Functional theory of conflict by Georg Simmel. The ideas of Georg Simmel Sociology of Simmel

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.

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 only then can it be realized when these identified pure forms of social life are filled with historical content.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

Photo from 1914

Social processes - these include constant phenomena that are 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.
Social type (for example, cynic, poor man, aristocrat, coquette).
“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:

The closest to life are spontaneous forms: exchange, personal inclination, imitation, crowd behavior, etc.
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.
“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.

Major works

Social differentiation. Sociological and Psychological Studies (1890).
Problems of the philosophy of history (1892-1893)
Introduction to Ethics (1892-1893).
Philosophy of Money (1900)
Big Cities and Spiritual Life (1903)
Philosophy of Fashion (1905)
Kant and Goethe (1906)
Religion (1906)
Schopenhauer and Nietzsche (1907)
Sociology. A Study of the Forms of Socialization (1908)
Philosophy of Culture (1911)
The Problem of Historical Time (1916)
Rembrandt (1916)
Fundamental Questions in Sociology (1917)
The Conflict of Modern Culture (1918)

Publications of works in Russian

Georg Simmel. Favorites. - M.: Lawyer, 1996.
- Volume 1. Philosophy of culture - M.: Lawyer, 1996 - 671 p. - ISBN 5-7357-0052-9
- Volume 2. Contemplation of life - M.: Lawyer, 1996, - 607 p. - ISBN 5-7357-0175-4

Literature

Ionin L.G. Sociology of Georg Simmel // History of bourgeois sociology of the 19th - early 20th centuries / Ed. I.S. Kona. Approved for publication by the Institute of Sociological Research of the USSR Academy of Sciences. - M.: Science, 1979. - P. 180-203. - 6400 copies.

Ideological and theoretical influences

The early period of Simmel's work is associated with the influences of the ideas of pragmatism, Darwinism and evolutionism. This was followed by a period that can conventionally be designated as “neo-Kantian.” After 1908, Simmel, influenced by Bergson, turned to the philosophy of life. However, this stage was already prepared by works on Goethe, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche.

Simmel, like many of his contemporaries, was distinguished by his attention to issues of pure theory and methodology. However, unlike, for example, Marx and Weber, Simmel was interested in problems of a smaller scale: individual action And interaction, as well as development conceptual tools to analyze interactions. He rarely resorted to systematizing his ideas. His sociological concept seemed to be “scattered” among various articles, books, and essays devoted to important but private problems, which created the idea that there was no coherent whole behind them. In fact, all these various problems and interests were united by a characteristic and very original for its time idea of the subject, methods and tasks of sociological science.

Methodological foundations of sociological theory

Sociology as a science. A direct analysis of the sociological views of the German thinker can begin with his understanding of sociology as a science. Already in work " Social differentiation. Sociological and psychological research"(1890) Simmel emphasizes that sociology, by virtue of the fact that it is late science must be built rational manner based on a preliminary design including theory of method And clear identification of the object and objectives of the study.

He sees the main task of sociology in building a new theory of society, based on methodological reflection. Sociology and the “science of society” are interchangeable concepts for him. It should be emphasized that Simmel does not give any one definition or concept of society. He creates a multi-level and multi-aspect theory of society, starting with a methodological idea of society as “ whole social life", including any specific manifestations of historical life. From this principle Simmel deduces the specific features of sociological knowledge.

The first conclusion: in comparison with other sciences, sociology seems to be only a new point of view for considering known facts. This is a "formal" point of view, whereas the point of view of other sciences is "material", in the sense that they begin with "material". Sociology will have to study “forms,” that is, “the design of this material.” The “formal point of view” means that sociology is primarily interested in the forms, forms of social interaction. The purpose of sociological research is to describe “ forms of joint existence of people and finding the rules that underlie the relationship of individuals, since they are members of a group, and groups among themselves»[ Simmel G. Favorites. T. 2: Contemplation of life. – M., 1996. –C. 304].

Of course, the form and content of interactions in their concreteness form an indivisible unity, nevertheless, it is possible to abstractly identify stable forms of socialization (pure forms of associations" 1). The latter must be related to the social and cultural context - the semantic context should always be kept in mind. Therefore, sociology, engaged in the study of “forms of joint existence of people”, studying the “whole society” taking into account the diversity of its content and using data from other disciplines, is not formal, but a kind of synthetic science. The identification of pure forms of sociation should have been followed by their ordering and systematization, psychological justification and description of them in historical change and development.

