One of the most peculiar aspects of a contemporary living is the fact that nowadays, it is specifically the extent of a particular individual’s integration, within the society, which defines his or her chances to attain self-actualization.
This creates a certain contradiction – in order for just about anyone to be able to realize its full existential potential, the concerned individual should be willing to act the manner, consistent with the ways of society, which in turn presupposes the lessened extent of his or her existential sovereignty.
Emil Durkheim and Georg Simmel, however, had successfully addressed this seeming paradox within the conceptual frameworks of their sociological theories. In this paper, I will illustrate how it has been done, on the part of both sociologists, while outlining the specifics of their approaches to addressing the concerned subject matter.
- The three major principles of Durkheim’s sociology can be outlined as follows:
- Society is an integral part of the surrounding objective reality. As such, it functions in accordance with basic societal laws, consistent with the laws of nature.
- Society is in the position to regulate the functioning of its systemic components.
- The ‘social facts’ (dialectically predetermined specifics of how people interrelate with each other within the society), studied by sociology, are thoroughly objective, which in turn presupposes the possibility for them to be subjected to a scientific inquiry.
As the sociologist noted, “We (sociologists) must penetrate much more deeply into reality, in order to understand it… We must look for a means of comparing historical data, and establish a series of phenomena which vary on parallel lines” (Durkheim 1982, p. 218).
According to Durkheim, the sociology’s primary objective, is to gain an insight into what causes people to subscribe to the communal forms of existence, while willing to consider the maintenance of the undermined social order (by the government), as such that represents a universally applicable and fully objective sociological category.
Durkheim’s sociological paradigm allows the division of human societies on archaic (simple/primitive) and industrial (complex). In the archaic society, people’s individual identities are being ‘dissolved’ within what happened to be this society’s ‘collective archetype’.
This explains why in primitive societies, people tend to lead highly ritualized lifestyles, while striving to objectualize themselves within the surrounding environment – hence, their endowment with the essentially tribal (mechanic) sense of solidarity. The existential mode of people in the industrial society, on the other hand, is characterized by their endowed with what Durkheim used to refer to as the organic sense of solidarity.
That is, in this type of societies, individuals tend to assess the measure of their relatedness with others along the lines of what happened to be the particulars of their social/professional affiliation. The reason for this is simple – the very functioning of an industrial society is being made possible by the strongly defined division of labor among its members.
Durkheim also used to promote the idea that, the more primitive a particular society happened to be; the higher is the measure of its members’ psychological homogeneity. In its turn, this homogeneity creates objective preconditions for such a society to fall behind, in terms of socio-cultural progress, because individuals who tend to perceive the surrounding reality similarly, are incapable of evolving.
Alternatively, the measure of the society’s complexity positively correlates with its members’ likelihood to gain an awareness, as to what the concept of ‘society’ stands for and consequently – to find circumstantially appropriate solutions to the pressing problems of socio-political importance. As Durkheim noted, “If the idea of society were extinguished in individual minds… society would die’ (1973, p. 149).
What appears to be particularly challenging, in this respect, is that along with enabling people to remain on the path of progress, industrial (complex) societies encourage them to work on refining their sense of an individual self-identity. In its turn, this often results in the society’s members beginning to think of their personal interests, as such that contradict the community’s overall interests.
This simply could not be otherwise, because the very paradigm of an industrial society predetermines the process of people growing increasingly ‘atomized’, in the psychological sense of this word.
Hence, Durkheim’s conceptualization of Homo Duplex, “Homo Dupleх… (is) the idea that embodied individuals is internally divided between their egoistic impulses and their capacity for ‘reaching beyond’ these asocial passions to the realm of conceptual thought and moral activity held in common by a society” (Shilling & Mellor 1998, p. 196).
Nevertheless, the context of Homo Duplex addressing life-challenges in the society, bounded together by the sensation of an organic solidarity, on the part of its members, makes it possible for him or her to ensure the integrity of its psyche’s functioning.
This is because people’s affiliation with industrial/complex societies, implies their ability to exercise a conscious control over what happened to be their egoistic impulses.
Apparently, while pursuing with the lifestyles of educated urbanites, people become increasingly aware of the fact that their willingness to suppress their deep-seated animalistic/egoistic anxieties, as the mean of remaining thoroughly integrated into the society, should prove utterly beneficial.
