Topics to be covered

1. What is Sociology?
2. Individual
3. Cultural
4. Society

What is Sociability?
Sociability or sociality can be defined as, 'the natural inclination of human being
to live in the society and for being social'.

Aristotle's View of Man's Sociability

The Greek philosopher Aristotle believed in sociability of man. This belief is
explicit in his words that; "Man is a social animal. One who doesn't live in society
is either God or a beast".

What is Sociology?
 The study of the development, structure, and functioning of human society.
 The study of social problems.
 Sociology enables us to understand the structure and dynamics of society,
and their intricate connections to patterns of human behavior and
individual life changes.

Individual and Society

 Individual is basic unit of Society.
 Man is a social animal. He lives in social groups in communities and in
society.
 Man is biologically and psychologically equipped to live in groups, in
society.
 Society has become an essential condition for human life to arise and to
continue.
 According to Peter Berger society not only controls our movements but
shapes our identity, our thought and our emotions.
Society
 August Comte the father of sociology saw society as a social organism
possessing a harmony of structure and function.
 We can define society as a group of people who share a common culture,
occupy a particular territorial area and feel themselves to constitute a
unified and distinct entity. It is the mutual interactions and interrelations of
individuals and groups.
 The term society is most fundamental to sociology. It is derived from the
Latin word socius which means companionship or friendship.
 According to George Simmel it is this element of sociability which defines
the true essence of society.

Sociability of Man
Manifestations of Sociability of Man
The first and foremost manifestation of man's sociability can be seen in the fact that, 'no
human being leaves society to live in forests or deserts. We see the cities full of people.
Even those who have no shelters to live in sleep across the roads on footpaths but they
never go to live in a place which lacks society'.

Villages, towns, residential communities in urban areas all are the material manifestations of
man's sociability. Men live in these places and evolve societies. They tend to make rules to
govern their living in these areas and also obey the social norms to keep the sociability
intact and healthy.

Professor MacIver's Cases Proving Man's Sociability

Professor MacIver narrated two important cases of 20th century in order to prove man's
sociability. They were;
 Amala Kamala Case
 Anna Case
In both the cases, the children named above were taken to the distant places away from
society. They were brought up without letting them hear any social communication between
human being. When they reached the age of majority, all they could speak was like a child
uttering meaningless sounds. This proved how sociability is inevitable for a human being.

Sociability of Man in 21st Century

This century is the century of media and technology in their various shapes. Sociability of
man has increased in a sense that social media helps him keep contact even with those
whom he never met. Another point of view is that the sociability of man has been restrained
in the modern age. Face to face contact, public gatherings and sports has been
marginalized. People prefer to remain in houses and use internet facilities to contact others.
But at a broader level this rarely affects sociability of man.

Conclusion
Sociability of man is natural and inevitable. Its promotion however depends upon the
surroundings of man. Manifestations of sociability of man can be more accurately seen in
our daily routines. It is something that one cannot resist.

Notes on Georg Simmel

These notes on Georg Simmel were prepared for Sociology 250, Introduction to
Social Theory, in Fall, 1995. The notes provide an overview and some examples of
Simmel's approach to the study of society. Sections 2 and 3 of these notes are the
parts most applicable to the discussion of interaction and community in Sociology
304. 

1. Introduction.

While Simmel is generally not regarded as being as influential in sociology as were

Marx, Weber, Durkheim, or even Parsons, several of the early United States
sociologists studied with or were influenced by Simmel. This was especially true of
those who developed the symbolic interaction approach including writers in the
Chicago school, a tradition that dominated United States sociology in the early part of
this century, before Parsons. 

Georg Simmel (1858-1918, Germany) was born in Berlin and received his doctorate
in 1881. He was of Jewish ancestry and was marginalized within the German
academic system. Only in 1914 did Simmel obtain a regular academic appointment,
and this appointment was in Strasbourg, far from Berlin. In spite of these problems, he
wrote extensively on the nature of association, culture, social structure, the city, and
the economy. His writings were read by Durkheim and Weber, and Simmel
contributed greatly to sociology and European intellectual life in the early part of this
century. One of his most famous writings is "The Metropolis and Mental Life" (1903)
and his best known book is The Philosophy of Money (1907). Simmel's ideas were
very influential on the Marxist scholar Georg Lukacs (1885-1971) and Simmel's
writings on the city and on money are now being used by contemporary sociologists. 

