E. Durkheim and G. Simmel’s Sociological Theories Essay

Introduction

Emile Durkheim and George Simmel’s contributions are recognized as the foundation of modern sociology. This paper will analyze and contrast the theories of George Simmel and Emile Durkheim. The theories of sociology are one of the bases upon which it is supported as a separate academic discipline. When examining the publications of these sociologists, it becomes apparent how the concepts shifted from social philosophy to sociology. The theories of Durkheim and Simmel are essentially different. They need a consistent line of reasoning, even though both belong to an earlier period in the history of sociology. The methods of both theories are here succinctly outlined so that the reader can grasp the more significant differences.

Similarities and Differences between the Emile Durkheim and George Simmel Theories

Contrary to Durkheim, Simmel uses a different approach to social analysis. He disapproves of the notion that society can be studied as a whole and is opposed to efforts to pin down the fundamentals of social development and evolution. He sees society as a place where free people can engage in moral and cultural activities¹. Society cannot be considered as we study nature and natural laws in the natural sciences. Relationships between and among people make up society, according to Simmel. Sociologists ought to place more emphasis on tracking social interaction trends and patterns than on establishing norms.

Simmel created a typology of social kinds to complement his list of social forms.². He phenomenologically identified a variety of people in addition to “the stranger,” including “the intermediary,” “the adventurer,” “the poor,” “the renegade,” and “the man in the middle.” This typology likely inspired future social researchers to create more specific types like Cattel’s 15 PF and Eysenck’s personality types. Each social type, according to Simmel, has certain expectations and responses from others.³. The type impacts interpersonal interactions, job performance, and conduct in particular contexts. His categorizations of people are regarded as characteristics of the social reality or structure. Simmel appears to promote autonomy in contrast to Durkheim’s claims.

Sociologist Emile Durkheim gained notoriety for his theories about how society is organized. He studied the development and operation of both conventional and contemporary communities. The idea of social forces, which are the cultural pressures, beliefs, and systems, served as the foundation for Durkheim’s theories. Durkheim had a different viewpoint on society than other Simmel o since his theories were grounded in exterior phenomena rather than internal ones, including human drives and wants. In Durkheim’s view, a functioning society requires a shared mentality, ideals, and laws.

The most major contribution made by Simmel, which had a significant impact on later advancements, was his observation that the number of participants affects the interpersonal process and outcome. He provided evidence that the Dyad and Triad are substantially unlike. He found that a triad has the potential to create a dyad within itself.⁴. The dyad with a triad may threaten the other person’s independence, making them group subordinate. The dyad and triad dynamics are a miniature representation of the social order. The group members become more divided, isolated, and segmented as the group (structure) gets more extensive. This contribution by Simmel points to heteronomy’s dominance. As a result of the restricted impact of the individual in a social setting, heteronomy is more likely to prevail.⁵. Simmel was unintentionally given the observation of the variations in interaction dynamics concerning the number of participants in the group.

The division of labor in Durkheim’s theory of society was primarily concerned with how societies evolved from simple to sophisticated. He stated that individuals in traditional civilizations were largely alike in their beliefs, religious views, and histories, making up similar groups. In comparison, the divides of labor, opinions, and origins of modern cultures are extremely complex^5. Social rules were rigid, social behavior was tightly controlled, and the collective mind was paramount in traditional cultures.

Simmel clung to the autonomy thesis despite the dyadic and triadic phenomenon’s heteronomy-suggesting nature. Simmel, for instance, was preoccupied with associational techniques and neglected individual consciousness. Simmel had faith in people’s capacity for creative thought.⁶. He often spoke of how actors might forge societal structures and the devastating repercussions of such systems on people’s creative capacity. Early analyses of social phenomena by Simmel strongly support autonomy, but later in his career, he also took a more moderate stance by recognizing both schools. Simmel, for instance, likewise held that cultural and social systems have inherent vitality.