The reason for this is apparent – it is specifically individuals that are emotionally comfortable with the notion of ‘social contract’, who are able to grow progressively more empowered because of their belonging to the culturally and technologically advancing society.
Given the fact that the prospect of attaining empowerment has always been the actual motivation for people to concern themselves with exploring their sense of self-identity, it can be well assumed that the very model of an organic (complex) living, presupposes that, as time goes on, this sense undergoes a qualitative transformation.
This because, rationally functioning industrial societies are being more capable of withstanding the blind forces of entropy, as compared to what it is being the case with archaic societies, “The (rationale-based) collective life… has transformed the natural world-dominating individuals into a social and moral world dominated by people (Durkheim 1984 p. 319).
Consequently, those who are able to impose their dominance upon the natural/social environment, become inevitably enlightened, as to the fact that it is utterly inappropriate to think that there is a strong antagonism between the notions of ‘individual’ and ‘society’.
The validity of Durkheim’s idea, in this respect, can be well illustrated in regards to the self-evident fallaciousness of the assumption that, due to the affiliated forces of unification/standardization, the process of Globalization results in depriving people of an opportunity to explore their cultural uniqueness, which in turn causes social activists to oppose Globalization.
The irony lies in the fact that, contrary to this assumption, Globalization does not result in the destruction of cultural traditions, but rather in selecting those of them that are truly valuable and in incorporating the selected ones into the very matrix of today’s ‘non-traditional’ cosmopolitical living.
For example, whereas, as recently as a hundred years ago, pizza used to be considered solely Italian ethnic food, it now can be ordered in just about every part of the world.
Thus, it will be fully appropriate, on our part, to suggest that Durkheim’s sociological theory appears to remain thoroughly legitimate even today, because it does offer a logically substantiated explanation, as to how the notions of ‘individual’ and ‘society’ can be fused together into one inseparable discursive compound.
The main similarity between the earlier outlined sociology of Emil Durckheim and the sociology of Georg Simmel, is that both of them imply the existence of spatially stable perceptual modes, resorted to by people when it comes to engaging with the surrounding social reality, on their part (Durkheim’s ‘social facts’ and Simmel’s ‘social forms’).
However, unlike Durkheim, who used to refer to these modes, as such that remain in the state of a rationale-fueled perpetual transformation, Simmel preferred to think of them in terms of ‘things in themselves’.
That is, according to Simmel, the forms of people’s socially integrated existence are not defined by what happened to be the affiliated socio-economic circumstances, but by the very nature of the concerned individuals’ unconscious anxiety to achieve individuation.
This anxiety, however, consists of a number of mutually incompatible sub-anxieties, “(An individual) is always member and body, part and whole, complete and in need of completion” (Simmel 1971, p. 237).
As Pyyhtinen pointed out, “He (Simmel) commences from the ontological idea that there are two antagonistic forces at play in every human being… they manifest themselves, for instance in the part-whole tension; biologically, between heredity and variation; psychologically, between imitation and individual differentiation, and ideologically, between socialism and individualism” (2008, p. 281).
The earlier mentioned dichotomy creates objective prerequisites for the forms of social organization to remain essentially the same, throughout the course of millennia, even though they often adopt seemingly incompatible subtleties.
This is the reason why, when we analyze the societal significance of the court of Louis XIV, the U.S. Department of State and the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, for example, it will appear that there is indeed much in common between them. All three of the mentioned organizations serve (served) the cause of maintaining the legitimacy of predominant socio-cultural discourses in the concerned countries.
Hence, the essence of Simmel’s methodological approach to sociology – contrary to what Durkheim used to suggest, Simmel insisted that the sociology’s subject matter are historically archetypical social situations, which regardless of what happened to be the form of a particular society’s political governing, constitute a metaphysical foundation, upon which this society is based.
The sociologist used to refer to these situations as ‘social forms’, while classifying them as independent, on the one hand, and dependent, on the other. The independent ‘social forms’ are concerned with people’s inborn tendency to seek individuation through love, competition, alienation/integration.
The dependent ones are concerned with the functioning of legal systems, the process of individuals entering in economic relations with each other, and the discursive popularity of social activities that presuppose their participants’ willingness to indulge in role-playing.