Simmel called the practice of applying the sociological method in various social sciences, i.e., identifying a special kind of patterns within the framework of their traditional subject general sociology, description and systematization of pure forms of sociation – clean or formal sociology. Pure sociology should perform a methodological function in relation to other social sciences, become “ theory of knowledge of particular social sciences».

The second conclusion that the German thinker comes to is of the following order. Theoretical formations of sociological knowledge are characterized by the lack of unambiguity inherent in the statements of natural sciences; it is always possible to contrast each observation or assumption with the opposite observation or assumption. The reason for this is rooted in the ambiguity of the objects of analysis of sociology, the completeness and diversity of particular moments that cannot be decomposed into parts and elementary forces. All “forms” of social interaction have countless variants of historical embodiment. Therefore, it is impossible to establish and identify the causal relationship of phenomena, it is impossible to apply “laws” to phenomena in the natural scientific sense of the word: “The peculiar nature of the social material, which is not amenable to any precise calculations, “does not allow” us to talk about the laws of social development”[ibid., p. 308]. Sociology, Simmel emphasizes, gives understanding, but does not provide accurate knowledge.

He interprets the very procedure of understanding in the spirit of the philosophy of life as understanding interests, motives, goals and value orientations of the individual defined by culture in the broad sense of the word. Constant clarification, decomposition and new articulation on other grounds of developed concepts create the possibility of greater and greater approximation to the truth.

So, sociology, according to Simmel, is a synthetic science in the sense that the content of other sciences constitutes its source material; it differs from other sciences in its “formal” point of view; methods of natural science research are not applicable to sociology, so it must

rely on a fundamentally different methodology of social research.

Typological analysis of social relations and problems of the development of analytical, formal sociology were to a large extent the subject of interest of G. Simmel (1858 - 1918 pp.), the founder of the so-called formal sociology.

Simmel's philosophical and sociological creativity unfolded in the era of the “crisis of culture” - at the intersection of various old and new ideas and trends. It was as an exponent of these crisis and contradictory features that Simmel entered the history of sociology.

Simmel tried to find the cross-cutting (main) contradictions in his contemporary culture - an almost impossible task, since this period in the full sense was a period of “confusion and vacillation” in culture and ideology.

The initial problem from which Simmel begins his sociological constructions is the problem of defining the subject of sociology. As Simmel believed, sociology should assert its right to exist not through the choice of a special subject, not “occupied” by other sciences, but as a method. Sociology, according to Simmel, is not a science, “owns its own content”, since “it does not find an object for itself that would not be studied by some of the social sciences.” Hence, if sociology cannot define its subject by simply isolating certain phenomena of social life, it must determine it methodologically, finding a specific point of view. This specific point of view is that sociology should study not the content, but the forms of public (social) life, that which is common to all social phenomena.

To explain his position, he turns to an analogy. Sociology, according to Simmel, is in the same relation to the particular social sciences as geometry is to the physical and chemical sciences, that is, it does not study the content of social phenomena, but explores the social form common to them.

According to Simmel, in any society it is possible to separate form from content, and society as such is the interaction of individuals. The interaction itself always develops as a result of certain trains and for the sake of certain goals. As he notes, erotic instincts, business interest, religious impulses, play and many other motives encourage a person to act for the sake of another, with another, against another, to combine and harmonize internal states, that is, to exert influence. As a result of mutual influences based on individual motivational impulses and goals, a unity is formed, which he calls “society.”

As Simmel believes, everything that is available in individuals (whom he considers as specific carriers) is available in the form of trains, interests, goals, etc., that is, that from which influence on other people is formed, he designates as the content or matter of socialization. Moreover, this matter itself, in which life is fulfilled, according to Simmel, is essentially not social. As he writes, hunger, love, labor, religiosity, technology and the results of the activity of the mind are not directly social. All this becomes so only insofar as it transforms the isolated existence of individuals into certain forms of joint existence.

Moreover, the forms that arise that correspond to certain life goals may turn out to be divorced from the real life from which they came and to which they owe their existence; moreover, they, according to Simmel, can “play” at themselves and for their own sake, capturing and creating matter that now serves only as a means of their self-realization.