Simmel combines ideas from all of the three major classical writers and was
influenced by Hegel and Kant. When Simmel discusses social structures, the city,
money, and modern society, his analysis has some similarities to the analyses of
Durkheim (problem of individual and society), Weber (effects of rationalization), and
Marx (alienation). Simmel considered society to be an association of free individuals,
and said that it could not be studied in the same way as the physical world, i.e.
sociology is more than the discovery of natural laws that govern human interaction.
"For Simmel, society is made up of the interactions between and among individuals,
and the sociologist should study the patterns and forms of these associations, rather
than quest after social laws." (Farganis, p. 133). This emphasis on social interaction
at the individual and small group level, and viewing the study of these interactions
as the primary task of sociology makes Simmel's approach different from that of the
classical writers, especially Marx and Durkheim. 

It is Simmel's attempt to integrate analysis of individual action with the structural

approach that make his writings of contemporary interest. 

Simmel began his inquiries from the bottom up, observing the smallest of social
interactions and attempting to see how larger-scale institutions emerged from them. In
doing so, he often noticed phenomena that other theorists missed. For example,
Simmel observed that the number of parties to an interaction can effect its nature. The
interaction between two people, a dyad, will be very different from that which is
possible in a three-party relationship, or triad. (Farganis, p. 133)

2. Size of Group. Simmel considered the size of the group in which social action
takes place to be a factor in determining the nature of the group. Here he was
concerned with the form of the group, rather than the content of the interaction. In
the dyad, a relationship can be considered relatively straightforward, in that each
individual can present themselves to the other in a way that maintains their identity,
and either party can end the relationship by withdrawing from it. Various strategies
emerge in the triad that change the form of interaction from the dyad. In the triad,
there may be strategies that lead to competition, alliances, or mediation. The triad is
likely to develop a group structure independent of the individuals in it, whereas this is
less likely in the dyad (Ritzer, p. 166).

As group size increases even more, Ritzer notes that "the increase in the size of the
group or society increases individual freedom." (p. 167). The small circle of early or
premodern times,
firmly closed against the neighbouring strange, or in some way antagonistic circles ...
allows its individual members only a narrow field for the development of unique
qualities and free, self-responsible movements. ... The self-preservation of very young
associations requires the establishment of strict boundaries and a centripetal unity.
(Farganis, p. 140). 

As the group grows in numbers and extends itself spatially, "the group's direct, inner
unity loosens, and the rigidity of the original demarcation against others is softened
through mutual relations and connections." (Farganis, p. 140). This implies much
greater possibility of individual freedom and flexibility, with the common culture and
form of association greatly weakened.

The metropolis or city becomes the location where the division of labour is the

greatest and where this individuality and individual freedom is most expanded. At the
same time Simmel notes that for the individual this creates the "difficulty of asserting
his own personality within the dimensions of metropolitan life." (Farganis, p. 142).
The growth of the city, the increasing number of people in the city, and the "brevity
and scarcity of the inter-human contacts granted to the metropolitan man, as compared
to the social intercourse of the small town" (Farganis, p. 143) makes the "objective
spirit" dominate over the "subjective spirit." Modern culture in terms of language,
production, art, science, etc. is "at an ever increasing distance." This is the result of
the growth of the division of labour and the specialization in individual pursuits that is
a necessary part of this. Subjective culture is "the capacity of the actor to produce,
absorb, and control the elements of objective culture. In an ideal sense, individual
culture shapes, and is shaped by, objective culture. The problem is that objective
culture comes to have a life of its own." (Ritzer, p.162). "The individual has become a
mere cog in an enormous organization of things and powers which tear from his hands
all progress, spirituality, and value in order to transform them from their subjective
form into the form of objective life." (Farganis, p. 143). This sounds much like Marx's
alienation, Durkheim's anomie, or Weber's rationalization, although Simmel
associates this with the city, rather than with the society as a whole, as do the other
classical writers. 

