The View of Life: A Simmelian Reading of Simmel's 'Testament'

"This article looks into Simmel’s life-philosophy (Lebensphilosophie), which, so the piece argues, has great relevance for the contemporary thought about life and death informed by authors such as Heidegger and Deleuze. By considering life, paradoxically, at once as a pre-individual flux of becoming and individuated, Simmel manages to avoid both reductionism and mysticism. In addition, unlike Deleuze, for example, Simmel thinks that we can experience and know life only in some individual, actual form, never in its pure virtuality, as an absolute flow. For him, life, without being reducible to any of its actualizations, is no animatedness without a subject, but always remains more or less bound up with the living individual. Besides Deleuze, during the course of examination Simmel’s insights will be discussed in connection with Heidegger’s existential-ontological interpretation of the dying of Dasein. The article maintains that what remains on the Simmelian side beyond the striking affinities between the two thinkers is a kind of animal vitality. Though Simmel’s life-philosophy is mainly concerned with the world-relation of humans, when it comes to death, it places humans on a par with all living organisms. A death that is immanent in life is appropriate to anything that is living. Thus the human individual, too, is dying precisely as a living organism, as some-body that is alive. Keywords death – Deleuze – Heidegger – individuality – life – life-philosophy – Simmel – vitalism "

2016

This article explores Simmel's engagement with Nietzsche to illuminate the dynamics of ethical agency in his late life-philosophy. The main argument is that Simmel's reworking of the Nietzschean themes of the will to power, distinction, and self-overcoming lays the ground for his vitalist ethics in The View of Life. An integrative reading across Simmel's intellectual biography points to the relevance of the Nietzschean doctrine of eternal return for Simmel's critique of abstract Kantian morality. The Nietzschean promise of life-affirmation is problematized in relation to the broader project of sociological metaphysics, which transgresses the boundaries between classical sociology and social philosophy. Opening up the grounds for a more sustained investigation into Simmel's engagement with Nietzsche, this article resonates with contemporary discussions on the ethics of the relational self and sociological vitalism.

Simmel studies, 2020

Ce document est protégé par la loi sur le droit d'auteur. L'utilisation des services d'Érudit (y compris la reproduction) est assujettie à sa politique d'utilisation que vous pouvez consulter en ligne.

Theory, Culture & Society, 2012

Our purpose in this article is to explore the reasons for the continued attractiveness of Simmel's thought today and to probe the contemporary affinities to his philosophical stance towards the world. Simmel anchored the ‘philosophical attitude' in the philosopher’s particularly developed disposition for Erlebnis, i.e. the unified pre-conceptual experience of each moment of reality and life, as well as in a particular mode of objectivating this experience. We provide an illustration of such an approach and its implications through Simmel's analysis of ‘remoteness from oneself’ and the restlessness it entails in The Philosophy of Money. We argue that Simmel's attempt at phenomenologically unveiling the contours and depths of life moments and fragments, as well as his emphasis on constant movement, provide much reassurance to contemporary subjectivities. But his philosophical stance is also driven by a quasi-mystical yearning for the One that lies beneath and beyond th...

Journal of Classical Sociology, 2020

Given the recent non-human turn in sociology and the social sciences, the popularity of theories of entanglement, and contemporary concern with the concept of the anthropocene, it is easy to forget that classical sociology was always-already aware of the relationship between humanity and non-humanity. Although Daniel Chernilo focuses upon the debate between Sartre and Heidegger in his recent Debating Humanity, and contrasts Sartre’s Humanism with Heidegger’s Anti-Humanism to frame his exploration of the limits of the human in contemporary social theory, we could easily locate the same concern with the human and its relationship to the nonhuman in Marx, Tarde, and centrally for the purposes of this article, the work of Georg Simmel. Expanding upon this insight concerning the relevance of Simmel’s work for understanding our ‘entangled present’, the purpose of this article is to explore Simmel’s work and recent interpretations of his sociology that seek to project Simmelian thought int...