So, pure (or formal) sociology studies, according to Simmel, the forms of socialization that exist in each of the historically known societies, relatively stable and repeating forms of interhuman interactions.

Socialization is a form that is realized in countless ways, in which individuals, on the basis of various motives and interests, create a special unity within which these motives and interests find their embodiment.

G. Simmel

Simmel did not leave any classification of social forms. However, he made the subject of his research a number of aspects and aspects of social life, its forms:

Dominations,

Subordination,

Rivalry,

Division of labor,

Formation of parties,

Solidarity.

As the German sociologist believed, all these forms are reproduced, filled with corresponding content, in various groups and social organizations, such as the state, religious society, family, economic association, etc.

At the same time, it is possible to classify the forms of social life and distinguish among them:

1) social processes,

2) social types,

3) development models.

Social processes include constant phenomena that are independent of the specific circumstances of their implementation: subordination, domination, competition, reconciliation, conflict, etc. An example of a social process as a form of social life (socialization) can be such a universal phenomenon as fashion. Fashion, according to Simmel, involves both imitation and individualization of personality. Why? Because a person who follows fashion simultaneously distinguishes himself from others and asserts his belonging to a certain group. Simmel very subtly observes the seemingly paradoxical property of fashion, namely: as soon as any phenomenon (clothing, ideas, manners, things, etc.) becomes “fashionable”, it immediately begins to “go out of fashion”, that is fashion is both new and transitional.

He saw the reason for the wide spread of fashion in Simmel’s modern era in the process of decomposition of old, accepted beliefs, habits, and traditions. Hence the dominance of fashion in art, science, and also in morality. However, despite the transitional nature of a particular fashion, it, as a social form, has, according to Simmel, some constancy: fashion in one form or another always exists.

The second of the categories of pure social forms is the social type. Simmel, exploring, for example, such social types and characters as the cynic, the poor man, the aristocrat, the coquette, etc., tries to identify their characteristic contradictions. According to Simmel, being of this type as an aristocrat represents the unity of two mutually exclusive characteristics: on the one hand, he is absorbed by his group, its family tradition, on the other hand, he is absolutely distant and even opposed to it, because fortitude, independence and personal responsibility the essence of this tradition characteristic of the aristocracy.

An example of social forms that belong to the third group, called “development models,” is the universal process of expanding a group with strengthening the individuality of its members. As Simmel noted, as the number of groups grows, its members become less and less similar to each other. And another point: the development of individuality of group members is accompanied by a decrease in its cohesion and unity. According to Simmel, the historical process develops in the direction of strengthening individuality due to the loss by individuals of their unique social characteristics. Thus, the large patriarchal family changes into independent and full-fledged individuals and a nuclear family; The guild and blood organization is being replaced by civil society with its characteristic high individual responsibility.

The above classification does not exhaust all options and possible approaches to identifying social forms. For example, there is and is considered more meaningful a classification of forms according to the degree of their distance from the direct flow of life. Thus, the closest to life, according to Simmel, are spontaneous forms: exchange, personal inclination, imitation, forms associated with the behavior of the crowd, etc. A little further from the flow of life, that is, from social meanings, there are such stable and independent forms as economic and other forms of state-legal organizations.

Finally, the greatest distance directly from social life is maintained by the forms Simmel called “playful”. Game forms are pure forms of sociation, which are not just a mental abstraction, but actually occur in social life. Examples of game forms: "old mode"; “science for science’s sake,” that is, knowledge divorced from the needs of humanity, has ceased to be “a weapon in the struggle for existence,” etc.

Simmel paid much attention to methodological problems of sociological knowledge, that is, issues related to the substantiation of the truth of sociological knowledge. The theory of historical understanding appeared in Simmel as a specific theory of knowledge. It was outlined in the work “Problems of the Philosophy of History” and was considered by Simmel as a philosophical methodology of knowledge. For him, understanding acted as a method characterizing exclusively social cognition.

The main thing here is that the result of understanding is the identification of cause-and-effect relationships, not the discovery of cause and effect, but the discovery of the content of a historical action, which lies in the logic of the connection of this action with human ideas, needs, and interests. In this regard, the theory of understanding was directed against the then dominant positivist methodology, focused on the methods of the natural sciences. Simmel demanded recognition of the relativity of socio-historical explanations and consideration of the role of subjective components in knowledge. The theory of understanding was simultaneously supposed to serve as a means of control over this subjective component, since recognition of the participation of interest and, consequently, values in social cognition required clarification of their role in the selection of objects of study, the formation and interpretation of concepts, etc. And, finally, understanding served as a connecting link between pure (formal) sociology and social philosophy.

