Attachment and Alienation: Complementary Aspects of the Work of Durkheim and Simmel

Structure, Agency, and Social Reality in Blumerian Symbolic Interactionism: The Influence of Georg Simmel

“…He in turn developed into an unorthodox scholar who did not write in the accepted academic manner of the time. He was an essayist who wrote as he lectured (Abel 1959), neglected to cite references, “collected neither facts nor figures” (Naegele 1958: 585), did not “create the new out of the old,” made no attempt to recruit disciples, published his work in nonscholarly publications, and dared to write on subjects other than sociology (Abel 1959; Coser 1958: 636; Laurence 1975; Levine 1988; Rock 1979). Contemporaries, such as Dilthey, derided his approach as “newfangled” (Laurence 1975: 43); others called his choice of substantive topics “frivolous” (Axlerod 1977: 186) or “ephemeral and mundane” (Hamilton 2002: ix).…”

“…Then there is the oft‐cited “fragmentary,” “disordered,” “unsystematic,” and “diverse” nature of his writings, as well as the “wide breadth of topics” Simmel examined (Coser 1958; Hamilton 2002; Levine et al 1976b; Naegele 1958; Prus 1996: 143). Further, Prus (1996: 143) offers as explanation Simmel's habit of making “seemingly definitive statements on matters he undertook to analyze” and Hamilton (2002: ix) points to Simmel's tendency “to avoid empirical generalization.” Simmel's work was also said to be too “formulistic” (Prus 1996: 144), his writing too abstract, lacking theoretical cohesion and “a single line of analysis successively growing out of each other” (Naegele 1958: 583). In addition, Simmel's analysis is said to be insufficiently grounded in social context.…”

“…In addition, Simmel's analysis is said to be insufficiently grounded in social context. For instance, Naegele (1958: 598) characterizes Simmel's work as “apolitical.” Finally, Simmel is said to have failed to provide other than a “nebulous” statement of methodology (Prus 1996: 144), meaning that his work “cannot show us how to proceed … [only] how much there is to ask about” (Naegele 1958: 589).…”

“…For example, Simmel's essays on culture and forms of association have been reexamined in light of renewed scholarly interest in formalism in sociological concepts, increased interest in the sociology of culture, and the emergence of cultural studies as a distinct discipline (Frisby and Featherstone 1997). Also currently in vogue is the notion of interdisciplinary scholarship, and one might call Simmel the first interdisciplinary sociologist, as his works ranged over several disciplines (Naegele 1958).…”

“…Perhaps it is fitting then that despite his efforts to “establish a social science of immediate and lasting value,” Simmel never expected to be acknowledged for his contributions (Laurence 1975: 43). Rather, as he wrote in his diary near the time of his death, he did “not expect his successors and debtors to remember whence came the notions that, in fact, they learned from him” (Naegele 1958: 587).…”