Where Simmel differs from these other classic writers, is that Simmel returns to the
individual, analyzing how the individual deals with the developments of modern
society, and considering how the individual personality is developed in these
circumstances. Simmel notes that one way individuals assert a personality is to "be
different," to adopt manners, fashions, styles, "to appear concentrated and strikingly
characteristic." The brevity and fleetingness of contact in the city mean that lasting
impressions based on regular and habitual interaction with others cannot be
developed. In these circumstances, obtaining self-esteem and having "the sense of
filling a position" may be developed by seeking "the awareness of others." (Farganis,
p. 143). This means that individuals may adopt some characteristic fashions and in
their personal mannerisms may try to appear "to the point." Note that the personality
is not an isolated entity but also is a social entity, one that depends on interaction.
Social interaction, looking to the reaction of others, and seeking the recognition and
awareness of others is an essential aspect of individual personality. In this way
Simmel ties together the individual and the social, and each require the existence of
the other.

Further, the intellect and personal psyche develop in a different way in traditional and
in modern society. In rural and small town settings, impressions of others are built up
gradually, over time, on the basis of habit. Many of these impressions are less
conscious and are built on more deeply felt and emotional relationships. (Farganis, p.
136). In contrast, in the city, there is sharp discontinuity, single glances, a multitude of
quick impressions. 

Thus the metropolitan type of man -- which, of course, exists in a thousand individual
variants -- develops an organ protecting him against the threatening currents and
discrepancies of his external environment which would uproot him. He reacts with his
head instead of his heart. .... Intellectuality is thus seen to preserve subjective life
against the overwhelming power of metropolitan life, and intellectuality branches out
in many directions and is integrated with numerous discrete phenomena. (Farganis, p.
137)

Thus Simmel views objective culture as having an effect on the individual, but at the
same time considers how this alters the development of the individual, how the
individual understands this and develops in this context, how the individual interacts
with other individuals, and how these interactions form the social life of the city.
Simmel concludes his essay by noting how the city influences individuals and
provides the "opportunities and the stimuli for the development of ... ways of
allocating roles to men. Therewith these conditions gain a unique place, pregnant with
inestimable meanings for the development of psychic existence." (Farganis, p. 144).
Note "allocating roles to men" rather than "men to roles" as the structural functionalist
might describe this process. While Simmel is concerned with the possible negative
effects of objective culture, he considers it possible for personalities to develop within
these conditions. 

3. Individual and Society. For Simmel, there is a dynamic or dialectical

tension between the individual and society -- individuals are free and creative spirits,
yet are part of the socialization process. Simmel was troubled by this relationship,
viewing modern society as freeing the individual from historical and traditional bonds
and creating much greater individual freedom, but with individuals also experiencing
a great sense of alienation within the culture of urban life. Simmel notes:

The deepest problems of modern life derive from the claim of the individual to
preserve the autonomy and individuality of his existence in the face of overwhelming
social forces, of external culture, and of the technique of life. (Farganis, p. 136).

Simmel makes three assumptions about the individual and society. (Ashley and
Orenstein, p. 312). These are:

Individuals are both within and outside society.

Individuals are both objects and subjects within networks of communicative

interaction.

Individuals have the impulse to be self-fulfilling and self-completing, that is, they
seek an integrated self-concept. Society also tries to integrate itself (like Durkheim
noted), although the effect of this may be in opposition to individual integrity.

In the social world, the various forms and styles of interaction are brought into
existence by people and the above assumptions are realized as individuals
interact with one another. Ritzer notes that humans possess creative
consciousness and the basis of social life is "conscious individuals or groups of
individuals who interact with one another for a variety of motives, purposes, and
interests." (p. 163) People are conscious and creative individuals and the mind plays a
crucial role in this mutual orientation and social interaction. This creativity allows for
flexibility and freedom on the part of the individual, but at the same time it helps to
create the structures of objective culture that may constrain and stifle this freedom.
That is, social interaction becomes regularized and has patterns to it, and these
become forms of association. These patterns and forms, regardless of their content, is
what sociologists should study.

This means that society is not a separate reality of its own, but "society merely is the
name for a number of individuals, connected by interaction ... society certainly is not a
'substance,' nothing concrete, but an event: it is the function of receiving and affecting
the fate and development of one individual by the other." For Simmel, society is
nothing but lived experience, and social forces are not external to, nor necessarily
constraining for the individual, rather it is individuals who reproduce society every
living moment through their actions and interactions. Ritzer notes that Simmel
disagreed with Durkheim that "society is a real, material entity" and did not view
society as merely a collection of individuals. Rather, he adopted the position of
"society as a set of interactions." (p. 170). 
The individual in a social unit must be an entity or constituent part of the unit, and
Simmel distinguishes between a personal self and a social self. If there is no self-
consciousness, symbolic interaction would disappear and human experience would
just be the responses to stimuli. Instead, we live and die in terms of what is inter
subjectively meaningful -- i.e. view ourselves in terms of responses of others - and
even on others who we have never met. 