The main theme of Simmel's social philosophy is the relationship between the individual and society in the process of historical development.

He viewed the process of individualization and the growth of human will as a product of the intellectualization of life and the development of the money economy. According to Simmel, the size of a group is closely related to the degree of development of the individuality of its representatives. The size of the group is directly proportional to the degree of freedom enjoyed by its members, since the expansion of the group leads to an expansion of the space of socialization, which, in turn, leads to the identification of the ability to abstract, to the growth of intelligence and consciousness.

According to Simmel, the origin and development of intelligence are interconnected with the emergence and development of the money economy. The emergence of consciousness and the appearance of money marks the entry of society into its “historical” period. The history of society, according to Simmel, is the history of the increasing intellectualization of social life and the deepening influence of the principles of the monetary economy.

Intellectualism and money economy - the governing concepts of Simmel's historical-sociological concept - simultaneously act as the most abstract of the forms of association.

Speaking about intellectualism as a characteristic feature of the modern era, he notes that intellectualism drives out the naive subjectivism and direct, immediate knowledge of the world inherent in previous eras, replacing them with the objectivity of the logical method. All this leads to the disappearance of the depth and completeness of mental experience and to a decrease in the overall level of mental (emotional) life. Money contributes to the penetration of “value relations between things” into people’s relationships.

Money contributes to general alienation in communication, management, in the process of production itself, etc. On the other hand, general alienation is accompanied by an increase in individual freedom. Alienation and will, according to Simmel, are two sides of the same coin. In this regard, he expresses a strikingly accurate description of the essence of the communication process itself, the relationship of people to each other. In his opinion, in the process of general alienation, people lose the qualities of their personality, become “one-dimensional”, cease to be those who provide and have an advantage, and prostitution, according to Simmel, becomes a symbol of human relations, since the nature of prostitution and the nature of money are similar.

Simmel, in his sociological works, gave an impressive picture of the harmful consequences of the management system (economics) and the deep contradictions of his contemporary era, that is, capitalist civilization in the sphere of culture. In this regard, his “Philosophy of Money” became the first in an endless series of works by various authors devoted to the analysis of the “spirit of capitalism” by W. Sombart, “Modern Capitalism”; M. Weber "Protestant ethics and the spirit of capitalism" and others.

Simmel's sociology is a comprehensive system that includes elements of different levels and varying degrees of generality. Moreover, formal sociology is one way or another the main element of Simmel’s system of sociology. What is its real theoretical and methodological meaning and why is it valuable for modern sociology? As already noted, the key to a correct understanding of Simmel’s sociological program is the “forms of sociation,” which he called the actual subject of sociology. Through them he tried to reveal the specifics of the sociological vision. The main thing here is that social phenomena found their sociological specificity.

Simmel's formal sociology was largely directed against the then popular orientations towards "supra-individual essences" - such as the "folk spirit", organic theories, as well as individual psychological concepts that are based on instincts, drives and other individual properties. Simmel argued that society exists through the interaction of people.

Simmel's formal sociology determined the direction of research in various spheres of social life and influenced a number of sociological concepts, for example structural functionalism, M. Weber's theory of ideal types.

Forms by association were abstracted by Simmel with corresponding content in order to develop “strong points” of scientific analysis. He sought to create and use sociological concepts that can be widely applied in the process of studying social phenomena. It was through the creation of scientifically based concepts that he saw the path to the establishment of sociology as an independent science.

The most important element of Simmel's sociological concept is the sociology of culture. What is the essence of Simmel’s cultural views and how did they fit into his sociological concept?

Simmel's understanding of culture was based on the principles of a philosophy of life. Life is an initial concept and state; as it develops, it rises above a purely animal state and reaches a certain spirituality. Life is irrational, self-sufficient, it is objective and, in the objectivity of its existence, it is not. Facts of life, such as work and creativity, become valuable only when they exceed the scope of their natural existence. Culture is “an elegant, intelligent form of life, the result of spiritual and practical work.” Culture is the second conscious, rationalized “nature”. All the achievements of people in the material and spiritual spheres, all products - be it tools, machines, books, morality, language, religion, law, politics, regulating human relations - they all embody ideas, thanks to which those existing in nature and opportunities in life. Ultimately, by “cultivating” nature and our immediate life, we “cultivate” ourselves.