1989

THE FATE OF GEORG SIMMEL IN FUNCTIONALIST SOCIOLOGY, 1937-1961 GARY DEAN JAWORSKI The unsystematic nature of the American Simmel reception is the general subject of this dissertation. A case study of four functionalist sociologists-Talcott Parsons, Kaspar Naegele, Lewis Coser, and Robert Mertonin the years 1937-1961 is undertaken. The investigation reveals that three factors were largely responsible for 2 Another approach, tracing Simmel's influence on a specific sociological figure (e.g. Matthews 1977), will not be covered here. Usually, such studies are not interested in understanding Simmel's reception as such 2 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. minimalists reduce the scope of explanation to the minimum possi b l e factors w h ich would account for Simmel's disjointed American reception; the maximalists broaden the investigation to its widest scope possible. Each approach will be discussed in turn. Consider some of the various "explanations" offered by the minimalists to account for Simmel's erratic reception. These are usually found in the form of lists, including such items as: the variety of topics on which Simmel wrote; Simmel's own reluctance to state clearly the systematic structure of his ideas; the disjointed nature of the English translations of his work; Simmel's propensity for argument by analogy and exemplification; as well as the intellectual laziness of those who have attempted to understand and utilize Simmel's ideas.3 Now, while it would be incorrect to argue that any one, or all, of the above statements is factually incorrect-Simmel is, after all, a difficult and unique thinker, and intellectual sloth is a well-known if unfortunate fact of scholarly life-it can be argued that they fail as adequate explanations on at least two grounds. and, therefore, do not qualify for review in this study. 3 Most of the items in the above compendium will be found in one minimalist test, Peter Hamilton's "Editorial Forward" to David Frisby's short book on Simmel (Frisby 1984, 7). 3 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. First, these statements are descriptions of various facets of Simmel's reception and, as such, do not clearly spell out the explanatory factors involved. That is, how any one of these aspects has operated in any concrete phase or instance of Simmel's reception is not spelled out. This problem cannot be solved, of course, merely by lengthening the list. Without specifying the conditions in which any one aspect would have explanatory efficacy, it becomes difficult to account for the historical complexity of the acceptance, modification, and rejection of Simmel's ideas in American sociology. To say, for example, that one of the problems of Simmel's reception was the tremendous variety of topics on which he wrote is to assume that this fact has had the universal effect of barring accurate understanding. On the contrary, some have taken this aspect of Simmel as a delight not a plight and evidence no deficit in either appreciation or understanding.4 Moreover, it is at least arguable whether the intellectual hedgehog is more easily understandable or assimilable than the scholarly fox (cf. Berlin 1959). To be sure, sheer variety has the capacity to numb, but so does the great idea which, in its very 4 We have in mind here Kaspar D. Naegele (1923-1963), whose contribution to Simmel's reception in functionalist sociology will be discussed above in Chapter Three. The phrase "delight and plight" is from one of the many unpublished manuscripts of Naegele's loaned to me by his brother Dr. Philipp 0. Naegele, Department of Music, Smith College. 4 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. brilliance, can seem unapproachable by lesser intellects. With this in mind, the question could be asked: why is it that Simmel seems unapproachable because of the scope of his work whereas another intellectual fox, say Robert K. Merton, has not had the same fate?5 Surely, one must discover the conditions in which such thinkers either flourish or lay fallow, as well as the many other possibilities in between. Similarly, there has been no univocal response to what David Frisby has called Simmel's "sociological impressionism" or, in other words, his aesthetic representation of reality (Frisby 1981). Consider the following contrasting evaluations of this aspect of his writings: S. P. Altmann's positive evaluation-"What we admire most in him is the contradiction or rather coincidence, in his character, of the highest faculty of analytical thought with the gift of artistic representation" (Altmann 1903, 47). Emile Durkheim/s negative evaluation-"I confess to not attaching a very high price to this type of hybrid-illegitimate speculation where reality is expressed in necessarily subjective terms, as in art, but 5 Lewis Coser discusses Simmel and Merton in these terms in his contribution to Merton's Festschrift (Coser 1975, 85-100, at 88-90). 5 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Influence on American Sociology" by Donald N. Levine, Ellwood B. Carter and Eleanor Miller Gorman best exemplifies this approach (Levine, et. al. 1976).6 The authors attempt to survey and explain the entire sweep of Simmel's influence on the intellectual development of the discipline. An eighty year period (from 1895-1975) is covered. Such an approach, while valuable in many respects, must, by necessity, sacrifice depth for breadth. Because the essay ranges so widely, much of the Simmel reception is given schematic rather than systematic treatment. Covered in one paragraph, or less, are: Simmel/s influence on the sociologists of "everyday life"; the tradition of teaching Simmel at the New School for Social Research; and Robert K. Merton's effort to incorporate Simmel's insights on social groups into str u c t u r a l-f u n c t i o n a l i s m in the 1950's at Columbia University. Other significant facets of the American Simmel reception are given the same brief treatment. Added to the problem of scope is a strictly internalist approach to investigating Simmel's influence 6 Despite the objections to the writings of Levine and his associates registered here and throughout this study, it should be mentioned that this study owes a great deal to Levine's pioneering investigations of the American Simmel reception. 7 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. on substantive sociological research. Levine and his associates identify and discuss no less than eight sociological "problem areas" which Simmel's thought either inaugurated or helped to define: the stranger, social distance, the metropolitan mentality, small groups, interpersonal knowledge, conflict, and exchange. Each of the problem areas is said to constitute a separate, identifiable "research tradition" in American sociology. However, the analysis of these research traditions offered by Levine, et.al. abstracts or disembodies the specific problems from the theory or paradigm within which the research was conducted, the historical context of their discovery or rediscovery, and the life experiences of the researcher.7 Why any one of these issues became a problem for the researcher, or why it was analyzed in the way it was, are questions the authors forfeit by following their internalist approach. As an example, consider the treatment of the problem area identified as conflict. This section begins with the observation that the keen interest in conflict displayed 7 On the last point, compare the particularly apposite remarks by Kurt H. Wolff from his discussion of this essay: The person or human being who was interested in these and many other phenomena and problems unfortunately and characteristically remains unexamined? products are treated as if they were of interest only detached from the producer. (Wolff 1977, 224-27, at 226). 8 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 10 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Digithum

