Download The two very different views of Durkheim and Simmel`s sociology is

Genders 1
The American Sociology Association defines sociology as the “study of society” and “a
social science involving the study of the social lives of people, groups, and societies” (American
Sociological Association). While this might sounds simple enough, the question of what
sociology actually is and what it involves has been thoughtfully agonized over for centuries. The
question goes much deeper than the safe and generic answer the ASA gives. Sociologists David
Emile Durkheim and Georg Simmel spent much of their academic lives deciphering what
sociology is, what types of structure hold it together, and where it is going as society progresses.
Both Durkheim and Simmel are well-known for their differences in sociological thought.
The latter being a micro-sociologist and the former looking at the social science from a more
‘macro” scale, their mindsets were very much diverged from one another. In the following pages
I will give a brief background on these two theorists and compare and contrast their views of
sociology, using their responses to modernity and urbanization as a representation of their social
theory. Durkheim thought that the rise of modernity would have to lead to social solidarity found
in the division of labor, whereas Simmel thought the rise of modernity would have a tragic
impact on the “mental life”, changing the objective culture and creating a false consciousness in
individuals, leaving them alienated, impoverished, and estranged.
David Emile Durkheim is known as the father of realism and social structuralism. He was
born in 1858 to a French family of prominent Jewish orthodox rabbis. He had a very successful
academic career, being installed as a faculty member at Bordeaux after having earned two
bachelor’s degrees. He taught the very first sociology class in France, and had a huge impact on
sociological thought there—both positive and negative. He believed that sociology had a major
role to play in the modern sciences. Known as the father of realism and social structuralism,
Durkheim was a strong positivist, meaning he believed that sociology should be considered a
Genders 2
natural science. George Ritzer says that Durkheim saw himself as a scientist, discovering casual
and functional explanations for social facts (R. A. Jones193-195). As author John Rex points out
in his section of The Founding Fathers of Social Science, Durkheim used statistics to discover
the social concomitants of variations in rate and he used the empirical material for a positive
guide to action (158). Durkheim believed that by finding the essentials of social order, he could
also show the conditions of human hapiness—which he thought could only be reached if the
pleasures of the individual are limited by socially approved norms (Rex 158). This goes along
with the theme of a lot of Durkheim’s teachings: that attention should be devoted not just to
individuals and their characteristics, but to the social bonds which unite men in society (Rex
156). It is by looking at society, rather than the individual, that social order and human happiness
can truly be found. According to author Raymond Aron in his book on the main currents in
sociological thought, Durkheim belonged to the secular tradition and his thinking was easily
incorporated into the ever-ongoing dialogue between the Catholic Church and secular thought
(3). Influenced strongly by Auguste Comte, Durkheim considered that a society needs consensus,
and that consensus can be established through absolute beliefs—from which he concluded that a
morality established by the scientific spirit was necessary (Aron 3). This concept ties in strongly
with his solution to the crisis of modern society, which will be assessed later.
In his book, Emile Durkheim and His Sociology, Harry Alpert says, “In Durkheim’s
conception, sociology, as a systematic body of theoretical principles, is a natural, objective,
specific yet synthetic, collective, independent, and unitary science of social facts” (Alpert 80).
He looked at sociology from a large scale, believing in the idea that social facts are real, external
objects that control individuals within the larger social architecture. Author Robert Jones
explains what this means when he says that a social fact is a manner of acting, thinking, and
Genders 3
feeling that is external to the individual, which is invested with a coercive power over that
individual (193-200). An examle of a social fact would be a predetermined legal sanction, a
religious belief, or some sort of social constraint. Durkheim believed that social facts are in
nature—they have distinctive empirical properties and they form real systems. They are also
subject to the same principles of determinism as other sciences are. Following this line of reason,
we can therefore uncover laws that show the bonds between social phenomena; the bonds
between social facts and the forces that act upon them (Alpert 80). Durkheim believed that in a
normal society, any obligations, contracts, duties, laws, and customs are specific subject matter,
and they are exterior to any individual which they exercise restraint over (Rex 157). When a
society is truly “normal”, individuals will freely conform to these social facts without
diminishing the diginity or authority of moral laws. Sociology, then, is a collective activity and
actually an instrument to a larger purpose; to the creation of the “new man” of the Republic.
Durkheim wanted to teach it to schoolchidlren so that they would know of the moral power that
is greater than themselves, which is worthy of respect and dedication (R. A. Jones 193-238).
