected angle, but in no case a systematic monograph on the history or sociology of fashion.

Born into a wealthy family; Simmel's parents were of Jewish origin, his father converted to Catholicism, his mother to Lutheranism, Simmel himself was baptized into Lutheranism in childhood.

After graduating from the University of Berlin, he taught there for more than 20 years. Due to the anti-Semitic sentiments of his superiors, his career was not very successful.

w:Georg Simmelas Simmel died in 1918Source unknown, Public Domain

For a long time he served in the low position of privatdozent, although he enjoyed popularity among students and the support of such scientists as Max Weber and Heinrich Rickert.

A freelance professor since 1901, a full-time employee at the provincial University of Strasbourg (1914), where he found himself isolated from the Berlin scientific community, and with the outbreak of the First World War in the same year, this university ceased its activities.

Shortly before the end of the war, Simmel died in Strasbourg from liver cancer.

Philosophical ideas

As a philosopher, Simmel is usually classified in the academic branch of the "philosophy of life" branch, and his work also contains features of neo-Kantianism (his dissertation is on Kant).

In sociology, Simmel is the creator of the theory of social interaction. Simmel is considered one of the founders of conflictology (see also the theory of social conflict).

According to Simmel, life is a flow of experiences, but these experiences themselves are culturally and historically conditioned. As a process of continuous creative development, the life process is not subject to rational-mechanical knowledge.

Only through direct experience of historical events, diverse individual forms of realization of life in culture and interpretation based on this experience of the past can one comprehend life.

The historical process, according to Simmel, is subject to “fate”, in contrast to nature, in which the law of causality prevails. In this understanding of the specifics of humanitarian knowledge, Simmel is close to the methodological principles put forward by Dilthey.

unknown, Public Domain

Formal sociology

Pure (formal) sociology studies the forms of socialization that exist in any of the historically known societies, relatively stable and repeating forms of interhuman interactions.

Forms of social life are domination, subordination, competition, division of labor, formation of parties, solidarity, etc. All these forms are reproduced, filled with appropriate content, in various groups and social organizations, such as the state, religious society, family, economic association etc.

Simmel believed that pure formal concepts have limited value, and the F. s. project itself. only then can it be realized when these identified pure forms of social life are filled with historical content.

Basic forms of social life

1. Social processes - these include constant phenomena independent of the specific circumstances of their implementation: subordination, domination, competition, reconciliation, conflict, etc. A phenomenon such as fashion can serve as an example. Fashion presupposes both imitation and individualization of personality. A person who follows fashion simultaneously distinguishes himself from others and asserts his belonging to a certain group.
2. Social type (for example, cynic, poor man, aristocrat, coquette).
3. “Development models” are a universal process of expanding a group with strengthening the individuality of its members. As their numbers grow, group members become less and less similar to each other. The development of individuality is accompanied by a decrease in group cohesion and unity. Historically, it develops towards individuality due to the loss by individuals of their unique social characteristics.

Classification of forms of social life according to the degree of their remoteness from the immediate flow of life:

1. The closest to life are spontaneous forms: exchange, personal inclination, imitation, crowd behavior, etc.
2. Somewhat further from the flow of life, that is, from social contents, stand such stable and independent forms as economic and other forms of state-legal organizations.
3. “Game” forms maintain the greatest distance from social life. These are pure forms of sociation, which are not just a mental abstraction, but forms that actually occur in social life: the “old regime,” that is, a political form that has outlived its time and does not satisfy the needs of the participating individuals; “science for science’s sake,” that is, knowledge divorced from the needs of humanity, which has ceased to be “a weapon in the struggle for existence.”

Forms of sociation were abstracted by Simmel from the corresponding content in order to develop “strong points” of scientific analysis. Through the creation of scientifically based concepts, Simmel saw the path to the establishment of sociology as an independent science. Scientifically based concepts must first of all reflect reality, and their methodological value lies in the extent to which they contribute to the understanding and ordering of theoretically important aspects of various social processes and socio-historical life in general.