Simmel argues that culture, awakening and rising above life, acquires its own, relatively autonomous patterns and logic of development. But the main thing here is that culture, in his opinion, is increasingly detached (rationalized) from the element of life, and accordingly is deprived of life content, turning into pure “logic”, which is capable of containing life impulses that endlessly develop.

Culture, cultural evolution is an endless process of growth in the value content of life.

G. Simmel

According to Simmel, the conflict between life and culture is insoluble, and the contradictions that make up the conflict do not lead to synthesis, and therefore, development. From this we can conclude: the increasing divergence between life meanings and cultural forms that claim to embody them, ultimately leads to conflict and the death of a culture that is not able to accommodate the content of life and changes. This is the inevitable fate of any culture.

Just as in art or philosophy, Simmel demonstrated the destruction of traditional forms of expressing life’s meanings in religion, sexual morality and other areas of cultural life. The process of destruction of traditional religion had, according to Simmel, two-sided consequences: on the one hand, it freed man from the oppression of quasi-objective forces, which are expressed in centuries-old religious and ideological ideas, on the other hand, he destroyed the normative structures of coexistence, rather than offering instead them new structures. In Simmel's language, life destroyed the existing form, but did not give a new one in its place. The point is not that the old religious idea was “good” or “useful”: the point is that, having destroyed traditional religion, the “spontaneity” of modern “life” failed to find within itself a new idea capable of becoming the basis of human social life . Life must be understood historically. Only in this case does the development of culture acquire meaning and purpose. If this does not happen, if historicism is absent, and life is viewed as an eternally self-identical, unconstructed flow of being, then indeed the process of decomposition of cultural forms takes on the appearance of an inevitable tragic conflict, the crisis of culture begins to be perceived as the death of culture. This is exactly what happened with Simmel's concept of culture.

Interesting discussions by Simmel about creativity, about the reality of works of art. He believed that a real work of art has the character of an inevitable cultural value.

A work of art, according to Simmel. unthinkable without organically combining three elements: style, form and idea. The perfection of the presentation and implementation of these elements, as well as the achievement of their unity, depends on the greatness of the artist’s personality. The social meaning of creativity is revealed in two ways:

1) it manifests itself as a factor in the genesis of creativity,

2) it manifests itself in the fact that creativity, and, consequently, its result - a work of art - carries sociological information.

Simmel gave characteristics to various cultural and historical eras. XIX century, “according to Simmel, with all the diversity of ideological movements, they did not put forward a comprehensive and grandiose idea. At the same time, the most ambitious, he believes, is the idea of a society where personality is just a simple product of the crossing of social forces. In the 19th century, more than ever before , “the demand was put forward for the dissolution of the individual in society, and such subordination was viewed as something absolute that contained a moral basis (duty). However, by the end of the 19th century, the concept of society as the central point of the “picture of the world” is increasingly inferior to a different understanding of life. It is around this concept, as Simmel believes, “the main motive of the worldview,” that broad layers of intellectual Europe are united on the threshold of the 20th century. Indeed, ideological attitudes characteristic of the philosophy of life were embodied in literature, sculpture, and painting of that time.

Bringing philosophical understanding closer to the realities of culture, Simmel transfers it into the sociological sphere, the sphere of social analysis of the crisis of his contemporary era. This crisis is defined by Simmel by the comprehensive influence of the two factors of money and intelligence - these two factors form the essential core of modern culture. They rationalize everything, coarse it, and reduce the emotional component of culture. Individual culture is falling, especially in the higher social strata. The “mass character of culture” leads to a general decrease in their content, not only in various areas of spiritual life, but also in the sphere of material production. Example: the progress of technology does not lead to the spiritual enrichment of the producer, the worker, because technology is “smarter” than the worker.

We see the same thing in science. According to Simmel, individuals know and think, and often operate with concepts and symbols, the real essence and content of which they are not aware of. Ideas “pass from hand to hand” like sealed containers, but do not reveal the richness of their spiritual content. We see something similar, as Simmel believes, in the education system, where the concept associated with the development of internal, deeply personal values is replaced by formal education, which consists not only of introducing into the individual’s consciousness a certain set of objective knowledge and behavioral skills.