The main feature of ‘social forms’ is that they reflect people’s earlier mentioned psychological predispositions, “Social forms… are of those great antagonistic forces which represent the foundations of our individual destiny, and in which our outer as well as our inner life, our intellectual as well as our spiritual being, find the poles of their oscillations” (Simmel 1957, p. 541).
There are certain limitations to people’s ability to achieve self-actualization, while acting within the framework of a particular ‘social form’. These limitations include the particulars of people’s class-affiliation, the discursive oppressiveness of legally upheld rules and regulations, and the society’s stance on what can be considered the moral/immoral means of attaining a social prominence.
Therefore, when it comes to defining the essence of qualitative dynamics within the society, sociologists should never cease taking into consideration the causes and implications of what appears to be the currently predominant socio-cultural discourse, while remaining thoroughly aware of this discourse’s effect on their own ability to rationalize.
For example, as of today, the discourse of political correctness defines just about all the spheres of public life in the West. However, this does not mean that it will continue to be the case in the future – the very laws of history predetermine the process of discourses’ never-ending transformation.
What represents the matter of a crucial importance, in this respect, is to ensure that the society does not only provide its members with the opportunity to accommodate mutually incompatible (social and anti-social) drives inside of their psyche, within the framework of a ‘societal appropriateness’, but also prevents people from becoming solely focused on addressing a particular egoistic anxiety, as their foremost preoccupation in life.
While justifying the validity of his line of argumentation, in this respect, Simmel points out to the fact that the very specifics of an urban living cause people to embrace the values of individualism. This creates a certain paradox – on the one hand, urbanites strive to explore their individuality, on the other, however, they are left with no option but to do it in the essentially artificial/surrogate manner.
This is the reason why, despite their often clearly defined external sophistication, these people often prove ‘empty’ on the inside. As the sociologist noted, “(An Urbanite) is easily led to adopt extreme extravagancies and caprices, the meaning of which lies purely in the form of being different, empty of any content” (Simmel 1971, p. 360).
The earlier mentioned dichotomy is the actual cause of the sensation of a social alienation, experienced by many people in modern/industrialized societies.
Therefore, policy-makers should aim at establishing preconditions for ordinary citizens to be capable of exploring the full extent their de facto existential uniqueness, without undermining the society’s integrity from within. Simmel’s works contain a number of suggestions, as to how this could be done. However, discussing these suggestions would fall beyond the boundaries of this paper’s topic.
I believe that the deployed line of argumentation, in regards to the tackled subject matter, is fully consistent with the initially offered thesis. Apparently, even though that the sociological theories of Durkheim and Simmel were formulated, as far back as throughout the course of the 20th century’s early phase, they nevertheless continue to represent an undermined discursive value.
This especially appears to be the case in light of the ongoing process of Globalization, concerned with the continual evolution of Western societies towards secularization/cosmopolitism.
References
Durkheim E. 1984, The division of labour in society, Macmillan, London.
Durkheim, E. 1973, “The dualism of human nature and its social conditions”, in R Bellah (ed) Emile Durkheim on Morality and Society, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 130-163.
Durkheim, E. 1982, “Debate on explanation in history and sociology”, in S Lukes (ed), The Rules of Sociological Method and Selected Texts on Sociology and its Method, Free Press, New York, pp. 211-228.
Pyyhtinen, O. 2008, ‘Ambiguous individuality: Georg Simmel on the “who” and the “what” of the individual’, Human Studies, vol. 31. no. 3, pp. 279-298.
Shilling, C. & Mellor, P. 1998, ’Durkheim, morality and modernity: collective effervescence, Homo Duplex and the sources of moral action’, The British Journal of Sociology, vol. 49. no. 2, pp. 193-209.
Simmel, G. 1957, ‘Fashion’, The American Journal of Sociology, vol.62. no. 6, pp. 541-558.
Simmel, G. 1971, “Eros, platonic and modem”, in D Levine (ed) Georg Simmel on individuality and social forms: selected writings. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 235-248.
Simmel, G. 1971, “The transcendent character of life”, in D Levine (ed) Georg Simmel on individuality and social forms: selected writings. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 353-374.