Many philosophers, thinkers, and politics over the years have talked about various human issues. Structural, political, and social problems, the topics of identity and self are some of the things these people touched upon. A sociological essay called “The Stranger” by Georg Simmel discusses the titular concept of the stranger and explains their role in human relationships. Simmel goes into great detail trying to build the character of the stranger, delving into its conflicting characteristics. This paper will be dedicated to analyzing the essay in question and trying to argue that the strangers do not have the freedom and objectivity attributed to them by the author. I will attempt to analyze the points made by Simmel and provide personal opinions as to why they may be incorrect.
In his work, Georg Simmel describes the stranger as a member of the group possessing contradictory features. The stranger manages to be both near and distant to the group, “being outside it and confronting it” at the same time (Simmel, 1972, pp. 144). He/she is an individual that is not considered to be a part of the group by its other elements. This role, according to the author, is primarily reserved for traders, who intrude into a pre-existing community by the nature of their work (Simmel, 1972). One of the characteristics that Simmer attributes to strangers is their distance from the social conventions of the particular society (Simmel, 1972). The author states that as a perceived outsider, the stranger is not subject to the traditions and customs of the group, giving him/her a position of relative freedom. However, in my opinion, the stranger can be forced or willingly try to follow the societal tradition. Human society, in general, rarely accepts otherness in people, to successfully integrate oneself into it is to learn the society’s rules and peculiarities. If the stranger refuses to do so, he/she would be excluded from the group altogether, hindering his/her job. By this logic, the stranger can be free from tradition in exchange for having to work harder to achieve his/her goals within the group.
Another point Georg Simmel emphasizes is the freedom of the stranger. Freedom, for, Simmel, is also one of the facets of objectivity, presented in interpersonal relationships. The stranger, the author states, has the ability to see even his/her close relationships from “a bird’s-eye view” not bound by commitments and prejudices (Simmel, 1972, pp. 146). This statement might be partially incorrect, in my opinion, as it expects people to not possess emotion. The desire to connect with other individuals is one of the core driving motivations for people, and one cannot exist without forming meaningful connections that enrich their experience. The stranger is no exception: it would be cruel to expect a person to only have an objective view of others just because he/she is not native to their group. The stranger might have his/her own preconceived thoughts and prejudices precisely because of his/her otherness.
Lastly, the author proposes that the stranger possesses objectivity because of the lack of commitment to the tendencies of the group. The stranger has an ability to combine indifference and involvement, making him/her well-suited to be a judge, for example (Simmel, 1972). I would argue that this is also only partially the case. While it is evident that the stranger cannot have a personal stake in a situation, his/her judgment is still influenced by both his/her inherent beliefs and upbringing. Such factors as gender and racial stereotypes, prejudices also play a role in a stranger’s judgment. Even if a person is foreign to a specific community, they still bring the baggage of their own experiences with them, making them as biased as the other participants. Furthermore, the stranger’s inability to perceive the situation from a more personal angle can also be considered a problem. If an individual does not have personal experience with the situation the judgment might be incomplete or less informed than desired.
In conclusion, Georg Simmel describes the character of the stranger in various ways, emphasizing his/her relative freedom from societal expectations and objective view on said society. He elaborates that these traits primarily stem from the stranger’s inability to fully integrate into society, and describes them as positive qualities that offer various benefits to both the group and the individual (Simmel, 1972). In my opinion, this assessment of the stranger is partially correct but too idealistic. The perceived objectivity of the stranger can be affected by his/her human values and outside influence, calling his/her judgments into question. Moreover, the freedom that comes from not the following tradition is also questionable, as failure to learn the customs of a specific community makes it harder for a person to have meaningful and beneficial interactions with its people. The lack of cultural awareness can make the stranger’s work within the group more difficult. In summary, Simmel’s description of the stranger’s interpersonal relationships does not take into account human emotion and the desire to form connections, making his/her statement detached from reality. Overall, I would say that the concept of the stranger seems interesting but, as it stands, requires more nuance.
Reference
Simmel, G. (1972). The stranger. In G. Simmel (Ed.). On individuality and social forms (pp. 143-149). Chicago University Press.