What is the reason for the decline in cultural potential and the decline in the internal spirituality of the individual?

Simmel believes that the only reason is the division of labor, large-scale machine production. This is what makes “the production of a product due to the underdevelopment of the manufacturer’s personality.” Narrow specialization turns out to be useless and increases the alienation of a person both from the product of labor and cultural values. In parallel with specialization and division of labor, consumption is growing, which in such conditions inevitably becomes mass consumption, and cultural products acquire an impersonal “objective” (alienated) character. In this regard, it provides brilliant examples of the psychology of mass culture, leading to the suppression of the individual “I” and the limitation of human freedom.

Simmel paints a grandiose picture of the “solidification” of what in his philosophy of culture was called cultural form. Objectified culture, according to Simmel, becomes a brake on the path of self-development and self-realization of life. This is the “tragedy of culture”, which is inherent in the internal logic of its development.

Seminar lesson plan

(2 hours)

1. The origins of German philosophy.

2. Sociology of F. Tjonnis.

3. Formal sociology of G. Simmel.

Topics of abstracts, reports and tests

1. German sociological school.

2. Contribution of F. Tjonnis to the development of sociology.

3. Conflict of modern culture according to G. Simmel.

Additional literature on the topic

1. Davydov Yu.N. Evolution of theoretical sociology of the 20th century // SOCIS. - 1995. -No. 8.

2. Simmel G. Communication. An example of pure or formal sociology // SOCIS. - 1984. -No. 2.

3. Ionin L. Georg Simmel - sociologist. - M., 1981.

4. History of sociology in Western Europe and the USA. - M, 1993.

5. History of sociology and history of social thought: general and special // SOCIS. -1996. -No. 10-11.

6. Ortega y Gasset X. Revolt of the masses. Aesthetics. Philosophy of culture. - M., 1991.

7. Essays on the history of theoretical sociology of the 20th century (from M. Weber to J. Habermas, from G. Simmel to postmodernism). - M, 1994.

8. Semenov V. A. Mass culture in the modern world. - St. Petersburg, 1991.

9. Shpakova R. P. Fernand Tönnies “The Forgotten Sociologist” // SOCIS. - / 995, No. 12.

10. Heidegger M. Research work of Wilhelm Dilthey and the struggle for the Catholic worldview in our days // Questions of Philosophy. -1995. - No. 11.

The concept of form and the closely related concept of content are the most important concepts of Simmel's pure, or formal, sociology.

In one of his relatively early works - “Problems of the Philosophy of History” - Simmel interpreted the history of society as the history of mental phenomena. Moreover, he considered each mental phenomenon in two aspects: on the one hand, as a mental act, which is, for example, a desire, recollection, affirmation, on the other hand, as what is desired, remembered, affirmed, etc. in each of such acts. d.

If we isolate this last aspect of the mental act, we obtain, Simmel wrote, the objective content of consciousness, which is in no way psychological. This content, which in the philosophy of life was understood as “experience” (Erlebnis), is, according to Simmel, “matter”, the “body” of the social.

A form, on the other hand, is best defined by the tasks it performs. According to Simmel, these tasks are as follows: 1) form relates several contents to each other in such a way that these contents form a unity; 2) taking form, these contents are separated from other contents; 3) the form structures the contents, which it mutually correlates with each other. “What we call form,” wrote Simmel, “from the point of view of the functions it performs, is the unification of the material: it overcomes the isolation of the parts that make it up. Integrity as the unity of these parts... is opposed to any other material that does not have a form or is shaped differently.”

In relation to sociology, the opposition of form and content should thus be understood as the opposition of the “matter” of social interaction - culturally and historically conditioned products of the human spirit, goals, aspirations, needs of individuals - and the most frequently repeated, characteristic of all cultural and historical events And phenomena of interaction structures.

The task of formal sociology, therefore, is not to divide integral social formations into two parts, but, in modern language, to thematize society as an interhuman, interindividual phenomenon. Simmel did not at all strive (for which, by the way, he was often reproached) to compile an exhaustive “catalogue” of human relationships. On the contrary, he believed, pure formal concepts have limited value and the project of formal sociology will only be realized adequately when the identification of pure forms of sociation is accompanied by an explanation of “what they mean as pure forms of behavior, under what circumstances they arose, how they developed, what changes have undergone thanks to the characteristics of their objects, thanks to which at the same time formal and material characteristics of society they arose and disappeared.” In other words, each form of sociation, being identified, had to become the object of a historical meaningful description.

