Lecture Notes

Since I failed to finish commenting on Max Weber in class yesterday (Tues. 4/12), I am going to do so on the blog, as well as post my lecture notes on Chapter 8, Georg Simmel. Remember, that I extended the deadline for the families to formulate a response to those articles on Weber's predictions about the future until next Tues., 4/19. But remember that essay II is due tomorrow.
________________

H. In connection with "ideal types," the authors briefly introduce an important aspect of Weber's work, which is his defense of the "DOCTRINE OF VALUE NEUTRALITY." It should be noted in this regard that "ideal types" are NOT ethical prescriptions, and so do not violate his argument that sociologists should be value neutral.

1. As the authors note at the bottom of p. 176: "Weber was particularly opposed to sociologists using their work to advance their own personal beliefs and values: the 'prophet and the demagogoue do not belong on the academic platform.' The 'elementary duty of scientific self-control' demanded a 'sharp distinction between the logically comparative analysis of reality by ideal-types in the logical sense and the value-judgment of reality on the basis of ideals.'"

2. This has essentially been the position on this issue that has been embraced by mainstream sociology. However, there was some challenge to this in the 1960s and 70s, and what emerged was a compromise position -- what I would call the "LET'S BE HONEST" position, which suggests that sociologists be honest about what biases they may have and by openly admitting them thereby allow people to take that into account in reading and evaluating their work. (which, I believe, is where the authors of this text stand, as reflected in their early discussion of the difference between IDEOLOGY and SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY.

I. On the issues of gender and race, it appears Weber was more enlightened than many of his colleagues.

1. Regarding gender, and probably because of the influence of his wife who was a feminist, he did embrace a more egalitarian view of the marriage relationship. He viewed women "primarily as human beings and only secondarily as members of the opposite sex." (p. 189) Nonetheless, he did not get away entirely from a "naturalistic" view of woman as primarily a sexual object, and he personally strayed from his monogamous relationship.

2. On race, I applaud his clear recognition of race as a SOCIAL, not a biological distinction ( a view that was not widely accepted at that time). See p. 188. And he makes a very telling point about race relations in the U.S. -- why race prejudice was deeper among poor whites. See bottom, p. 188.


Chapter 8: The Sociology of Form and Content: Simmel

A. A good way to introduce my brief exploration of the work of Georg Simmel would be to quote the very last sentence in the chapter -- "More than anything else,...Simmel was a philosophical sociologist concerned with how human beings can define their humanity in the context of an overwhelmingly objective culture." (p. 220)

B. Like Weber, Simmel acknowledged the growing industrialization, bureaucratization, rationalization of modern society (objective culture) especially in the modern metropolis, and how individuals experience or confront this.

1. He recognized that in many ways these developments represented progress, yet they also contributed to alienation and anomie. Or, to put this in somewhat different terms: to what extent has the scale of modern life overwhelmed and dominated individuals, and how can and should individuals respond to this?

C. Biographically, the authors highlight Simmel's struggles to secure an academic position, a major obstacle being the prevailing anti-Semitism, and the association of sociology with socialism, and in turn, socialism with Jewish intellectuals.

1. But there can be no doubt that Simmel lived in the midst of a vibrant intellectual community, and he himself would have a significant impact on several prominent, later sociologists such as Karl Mannheim, George Herbert Mead, and the Chicago School in general. His essay, "Metropolis and Mental Life" was itself highly influential in the development of urban sociology at the University of Chicago.

D. "Simmel regarded sociology as the study of social interaction." Although Simmel acknowledged that an entity called "society" did exist which confronts the individual, yet "...it was an entity whose 'reality' lay in the minds and actions of individual human beings." (p. 202)

1. Although I would not necessarily endorse the use of "dialectical" here, the authors go on to describe the relation of the individual to society in these terms. See mid., p. 203. (And I would question whether these "most private, internal impulses" are really independent of the larger social order.)

2. And on the very next page (p. 204 mid.), the authors underscore that for Simmel we all have a part of the self that is "outside" society, although this non-social element varies from person to person. (again, I wonder about that.)

E. Simmel also made some interesting observations about CONFLICT, especially the peculiar nature of conflict in Western societies, which is especially evident in modern metropolitan life. The following passage also captures well the phenomenon of the growing RATIONALIZATION and impersonality of modern life. See 2nd paragraph, p. 206.

F. Along these same lines, Simmel made some interesting and relevant points about modern society in his book, "The Philosophy of Money" (1900), which explored the way in which social relations are transformed by the modern money economy.

1. On the face of it, this sounds like Marx and his "historical materialism." But Simmel characterized his effort as getting "beneath" historical materialism to the more basic level of EXCHANGE as a form of social interaction among individuals.

2. Although he recognized ways in which exchange based on money might benefit society (p. 208), on balance, he saw its impact as negative (in terms not all that different from Marx). See top half of p. 209.

G. The so-called money economy becomes an important part of what Simmel calls OBECTIVE CULTURE, which comes to dominate individuals and closes off possibilities of individual expression and creativity. See 3rd & 4th paragraphs, p. 210, which brings out some of the adverse consequences of the domination of a money economy and objective culture.

1. Although such alienation seems most closely connected with capitalism, Simmel (like Weber) recognized the alienating potential of socialism and communism, which represent other forms of the domination of the individual by objective culture.

H. Simmel's views on gender appear to put him in the category of so many other theorists, endorsing a version of "Men are from Mars, Women from Venus" thesis -- that women are more "closely and deeply rooted in the dark, primitive forces of nature than are men." (p. 215) See also the very bottom of p. 215.

I. Finally, I believe the authors do a nice job of bringing together some of these broad themes in Simmel's work -- See top half of p. 219.
______________________________________

That brings us up to Section V & Chapter 9, which is where I will pick up tomorrow (Thurs., 4/14). Be sure to incorporate the above notes in your class notes, and pay special attention to the cited passages, especially to understand Simmel.