In order to understand Durkheim’s sociology, one must fully understand his view of
sociology as an objective science. He believed that sociology is a natural science, meaning it
provides a means by which its empirical results can be checked reliably and acccurately. Alpert
says that Durkheim did not accept subjective data, and in doing so he excluded any mystical or
literary approaches to sociology, as well as validated truths, knowledge learned through insight,
intuition, or sympathetic understanding (93). Durkheim was a firm believer in applying scientific
reasoning to his social theory. Durkheim even says that it is through stastical rates that social
facts can be observed (Rex 157).
Genders 4
George Simmel, on the other hand, was born on March 1st, 1858, in Berlin, Germany.
After attending the University of Berlin, Simmel attempted to enter the world of professional
academia. Unfortunately, Simmel had a hard time getting his feet off the ground. According to
social theory authors George Ritzer and Jeffrey Stepnisky, his first attempt to produce a
dissertation was rejected, and although he finally received his doctorate after completing a
dissertation on Kant’s philosophy of nature in 1881, he failed to obtain many of the academic
positions he had sought out (160-161). Ritzer and Stepnisky, also claim that some of the reasons
for Simmel’s failure were because he was a Jew in growing culture of anti-Semitism, as well as
the kind of work that he did (161). Simmel’s work appeared in newspapers and magazines,
which were written for an audience containing more than academic sociologists. In 1914 Simmel
finally obtained regular academic appointment at Strasbourg University, but he did not receive
much satisfaction from it (Ritzer and Stepnisky 161). Although Simmel had quite a large
academic following while he was alive, his fame and the support of his sociology has grown over
the years.
Georg Simmel, a collection of translated essays by Kurt H. Wolff, gives a background
into the sociological world that Simmel started out in. when Simmel began to write, sociology
was thought of as a master science—it was either a melting pot for all knowledge of social
sciences, or the social science responsible for laws of social statics and dynamics (Wolff 10).
Contributing author to The Founding Fathers of Social Science, Anthony Giddens, informs his
readers that there were two leading branches of German social thought during the 19th century—
one being the philosophy of history, and one being the historical school of jurisprudence and
political economy (Giddens 166). Unlike France, there was no Positivist tradition flourishing in
Germany at the time. As a result, Simmel received his training mainly in philosophy, and he was
Genders 5
heavily influenced by Immanuel Kant. The actual discipline of sociology started to emerge in
Germany when scholars from diverse standpoints started to recognize the relevance of social
variable to problems in different disciplines. Simmel himself thought that sociology could be an
autonomous disciple, but he reacted against ‘holistic’ models of society (Giddens 166).
Simmel viewed sociology as a science that studied social phenomena—it arises out of the
interactions of human beings, and it is not just reduced to the nature of those human beings. The
key to understanding Simmel’s sociology is to understand his “forms of sociation”, or in other
words, forms of social interaction. The notion of social interaction holds a focal position in
Simmel’s sociology—specifically that the characteristics of an object can only be defined in
terms of its function within an interactive system (Giddens 167). The “social” exists when two or
more individuals interact with one another, and a behavior can only be explained as a response to
the behavior of another individual. This focus on the individual, as well as the weight and ability
to change of each actor in a social dimension, display the subjectivity in Simmel’s sociology,
which is very different from the objectivity of Durkheim’s philosophy.
Referring back to the “forms” of social interaction mentioned before, Simmel believed
that forms represented a specific layer of reality and played an operational role in interaction. He
said that social interaction is composed to two elements: interest/motive and form of the
interaction with an individual (Giddens 168). The idea of the “form” was that the same content in
an interaction can have a different form, but the content is still the same. Form and content are
both relative concepts, so one cannot reduce formations to a single set of determining elements
(Giddens 168). In order to understand Simmel’s sociology, one must first understand the concept
of these forms. They structure, but do not directly operate a social situation. Simmel’s formal
Genders 6
sociology served the purpose of isolating and studying the conditions under which different
forms of social interaction come into being, maintain themselves, and disappear (Giddens 169).
Being a nominalist, Simmel focused on people’s perceptions and integrations, and
studied interactions between people at a more up close and personal level. He was different from
Durkheim in that he turned against positivism, believing that he could refute it by demonstrating
that every historical picture is the product of the selective and subjective thought (Wolff 193).
Simmel believed that social facts exists if we say they exist—he rejected the idea of a social fact
as an external and controlling object. He thought that individuals are free to adjust and change
their reality as their needs change. He believed in microsociology and he tried to differentiate it
from history, anthropology, economics, political science, and psychology. By doing this; by
formalizing sociology, he hoped it would gain an autonomous position among the established
disciples (Wolff 193). For Durkheim, sociology was to use science and objective facts for a
pedagogical, and even as far as a political mission; it aimed at a better social order (Wolff 193).