Human cultures can be divided into archaic (simple/primitive) and industrial ones, according to Durkheim’s sociological paradigm (complex). In the archaic culture, people’s distinct personalities are “dissolved” inside the “collective archetype” of this community.⁷. This describes why members of primitive societies often lead highly formalized lifestyles and strive to objectivize themselves within their surroundings, giving rise to their endowment with a sense of belonging that is genuinely tribal (mechanic). Contrarily, the existential mode of people in industrial society is marked by their possession of what Durkheim once referred to as the organic sense of solidarity.

The group’s direct, inner oneness loosens as it increases in size and spreads out spatially. The rigidity of the initial boundary against others is softened through reciprocal contacts and linkages. This suggests a lot more potential for personal freedom and adaptability, with a significant decline in the influence of prevailing culture and forms of affiliation.⁸. Simmel’s reasoning is comparable to Durkheim’s definition of organic solidarity, which holds that while modernity’s social truths are constrictive, they also promote people’s autonomy and freedom. Simmel’s theory of group size is dialectical in that domination and freedom are opposing forces that conflict.⁹. That is objective culture, and the numerous ways it manifests grow in size as groups do. Although the person may feel “alienated” from them, the same forms offer the possibility of personal independence and adaptability.

Conclusion

The theories put forth by sociology deans Durkheim and Simmel, especially during the initial years of its development, nevertheless have value up to date. The fantastic thing about how these two sociologists’ presentation of the theories is that they did it from various perspectives, making them compelling and helpful in describing societal difficulties.

Bibliography

Fägerlind, Ingemar, and Lawrence J. Saha. Education and national development: A comparative perspective. Elsevier, 2016.

Kostrova, Elizaveta. “The Dyad and the Third Party: The Traces of Simmel’s Distinction in Phenomenology and Family Studies.” AVANT. Pismo Awangardy Filozoficzno-Naukowej 2 (2018): 187-202.

Papillon, Christian. “Georg Simmel and relational sociology.” In The Palgrave handbook of relational sociology, pp. 201-215. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2018.

Peoples, Clayton D. “Classical and contemporary conventional theories of social movements.” In The Palgrave handbook of social movements, revolution, and social transformation, pp. 17-34. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2019.

Sattar, Usman. “How Societies Move on? Conceptualizing Societal Transition Processes and Its Implications on Climate Change Adaptation.” European Online Journal of Natural and Social Sciences 9, no. 1 (2020): pp-61.

Turner, Charles. “Social types and sociological analysis.” History of the Human Sciences 32, no. 3 (2019): 3-23.

Footnotes

1. Peoples, Clayton D. “Classical and contemporary conventional theories of social movements.” In The Palgrave handbook of social movements, revolution, and social transformation, pp. 17-34. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2019.
2. Turner, Charles. “Social types and sociological analysis.” History of the Human Sciences 32, no. 3 (2019): 3-23.
3. Fägerlind, Ingemar, and Lawrence J. Saha. Education and national development: A comparative perspective. Elsevier, 2016.
4. Fägerlind, Ingemar, and Lawrence J. Saha. Education and national development: A comparative perspective. Elsevier, 2016.
5. Kostrova, Elizaveta. “The Dyad and the Third Party: The Traces of Simmel’s Distinction in Phenomenology and Family Studies.” AVANT. Pismo Awangardy Filozoficzno-Naukowej 2 (2018): 187-202.
6. Turner, Charles. “Social types and sociological analysis.” History of the Human Sciences 32, no. 3 (2019): 3-23.
7. Peoples, Clayton D. “Classical and contemporary conventional theories of social movements.” In The Palgrave handbook of social movements, revolution, and social transformation, pp. 17-34. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2019.
8. Sattar, Usman. “How Societies Move on? Conceptualizing Societal Transition Processes and Its Implications on Climate Change Adaptation.” European Online Journal of Natural and Social Sciences 9, no. 1 (2020): pp-61.
9. Sattar, Usman. “How Societies Move on? Conceptualizing Societal Transition Processes and Its Implications on Climate Change Adaptation.” European Online Journal of Natural and Social Sciences 9, no. 1 (2020): pp-61.