The philosopher and sociologist Georg Simmel made repeated efforts throughout his career to address the crisis of modern culture by drawing on a wide repertoire of scholarly discourses and imaginative fictions. An overlooked and unique feature of his early works include humorous vignettes and free-verse poems in pseudonymous pieces published in the avant-garde journal Jugend. In later writings, he advances his own life-philosophy through an idiosyncratic use of Goethe’s scientific, autobiographical, and literary works in an attempt to articulate what is distinctive about the modern worldview. Focussing on these lesser-known writings reveals the tragi-comic character of his approach to modern individuality in a variety of cultural spheres, and in the life of theory itself. Like Simmel’s vitalist quest for the archetype or “primary phenomenon (Urphänomen) […] of the idea of Goethe” and in his formulation of “the values of Goethean Life”, this essay offers a kind of theorizing about th...

The first aim of the paper is an interpretation of Georg Simmel’s sociology in “relational terms” – i.e., under the categories of the “relational sociology”; it focuses, thus, to show how Simmel’s social theory and philosophy of culture fit for the construction of a Lebensoziologie. Considering Simmel as a “relational sociologist” means to demonstrate how his contribution is decisive to the history of sociology, since he defines the “Wechselwirkung” (reciprocity, relational exchange) and its forms as the very matter of the social sciences. Simmel represents the “relational turn” in the wide sociological milieu. Since Simmel’s contribution, sociology attempted to consider and investigate social facts in terms of “relation” and reciprocity. The current sociological debate insists on considering Simmel as a “relational” sociologist in various declinations (coherent to Bourdieu’s social theory or to the social network analysis framework). In his late essays and books Simmel gives a “vitalist” accent to the analysis of social facts: the social is above all “social life”, according to the consolidated forms/contents dialectical model. Grundfragen der Soziologie. Individuum und Gesellschaft represents his last attempt to corroborate a sort of “sociology of life” (Lebenssoziologie). Even if this term does not explicitly appear in Simmel’s words, it summarizes his social and cultural theory - since the volume Soziologie - and offers some key-concepts for the successive sociological debate.