For Simmel, sociology was used to study interpersonal relationships and discover things about
forms of interactions, and the subjective, complex view that comes with studying social
relationships.
The two very different views of Durkheim and Simmel’s sociology is especially
manifested in their dealings with the crisis of modernity and urbanization. In their book,
Introducing Social Theory, authors Pip Jones, Liz Bradbury, and Shaun Le Boutillier state that
the idea of modernity originated as an account of the kinds on institutions, ideas, and behaviors
that came out of the decline of medieval society in Europe (23). The authors make the point that
seeds of modernity had been sown for years, but it was not until the 19th century that modern life
truly established itself (Jones, Bradbury and Le Boutillier 23). David Emile Durkheim and Georg
Genders 7
Simmel were both born into this world of emerging modernity, but found very different ways of
dealing with them.
Durkheim displays his objectively collective look at social theory through his take on the
emerging modern society. According to Aron, Durkheim thought that the crisis of modern
society was created by the newly found lack of replacement of traditional moralities based on
religions (3). As said before, Durkheim believed that a society needs consensus, or solidarity,
and that solidarity can be established through absolute beliefs—from which he concluded that a
morality established by the scientific spirit was necessary (Aron 3). John Rex points out that it is
in fact solidarity that brings about social order (157). In his Division of Labor, Durkheim says
that social order cannot be explained in terms of the “enlightened” self-interest of individuals.
There has to be something apart from individual tendencies that binds people together into social
wholes—and that is found in social solidarity (Rex 157). Durkheim’s idea is that in simple
societies, social solidarity is found in collective sentiments and ideals, whereas in advanced and
complex societies it is found through a division of labor. This division of labor is Durkheim’s
solution to the crisis of modern societies. It is a moral and social fact that binds society together
through expressed legal codes (Rex 158). What is needed for social order so as to avoid conflict
is the organization of men into occupational groups—the idea is that the professional ethics of
the group will integrate each group within itself and also relate other groups into the larger
society. By suggesting that these occupational groups might be an element upon which to build
the new social order, Durkheim offered an alternative to the individualistic and family-centered
ideal (Rex 159).
Durkheim’s response to the rise of modernity also shows his mechanical and empirical
outlook in his idea of a division of labor. As Alpert points out, Durkheim intentionally gave his
Genders 8
division of labor theory a mechanistic tone. He wanted to strengthen his case in approaching the
social and moral phenomena through the positive sciences (Alpert 80). Durkheim says that the
division of labor is directly proportional to volume, density, and social interaction in societies. If
the division of labor progresses it is because societies become regularly characterized by greater
social interactions. The increase in material desity, or the number of inhabitants per given surface
area, is related to the increase the division of labor. This increasing social interaction is often the
consequence of the corresponding increase in density of population, their volumes, and the
means of communication and transportation (Alpert 92). Additionally, Jones says that the cause
of a need for the division of labor is in that the real material distance between individuals of
society is reduced both spatially and technologically. This effect is reinforced by social volume
of a society, or the number of members (R. A. Jones 193-238).
The main idea behind Durkheim’s division of labor theory is that as moral desnity in a
society increases, the division of labor will also increase. This will, in turn, increase the rate of
occupational specialization, in which associations are formed whenever there is a true exchange
of services. The division of labor serves for economic services, but more importantly for the
feeling of solidarity in two or more people. Durkheim believed that when there is equilibrium
between the individual and the collective (which is the belief and sentiments common to the
citizens of the same society), there is happiness (R. A. Jones 193-238).
Simmel was perhaps one of the first sociologists of modernity who was conerned with the
social effects of modern, cosmopolitan, and urban life. In her essay on Simmel and the
Metropolitan Way of Life, Greta Mackonyte makes the point that there is an objective and
subjective culture to take into consideration when dealing with modernization. The objective is
the totality of material and spiritual context we live in, and the subjective is what individuals
Genders 9
internalize out of objectified culture. This varies, of course, by age, gender, class, race, and
vocation. The subjective culture has to do with the personality of the individual (Mackonyte 5-6).
Simmel’s sense of tragedy is central to modernity because of the way the subjective and
objective cultures collide. In advanced modern capitalism, the amount of items, goods, cultural
products, and choices is too much for a single individual to truly internalize it all. Thus, as the
objective culture grows, the subjective culture cannot keep up and the individual is left alienated,
impoverished, and estranged to this society that has left him/her behind (Mackonyte 5).