Ashley and Orenstein (p. 316) provide an example using sex and gender differences.
Within a patriarchal or unequal male/female relationship, relations may appear to be
intimate and spontaneous. In fact, if the situation is one of dominant and subordinate,
the nature of the relationship is structured by the expectations of both the dominant
and the subordinate. Objective form of dominance and submission contain the way in
which what is thought of as subjective can be expressed. This dominant and
subordinate relationship is also maintained by the subjective impulses that are part of
the interaction.

4. Fashion. An example of how Simmel examines some of these connections in a

concrete connection is his discussion of fashion. (See Ritzer p. 161 and Ashley and
Orenstein, pp. 314-5). Simmel views fashion as developing in the city, "because it
intensifies a multiplicity of social relations, increases the rate of social mobility and
permits individuals from lower strata to become conscious of the styles and fashions
of upper classes." (Ashley and Orenstein, p. 314). In the traditional and small circle
setting, fashion would have no meaning or be unnecessary. Since modern individuals
tend to be detached from traditional anchors of social support, fashion allows the
individual to signal or express their own personality or personal values. Simmel noted
that fashion provides 

the best arena for people who lack autonomy and who need support, yet whose self-
awareness nevertheless requires that they be recognized as distinct and as particular
kinds of beings. (in Ashley and Orenstein, p. 314).

Ritzer notes that fashion can be considered to be a part of objective culture in that it
allows the individual to come into conformity with norms of a group. At the same
time, it can express individuality, because an individual may choose to express some
difference from norms. Fashion is dynamic and has an historical dimension to it, with
acceptance of a fashion being followed by some deviation from this fashion, change in
the fashion, and perhaps ultimate abandonment of the original norm, and a new norm
becoming established. There is a dialectical process involved in the success of the
fashion involved in its initial and then widespread acceptance also leads to its eventual
abandonment and failure. Leadership in a fashion means that the leader actually
follows the fashion better than others, as well as there being followers of the fashion.
Mavericks are those who reject the fashion, and this may become an inverse form of
imitation.

In summary, fashion allows personal values to be expressed at the same time as norms
are followed. The two exist together, and the one without the other would be
meaningless. In all of this, social interaction is of the essence - what others think, what
one thinks that others think, how one conceives of fashion, etc.

5. Philosophy of Money. Simmel's major work concerns money and the social
meaning of money. In this book Simmel is concerned with large social issues, and this
book can be thought of as on a par with The Division of Labour of Durkheim,
although not as extensive and thorough as Marx's Capital or Weber's Economy and
Society. In this book, Simmel is concerned with money as a symbol, and what some
of the effects of this are for people and society. In modern society, money becomes an
impersonal or objectified measure of value. This implies impersonal, rational ties
among people that are institutionalized in the money form. For example, relations of
domination and subordination become quantitative relationships of more and less
money -- impersonal and measurable in a rational manner. The use of money
distances individuals from objects and also provides the means of overcoming this
distance. The use of money allows much greater flexibility for individuals in society --
to travel greater distances and to overcome person-to-person limitations.

Simmel thus suggests that the spread of the money form gives individuals a freedom
of sorts by permitting them to exercise the kind of individualized control over
"impression management" that was not possible in traditional societies. ... ascribed
identities have been discarded. Even strangers become familiar and knowable
identities insofar as they are willing to use a common but impersonal means of
exchange. (Ashley and Orenstein, p. 326)

At the same time, personal identity becomes problematic, so that development of the
money form has both positive and negative consequences. That is, individual freedom
is potentially increased greatly, but there are problems of alienation, fragmentation,
and identity construction. 

6. Conclusion. Simmel's sociology can be regarded as similar to that of the other

classic writers in some senses, although he had less to say about social structure or its
dynamics than did Marx, Weber, or Durkheim He did discuss objective culture and
his writings on money have some affinity with Weber's rationalization. Where his
contribution is notable for contemporary sociology is his view of society, the
emphasis on social interaction, and his writings on the city.