Canadian Journal of Sociology, 2015

A lthough Georg Simmel was introduced to the English speaking world in translation as early as 1896 (the American Journal of Sociology will publish 15 of his pieces, between 1896 and 1910, thanks to Albion W. Small's dedicated work), and even if he was an acknowledged influence on authors ranging from Robert E. Park to Donald Levine and beyond, very few recent attempts have been made to provide a systematic, analytic account of Simmel's sociology. Perhaps one of the reasons for this is that both "systematic" and "sociology" meet a certain resistance in relation to his work. In any case, only David Frisby's Georg Simmel, published in 1984, attempted an analysis that goes beyond the previous, more general (often too general) interpretations of Simmel (by Lewis Coser, Donald Levine or Kurt Wolff, for example). This, in itself, is a good reason to welcome Henry Schermer and David Jary's new book; indeed, their efforts give us a novel, invigorating, and profound interpretation of Simmel's sociological views. From the beginning, the book offers a clear and systematic project: to expose the core of Simmel's ideas on the interpretation of social life, located primarily in the concept of "reciprocal effect" (Wechselwirkung), which is foundational to Simmel's "'relational' and dialectical approach" (2-3). Divided into four parts, and spread over nine chapters, the book covers the essentials of Simmel's "method" of sociological analysissynthetizing the key points of "fundamental dualism," "general polarities," "dualities of social interaction," "social dualities," and examples of "forms (and types) of interaction/sociation"-through which the authors achieve both an in-depth and encompassing view of Simmel's works. On the surface, these works can appear theoretically dispersed, and have often been labelled as "impressionistic." With books on the philosophy of money, individual and society, and the philosophy of history, as well as essays on religion, culture and philosophy (Kant, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer), Simmel often left his readers with incredible insight, but little sense of the possible further sociological applications of his views. As Schermer and Jary write: "For sociologists such as Simmel and Goffman, flair and 'intuition' (and bricolage), as well as logic or method-in

Meta. Research in Hermeneutics, Phenomenology, and Practical Philosophy, 2018

This paper explores the intellectual and the biographical relationship between Georg Simmel (1858-1918) and Max Scheler (1874-1928). This topic has been examined through correspondences, direct and indirect references, as well as investigations in the Munich Archive (Bayersiche Staatsbibliothek – BSB). Simmel and Scheler lived in Berlin in the early twentieth century, so they shared the German Jahrhundertwende “Zeitgeist” and many fascinations, anxieties, hopes, and feelings. Scheler was Simmel’s pupil (Berliner Humboldt Universität) in 1895, but they were destined to meet again and again. Simmel attended some of Scheler’s lectures as he searched for his theoretical path. Their roots of reciprocal influence also spanned many indirect interests and they developed personal acquaintance. There are many similarities and affinities in Simmel’s and Scheler’s work, that behind the reciprocal effect of their respective intellectual work hide an undeniable and unavoidable ambivalence. They converge on many topics (the cultural and moral analysis of values, the rediscovery of “emotional” issues in the foundation of social and cultural theory, the historical and anthropological interests, etc.), even though their respective philosophical and sociological findings were quite different. Scheler’s “essentialist” position, in opposition to some Simmelian “functionalism” (i.e. relationalism), does not detract from the mighty importance of Simmel’s unique approach, which brought a breath of novelty to both philosophical and sociological fields through its eclectic and innovative inquiry into modernity and from Scheler’s new phenomenological approach. The interaction between Simmel and Scheler was certainly significant for both of them, surely for defining and clarifying their own philosophy of culture as well as their anthropological and sociological achievements.