In his piece on Simmel in The Blackwell Companion to Major Classical Social
Theorists, Lawrence Scoff outlines Simmel’s preconditions of the modern economy. He says
that the modern economy can be found in depersonalizing norms that include calculation and
efficiency, which encourage us to view the world as and arithmetical problem, which has definite
solutions (Scoff 244). Lawrence agrees with Mackonyte in that the problem lies within the
contradiction between a simultaneous increase in objective, or material, culture, and a decrease
in subjective, or individual, culture. This becomes more evident in the modern age as the
objective cultures becomes more refined, complex, expansive, and sophisticated, and the
subjective cultures becomes cruder, simpler, and anarchic in relation (Scoff 244). Simmel’s idea
was that the materials and technologies we have created are set against ourselves and against
human purposes—therefore, as we lose control of the objective culture, we are overwhelmed and
response in opposed ways to the world we actually created (Scoff 245).
Durkheim created differentiation of functions and specialization of tasks as a solution to
the modern economy. But Simmel saw differentiation as a part of social life, and as it spreads it
has the potential to create estrangement and alienation between individuals and their products. In
fact, Scoff says that “While gaining a hold over the life-world through differentiation, the money
Genders 10
economy also prepares the way for the subversion of this world, just as it creates the conditions
for our self-estrangement” (Scoff 245). Simmel thought that within a modern society, the
increasing use of money promotes rational-social relationships. In fact, an advanced capitalist
money-economy changes society at all levels, creating new forms of mediation, which actually
reconstruct basic forms of society. Modernity has an impact on what Simmel calls “the mental
life”, meaning that within the metropolis, new forms of cultural differntiation emerge with class,
gener, and location. But again, all of this is leading to tragedy in Simmel’s eyes, as the goods of
modern capitalism become too much for the individual to internalize, which leads to alienation,
impoverishment and estrangement of the individual (Mackonyte 5).
It is obvious that Durkheim and Simmel, although born into the same era, were two very
different theorists. Their approaches to sociology are from two very completely different schools
of thought—one positivist and the other philosophical. But although they have different views,
they are both focusing on the same over-arching topics, such as the emerging modern society as
touched on earlier. According to Kaspar D. Naegele, Durkheim and Simmel actually
complement each other’s work, as between them they represent two sides of the study of social
relations: the effort to bring social reality into a perspective that can be shared, and the effort to
explain some strategic regularity in the social world. Naegele also points out that Durkheim and
Simmel both actually come back to the same four reciprocal themes: coherence, differentiation,
alienation, and involvement (Naegele 588). While they are different in their take of these themes,
the themes are the same, nonetheless, and each can be seen in their view of modernization.
Durkheim believed that coherence could be found in the differentiation that comes with the
division of labor, which if done the right way, could create happiness and involvement for all
members of society. Simmel, however, saw the differentiation within the division of labor as a
Genders 11
possible source for estrangement and alienation, and therefore a lack of involvemenet from
individuals in a society. Looking at both of these theorists together provides a unique outlook on
sociology, the purpose of a society, and the way to deal with modernization from a “micro” and
“macro” sclae. For example, it is by putting the two contrasting theorists together, they actually
complement each other through their differing views of attachment and the serious life by
providing a wider, more studied view of society. Wolff says in his writing on Simmel that
“Today, more than ever, sociology needs to combine Simmelian investigations of minute
structures with Durkheimian analyses of comprehensive economic-political historical processes”
(Wolff 193).
Emile Durkheim and Georg Simmel are highly influential, well-known, and respected
sociologists. It is hard to say then, from such an inexperienced and immature mind, who I agree
with more. My initial reaction is to say that I agree with Durkheim. I appreciate his love for
science, his precision in using empirical data to discover new truths, and the way empirical
results can be checked on reliability and accurately using statistics. God created science, and one
day every truth about science will align with every truth that God is. Unfortunately, an
appreciation for the truths and accuracy found in scientific study is all too often lacking in the
Christian community. And although Durkheim was not necessarily a Christian, the truth can still
come out in his work. I do, however, disagree with the fact that Durkheim went to the extreme as
to not accept subjective data. This goes along with his view of social facts; the belief of
something in nature that is external to the individual and exercise constraint over him/her. These
invisible subject matter are considered objective, for the individual did not create them. I think it
is dangerous to shut out all subjective possibilities in the field of social science. While statistics
can be used to show the likelihood of individual variation, there has to be more to human nature
Genders 12
than to be categorized under an objective and systematic body of theoretical principles. We are
created in God’s image as intelligent, complex, reciprocal beings. There has to be more to social
science, then, than objective study.
