Georg Simmel it Can Be

Georg Simmel It can be argued that in many ways Georg Simmel's work prefigures a more postmodern approach to the understanding of society and social action. More specifically, Simmel's work is founded in the analysis of the meaning of social interaction in groups. This search for "meaning' is more speculative and philosophical and less formally scientific and objective in comparison to theorists such as Durkheim and Weber.

In attempting to answer the central question of this paper -- whether Simmel's "micro-sociological analysis" is the best and most appropriate explanation of social phenomena -- the point-of-view will be asserted is that the theories or analyses put forward by Simmel are more in tune with and relevant to contemporary views of society and reality than many of the earlier modernist theories in Sociology.

This also leads to the suggestion that his work is in need of reassessment in the light of its possible contribution to contemporary research and sociological speculation. The idea that the works of Georg Simmel are, as it were, a precursor to the postmodern ethos that pervades much of social and cultural analysis today, is not to suggest that his work is postmodern in any decisive way.

What is however clear from the readings and other literature, as well as from the various critiques of his work, is that Simmel was not satisfied with a systematic, scientific and formally objective understanding of society and social actions. A part of the reason for the critiques of his work is that Simmel refused to be confined or bound by notions of academic propriety and acceptability and his works ranged outside of formal boundaries and parameters of pure sociological analysis.

As noted in the readings, a reappraisal of the works of Simmel involves to a certain extend the "...breaking of the boundaries..." Of formal and professional sociology. As becomes evident from the critiques, his work was essentially in line with more relativistic, meditative and less formalized search for meaning and the essence of what is meant by society and social interaction. His work therefore prefigures postmodern and poststructuralist thinking to that extent that he analyzes society by means of a more discursive and subjectively inclined point-of-view.

These above aspects become clear from the critiques of his work and the way that many major sociological theorists related to his "theories." As noted in the readings, one of the central critiques by Durkheim of Simmel was that he was not "systematic "in his sociological analysis and that he veered towards descriptive analysis that could not be easily synthesized into a systematic and logical whole.

If we analyze this critique it is reminiscent of a common criticism of early modernism; namely that the modernist approach was too involved with emulating the scientific perspective and the search for objective meaning that could be scientifically verified and determined, In essence, Simmel analyzed society in terms of associations and relationships.

An important aspect that should be considered, and which is central to the thesis of this paper, is that in Simmel's view society could not be studied in the same way that the physical world was studied in the sciences. The analogy between the structure of society and the physical world was not acceptable to his point-of-view. It should also be noted that this attempt to understand society in term of analogies and references to the physical world was a hallmark of early modernist thought.

As referred to in the readings, central to an understanding of Simmel's work is the interaction between individual and society. From this perspective, the field of sociology is involved in the analysis of the patterns of these interactions. Therefore, for Simmel Sociology is more than just the study of "natural laws." Simmel also emphasized the study of small groups. This differed for the classical theorists like Durkheim and Marx. The primary contemporary interest in Simmel's work stems from the analysis of individual action within the ambit of the structural approach.

An essential difference between Simmel's view of sociological analysis and other major theorists is that while theorists like Durkheim considered the aim of sociology to be the creation of logical and inclusive overarching theoretical constructs, Simmel viewed society, as it were, from the bottom up: with the focus on the way that smaller groups and individuals interact. This approach is more in line with contemporary phenomenological and existential theories. It is in this light that a reassessment of the work of Simmel is suggested.

While theories like Durkheim and Weber criticize much of Simmel's work, they also acknowledge a debt to his sophisticated and ingenious insights into societal function and reality. It is enlightening to note that Durkheim, for example, criticizes Simmel's work on the grounds that it lacks "material content" and is reductionist in that, " No connection can be discovered among the questions to which he draws the attention of sociologists; they are topics of meditation that have no relation to an integral scientific system.

" (Durkheim E.) the early modernist bias in Durkheim's critique becomes clear in the reference to the lack of a "scientific system" and the predilection for meditative thinking. The desire to move way from 'master narratives' and concepts such as scientific objectivity towards a more inclusive, discursive and subjective analysis of society that was characteristic of Simmel's work, is more in line with the origins of postmodern thinking. It therefore becomes clear why a reassessment and re-evaluation of Simmel's work has been called for from many quarters.

A further reason for the reassessment of Simmel's work in terms of the Sociological canon is that.