Simmel did not provide a general classification of social forms. He, however, made the subject of his research a number of aspects and aspects of social life, which he identified as forms from its “living” reality: domination, subordination, rivalry, division of labor, formation of parties, etc. All these forms, Simmel believed, are reproduced, filled with corresponding content, in various kinds of groups and social organizations, which in turn can be interpreted as forms: in the state and religious community, in a group of conspirators and an economic association, in a family and an art school, etc. P. Simmel gave examples of the study of these and other similar forms in the essays that made up his book Sociology.

An example of Simmel's analysis social process how his study of fashion can serve as a form of sociation. Fashion, writes Simmel, simultaneously involves imitation and individualization. A person who follows fashion simultaneously distinguishes himself from others and asserts his belonging to a certain stratum or group. Simmel proves the impossibility of fashion without the desire for individualization by the fact that in primitive societies, characterized by maximum social homogeneity, where there is no desire to stand out from the crowd, there is no fashion. Likewise, in any society governed by a relatively small group of people, representatives of the ruling oligarchy wear the same strict dress, not wanting to demonstrate their exclusivity in the face of the general mass of citizens. Example: Venetian Doges, who wore only black. The impossibility of fashion without the desire to imitate, to merge with the collective is proven by the fact that in societies characterized by the collapse of group norms, fashion is absent. So, in Florence in the 14th century. everyone followed their own style of clothing: there was no fashion, because there was no desire to merge with the team.

As soon as any phenomenon (clothing, ideas, manners, things, etc.) has become “fashionable,” it immediately begins to “go out of fashion.” That's the charm of fashion, that it is both new and transitory. Fashion gives a sense of the present, a sense of the passage of time. The reason for the widest spread of fashion in the modern era, says Simmel, is precisely the process of decomposition of ancient, taken-for-granted beliefs, habits, and traditions, as a result of which temporary, transitional forms become more active. Hence the dominance of fashion in art, in science, even in morality.

However, despite the transitory nature of a particular fashion, it as a social form has some constancy: fashion in one form or another always exists.

Second category social forms studied by Simmel - social type. A person involved in a certain kind of relationship acquires certain characteristic qualities that are essential for him, i.e. constantly manifesting themselves regardless of the nature of a particular interaction. Examples of social types studied by Simmel are the cynic, the poor man, the coquette, the aristocrat, etc. As in the example of fashion, Simmel’s thought in characterizing social types moves dialectically, through the identification of a characteristic contradiction. Thus, the existence of such a social type as an aristocrat represents the unity of two mutually exclusive characteristics. On the one hand, he is completely absorbed in his group, its family tradition, because he is a branch of the family tree, on the other hand, he is absolutely separated and even opposed to it, because strength, independence and personal responsibility are the essence of this tradition characteristic of the aristocracy.

An example of social forms related to third group, called the development model, can serve as a universal process of interconnection between the expansion of a group and the strengthening of individuality.

As a group grows larger, Simmel writes, its members become less and less similar to each other. Strengthening individuality is accompanied by degradation of the group. And vice versa, the less, i.e. The more unique a group is, the less individual its representatives are. The historical process is developing towards strengthening individuality due to the loss by individuals of their unique social characteristics: the extended family is replaced by independent full-fledged individuals and the nuclear family; the guild and blood-related organization is replaced by civil society with its characteristic high individual responsibility.

While studying the processes of socialization, Simmel identified several main characteristics according to which the forms of social interaction of people differ.

1. Number of participants.

It would seem that interaction is only possible between two or more people, but this is not entirely true. Certain forms of socialization are already possible for one person, these are loneliness and freedom. For example, loneliness means that a person is excluded from social interaction, that is, it is also a result of socialization, but negative. Two people present a simpler case. The most important thing in this type of interaction is the individuality of each person individually, which determines the nature of the relationship. A group of three further complicates this interaction system. The third can become an outside observer, a mediator, or, conversely, a catalyst for relations between the other two. Starting with a group of three people, we can talk about socialization in the full sense of the concept.