I also disagree with Durkheim’s idea of a division of labor in response to modernization.
Not only has this idea inspired powerful men to do horrible things, but there is too much the
theory does not take into account. Durkheim’s theory was to organize men into occupational
groups, with the idea that the professional ethics would integrate each group within itself, and
also relate to other groups in the larger society. This, in Durkheim’s mind, was the way to social
order. I think the problem with this theory is that Durkheim does not take conflict into account in
the way that he should. He labels a society with conflict as anomic, believing that it is a result of
disorganization in a pathological society. Normal functioning societies, on the other hand, will
not have conflict because of social solidarity. The law was to be an externally visible symbol,
and individual happiness could be reached when the individuals are limited by socially approved
norms. He did not and probably could not (due to the limitations of his “social fact” theory)
recognize the problems of authority over the conscience collective. Did he not think that
someone would rebel against the authority? Or that the authority itself would become oppressive
to the conscience collective and abuse its power? Perhaps I am tainted after growing up in an
individualistically-obsessed American culture, but is there truly freedom in that? The result of
having a conscience collective seems to be little competition and a lot of oppression. I agree with
Durkheim in that sociology has the ability to have a political mission, and it can be aimed at
producing a better social order—but it also has the ability to do just the opposite.
This leaves me, then, with Simmel. I find that I agree with Simmel in some areas more
than I do with Durkheim. I agree with the idea that individuals exercise some power over social
Genders 13
facts and that it is actually social interactions that lies at the heart of his sociology. While I don’t
think it is necessarily right to be purely anti-positivist, I appreciate that Simmel focused on the
social psychology of interaction. Rather than using his studies as a way to reach a larger purpose
or end goal, his goal was actually to study and interpret the context of meaning through the form
and content of a social interaction. I also appreciate Simmel for the hope that he seems to have in
his sociology. Simmel views conflict in a very different light than Durkheim does. He did not
think that conflict is the opposite of social order, but rather conflict is actually built into many
social relationships and can be essential to their stability (Giddens 171). Durkheim’s sociology,
specifically his division of labor, was aimed to avoid conflict. Simmel, on the other hand,
embraces conflict and understands that it contribute to a social relationship. There is a realistic
hope in this that Durkheim’s sociology does not seem to have, and that is the hope of
redemption. There is hope that conflict can be resolved even in the smallest of social
relationships. It is not abnormal for there to be disorder or conflict—it is just the way our fallen
world is. It is because of these reasons that I, as I wade in the shallow waters of sociological
knowledge, choose to agree with Simmel over Durkheim.
Emile Durkheim and Georg Simmel are written in the books of sociological history as
two influential, and yet different sociologists. Their social theories are particularly visible in their
responses to modernity and urbanization. Durkheim thought that the rise of modernity would
have to lead to social solidarity found in the division of labor, whereas Simmel thought the rise
of modernity would have an tragic impact on the “mental life”, changing the objective culture
and creating a false consciousness in individuals, leaving them alienated, impoverished, and
estranged.
Genders 14
Works Cited
Alpert, Harry. Emile Durkheim and his Sociology . Russel & Russell, Inc. , 1961. Print .
American Sociological Association. n.d. Web. 8 November 2013.
Aron, Raymond. Main Currents in Sociological Thought 2 . New York: Basic Books Inc., 1967.
Print.
Giddens, Anthony. "Georg Simmel." Barker, Paul. The Founding Fathers of Social Science.
London: Scolar Press, 1979. 165-173. Print.
Jones, Pip, Liz Bradbury and Shaun Le Boutillier. Introducing Social Theory. Cambridge: Polity
Press, 2011. Print.
Jones, Robert A. "Durkheim ." Ritzer, George. The Blackwell Companion to Major Classical
Social Theorists. Malden : Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2003. 193-238. Print.
Mackonyte, Greta. Georg Simme: The Metropolitan Way of Life in Theory and Practice. 9
January 2010. Essay.
Naegele, Kaspar D. "Attachment and Alienation: Complementary Aspects of the Work of
Durkheim and Simmel." American Journal of Sociology (1958): 580-589.
Rex, John. "Emile Durkheim." Barker, Paul. Founding Fathers of Social Science. London:
Scolar Press, 1979. 156-164. Print.
Ritzer, George and Jeffrey Stepnisky. Sociological Theory . New York: McGraw-Hill, 2011.
Print.
Genders 15
Scoff, Lawrence A. "Simmel." Ritzer, George. The Blackwell Companion to Major Classical
Social Theorists. Malden: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2003. 244-245. Print.
Wolff, Kurt H. Georg Simmel. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1959. Print.