Sociology, Simmel, and Schmoller
• this article covers the possible correlations between phenomenology and sociology.
“Underlying both German sociology and phenomenology was a concern for the cultural crisis of European society that had manifested itself in the upheavals of WW I” (Tirykian, 674).
•see treatment of American social climate above.
German sociology develops out of a practical need to address the “crisis of European society” so frequently alluded to. Recognizing that the social conditions of the United States differed from those of Europe, Locke adapts the methodologies he was introduced to in Germany [theories of Simmel, Schmoller and others] to the unique set of problems facing the United States at the time, the most important of which was that of race.
Tirykian makes the argument that “a meaningful methodological convergence exists” in the works of a number of prominent sociologists of the 19th and 20th centuries.
• Like Weber, though much later, Locke enters Germany under the influence of Dilthey’s philosophy. The intellectual climate during these years concerning the nature of investigations into “cultural” phenomena” (678).
• the gloss of Dilthey is really good as well as the discussion of the Natur-/Geistwissenschaften distinction.
•”value orientations are key to the human sciences, not the “positivistic methodology”
• one problem that I will have to address is Locke’s repeated evocation of his commitment to “objectivity” in the second lecture. Or, maybe Locke accepted the distinction but is, at best, ambivalent concerning his claims to objectivity. He’s not alone here. The point is that the objectivity of cultural products (or “objectifications” as they’ve been called) is of a different kind (order) than the objects of nature.
Georg Simmel (679)
1) reflects Dilthey’s influence “in accepting the distinctness of sociocultural phenomena.”
2) his place in the history of sociology and his significance therein have been rendered ambiguous due to the peculiarities of the subject matter that he treats and the style of his treatments.
3) Simmel “considered the description of pure ‘social forces’ as that which differentiates sociology from other disciplines” (679//80).
4) evokes a distinction between the form and content of social behavior.
5) To him, “A common nuclear meaning underlies the repetitive aspects; the uniformities of social activity, and once the observer has grasped and described it..its structural aspects will manifest themselves irrespective of the specific contents or occasions of the particular ‘sociation’ in question” (680).
• the author refers to examples like the meaning of the stranger and the meaning of the cocktail party. For my part, I want to note that the affinity of Locke’s approach to theorizing race to the sociological orientation of Simmel is an important element to take into account when interpreting his conception of race. The next step is clearly showing and making evident this relation.
• later, look at the summary of this article and the authors statements about “subjective realism.” This position is linked to “pragmatism.”
• use this article in conjunction with Experience and Culture and be DONE.
Weingartner, (1960,62) “Intro,” Simmel’s Philosophy of Culture
Introduction
Georg Simmel was born in Berlin in 1858 and begins his mature studies at the University of Berlin in the summer of 1876, receiving his degree in philosophy. In 1881, his dissertation on Kant is accepted and he subsequently receives his Ph.D.. In 1884, at the age of 26, he is admitted to the University of Berlin as a Privatdozent. Over the years, he came to befriend the likes of Weber, Husserl, and Rickert. While at Berlin, Simmel became something of an intellectual attraction at the university. In spite of this, Simmel failed to advance beyond his initial university distinction until late in his career. He relocates to Strasbourg and dies there in 1918.
• note: given the volume of Simmel’s intellectual output, it’s possible the Locke’s interest in Berlin and Simmel originated out of encountering Simmel’s work while studying in Oxford and traveling through Continental Europe prior to the fall of 1910, when he entered the University of Berlin himself.
Like many German thinkers, Simmel harbored a robust preoccupation with Goethe (7/8, 9),one that was probably passed along to Locke when he took classes from the philosopher and social theorist from the fall of 1910 to the spring of 1911. He is characterized as a lecturer who first shows students “what it really means to think” (8) by one former student. While the value and significance of his work had long been held in question by some, ultimately the work of Simmel and Weber is credited with being responsible for the field of sociology becoming accepted as a legitimate university science in Germany.
Methodologically, Simmel has been characterized as offering a philosophy of kultur and a philosophy of life.
• “…Simmel’s major interest was the examination and analysis of cultural objects” (11). Such objectifications are manifest in human activities and the products of human praxis. Locke’s sociology of race a) locates race on the plane of social history and b) analyzes it as a “cultural object.” [culture produces race; race practice precedes race theory; grounded in our dealings with the practical problems of human living.]
• …Simmel’s philosophy is but one of life—human life—and its product: culture” (12). [again, Locke states that all philosophies are, at bottom, philosophies of life; race, then, would be a further development out of the life-objectifications of culture (?).]
•ontological structure: life culture race
• Locke shares Simmel’s philosophical style (later)
“What he borrows is always fused into the context he provides” (13).
• Dilthey’s influence is noted (13).
• note: working through this book would be informative for a larger comparative treatment of Locke and Simmel.
(102) we find one possible explanation of Locke’s commitment to ‘objectivity’ in science and social history.
(71/2) discussion of “objects of culture.” Simmel’s philosophy of culture concerns, “neither the objects created by men, nor the process by which these objects are created, but the process of their reassimilation” (72). This concerns how culture is re-appropriated. The quote from Goethe’s Faust fits well with this and foreshadows Locke’s culture concept.
• Simmel terms the totality of human products objective spirit (72). Locke doesn’t begin to theorize concerning spirit until his New Negro essay.
• note: the author and translator screws up the Kultur/Bildung distinction, collapsing them into one another. Will have to consult German eventually.
the process of cultivation (73).
1) Nature gives way to culture through the care that human beings exhibit.
2) the future state must be latent in the natural structural relations or motiv powers of the subject” (73).
Conclu:
1) culture is a process of cultivation
2) the original state is a natural state. Culture is a kind of development, an unfoldinig of an individual’s potentialities
3) this transformation requires the use of objects external to the individual.
• remember opening discussion of Simmel’s philosophy: Life as more life. Within this philosophy of life stirs his concept of culture.
•fn: it is said that the work of Weber and Simmel,