2. Relationships between participants.

Favorable relationships between interacting people are described through the concept of “cohesion.” The highest degree of cohesion is love, when people practically dissolve in each other. On the other hand, cohesion is opposed to domination and subordination. This is also a kind of interaction, because the interest of one in realizing his will may presuppose the interest of others in fulfilling this will. Unlike Tönnies and Durkheim, Simmel did not believe that the fundamental principle of social life is solidarity. He found the process of socialization even where there seemed to be separation and disintegration of interaction between people - in disputes, in competition, in enmity, in conflicts. This emphasis on the antagonistic aspects of interaction between people formed the basis of a new scientific direction - the sociology of conflict (conflictology).

3. Space of interaction.

To describe the strength of interaction between people and social groups with each other, Simmel actively used the concept of “social space,” meaning by it the sphere that a participant in communication considers to be his own and is separated by a conditional boundary from the spheres of influence of other people or social groups. Thanks to Simmel, the concept of “social space” and its derivatives (say, “social distance”) became one of the main sociological terms; it is also used in modern sociology.

Reduced three-tier (social processes-social types-development models) classification of social forms is very imperfect. The classification of social forms according to the degree of their distance from the immediate flow of life may become more meaningful. The closest to life, Simmel believes, are such spontaneous forms as exchange, personal inclination, imitation, forms associated with crowd behavior, etc. Somewhat further from the flow of life, i.e. From the “matter” of social and public content, there are more stable and independent forms such as economic and other formal (not in Simmel’s, but in the now familiar sociological sense of the word) organizations. And finally, the greatest distance from the immediacy of social life is maintained by forms of sociation that are not mental abstractions, but actually existing (more precisely, actually occurring) play forms in social life. They are “pure” because the content that once “filled” them has disappeared. Examples of game forms: what is meant by the “old regime”, i.e. a political form that has outlived its time and does not satisfy the needs of the individuals participating in it; “science for science”, i.e. knowledge divorced from the needs of humanity, which has ceased to be a “weapon in the struggle for existence”, “art for art’s sake”, etc.

A form of play that is exceptional in its role and significance is the so-called free communication. Free communication is communication for the sake of communication, started without any specific goals, except one - to enjoy communication, to be with others. This kind of communication is a playful form of sociation, or an abstract model of a social process, devoid of any meaningful elements. Individuals enter into this kind of communication as “formal” individuals, devoid of any meaningful characteristics (such as abilities, wealth, status, power, beliefs, etc.); this communication is communication of “equals”. Tact serves as a means of ensuring this equality; it limits any kind of meaningful aspirations and impulses of the participants: tactlessly talking about business at a party, discussing abstract problems, demonstrating their intelligence or their wealth. Tact, therefore, is a playful form of social norms. Flirting, or coquetry, is a playful form of sexual relations, devoid of real erotic content. Conversation here is a goal in itself; its topic, of course, is not indifferent, but the main thing is not the topic, not its content, but the pleasure of the conversation, of the conversation that embodies free communication, communication for the sake of communication.

In his analysis of free communication, Simmel most fully and consistently demonstrated the idea of pure or formal sociology. However, in it, one might say, he exhausted this idea, demonstrating its limits, its “lower” boundaries.

It is quite a common opinion that Simmel's sociology represents an attempt to reduce human society to these kinds of pure or playful forms and that Simmel's ultimate goal was to compile an exhaustive list of these forms. It is also believed that the substantive analyzes carried out by Simmel (like the analysis we considered of social processes, social types, etc.) proved, contrary to his intentions, the impracticability of such a project. Indeed, Simmel repeatedly gave rise to this kind of reproach, putting on the same level and combining on a formal basis such phenomena that are different in their social role and cultural content as Christian sects and the early communist movement, military conflict and marital conflict, the subordination of a soldier to an officer and a worker. entrepreneur, etc. Such formal classifications and subordination of social phenomena were criticized by V.I. Lenin, who showed that the same social forms can have completely different meanings depending on the historical situation.

Simmel himself clearly understood the impossibility of reducing social life to its formal moment - the “grammar” of forms of sociation. That is why the idea of pure, or formal, sociology by no means exhausted the content of his sociological concept, which also includes philosophical sociology, which gives pure sociologists theoretical-cognitive and socio-philosophical worldview guidelines.