Compare And Contrast Simmel Vs Durkheim
Jessica McLemore
Professor Karageorgis
Soc 368
18 April 2018
DURKHEIM vs. SIMMEL
Durkheim applied the theory of functionalism which was very different from other sociologists such as Marx and Weber who were propagating the theories of conflict of interest. Durkheim explained that harmony was the best form of defining the society as opposed to conflict. Durkheim looked at the functions of the social objects and what the social phenomenon does to facilitate and produce social cohesion. From the perspective of social objects, he was able to study concepts such as the division of labor, religion, and suicide (Durkheim 108).
Simmel wrote insightful essays regarding social and personal interaction which were useful in developing qualitative …show more content…
analysis in sociology (Chayko 1419). Simmel gave attention to the problems of authority and obedience. He was of the opinion that social interaction would be better if there was an authority in the society and people were able to obey the authorities that were in power (Edles and Scott 21). In his later years of life, he also engaged in metaphysics and aesthetics.
Durkheim argued that the social relationships comes in two forms likely to be created when the social integration is based on the shared social beliefs and sentiments.
Durkheim further argued that where there is a little differentiation in the various types of labor that people engage in, there is a likelihood that social integration will be found based on shared beliefs. He further argued that in
societies where the differentiation of labor is high, social integration will come about as a result of mutual dependence (Edles and Scott 23).
On the other hand, Simmel was of a different opinion regarding social integration. His view of the social circle that an individual belongs to depends on where an individual enters into social interaction (Chayko 1420). He argued that where individuals came into social interactions, there was the social integration. Simmel argued that the existence of the social relations or the belonging to one of the social circles was the sum of all the social interactions of the people in the society (Edles and Scott 27). His view towards social integration was that social cohesion would be achieved when there was a form of authority. Simmel argued that the obedience that would have resulted from each person in the society would have summed up to the unity in the community (Edles and Scott …show more content…
29).
Simmel introduced the concept of social geometry, where he propagated the theories of dyad and triad. Simmel said that a dyad was a group of two people and triad was a group of three people (Edles and Scott 31). Simmel argued that in a group of two people, a person was able to retain their individuality. In a dyad, a person was to retain their original mode of behavior. However, if someone chose or found himself belonging to a triad, then one was not able to maintain his individuality since, in the triad, there was a likelihood of the people coming up with the dyad within the triad. When a dyad is formed within the triad, then the people with the characteristics of the dyad are likely to influence the other individual's characters and make him a subject to the group; which seems to be an essential part of the society, which becomes a group (Edles and Scott 33). Simmel further explained that as the group grows wider, an individual becomes separated and his or her influence becomes lesser within the group, compared to when the
group is small. Apart from being isolated, an individual in the large group will grow alone and become segmented (Chayko 1420).
Simmel argued that the bigger the group is, the better it is for an individual. Simmel explained that when an individual is in a large group, it would not be possible to exert control over him or her (Edles and Scott 34). He also stated that when the individual is in a large group, there is a likelihood of the person becoming impersonal and distant; and so the option that would be available for the person was to become a part of a smaller group such as the family, to assist him to cope with the large group. In this way, Simmel, therefore, concluded by arguing that individuals will choose to remain in smaller social groups within the society just because they cannot exert influence in the large groups (Edles and Scott 35).
Regarding the association with small groups, Durkheim argued that people will belong to small social groups since they are related to one another (Durkheim 111). Durkheim claimed that as a result of kinships, people in the society would organize themselves into small groups since the people were sharing common beliefs regarding their kinship. Durkheim explained that due to the shared system of shared beliefs, the violation of the shared social norms would amount to a direct threat to the shared identification with the social norms, and so the reaction to the deviation from the social norms would be a punishment from those who had not dedicated (Edles and Scott 36)
About the large social groups, Durkheim argued that as the society's population grew larger and larger, the division of labor increases resulting to the specialization of the various individuals within the community (Edles and Scott 39). Durkheim argued that in a large society, there was the need for the complex division of labor to facilitate the production of material life. Increased specialization made the people not to hold to the common beliefs in the society and the basis of
collective conscience was dismissed (Durkheim 116). However, he argued that the complexity does not lead to the disintegration of the nation, but the social integration would be achieved as a result of the interdependence between various specializations that existed in the community.
Simmel also argued about the relationship that exists between the distance of a person, and the association of that person with a particular social group (Chayko 1420).
Simmel attached value to the distance of the actor. He explained that if a person is too close to an actor, then such a person would not be considered to be a stranger and would be considered to be part of a group that the person will associate himself with (Edles and Scott 43). He also stated that if a person was far from a group, then such an individual was a stranger and would not be part of a social group. Simmel argued that a particular distance from a group allows one to have an objective relationship with the members of a social group, and that distance shows the commitment of a person to the group (Chayko
1421).
Durkheim, on the other hand, argued that distance was not of too much importance regarding the social relationship a person was to have with a particular group. Durkheim argued that despite the distance, a person having the shared beliefs, one would still be part of a group if he or she was sharing a common belief together with other people who have the same belief (Edles and Scott 43). Durkheim based his argument on the fact that an individual belonging to a social group would be based on the shared beliefs in the society.
Works Cited
Chayko, Mary. "The first web theorist? Georg Simmel and the legacy of ‘The web of group-affiliations’." (2015): 1419-1422.
Durkheim, Emile. The division of labor in society. Simon and Schuster, 2014. 108-197
Edles, Laura Desfor, and Scott Appelrouth. Sociological theory in the classical era: Text and readings. Sage Publications, 2014. 20-60.
Professor Karageorgis
Soc 368
18 April 2018
DURKHEIM vs. SIMMEL
Durkheim applied the theory of functionalism which was very different from other sociologists such as Marx and Weber who were propagating the theories of conflict of interest. Durkheim explained that harmony was the best form of defining the society as opposed to conflict. Durkheim looked at the functions of the social objects and what the social phenomenon does to facilitate and produce social cohesion. From the perspective of social objects, he was able to study concepts such as the division of labor, religion, and suicide (Durkheim 108).
Simmel wrote insightful essays regarding social and personal interaction which were useful in developing qualitative …show more content…
analysis in sociology (Chayko 1419). Simmel gave attention to the problems of authority and obedience. He was of the opinion that social interaction would be better if there was an authority in the society and people were able to obey the authorities that were in power (Edles and Scott 21). In his later years of life, he also engaged in metaphysics and aesthetics.
Durkheim argued that the social relationships comes in two forms likely to be created when the social integration is based on the shared social beliefs and sentiments.
Durkheim further argued that where there is a little differentiation in the various types of labor that people engage in, there is a likelihood that social integration will be found based on shared beliefs. He further argued that in
societies where the differentiation of labor is high, social integration will come about as a result of mutual dependence (Edles and Scott 23).
On the other hand, Simmel was of a different opinion regarding social integration. His view of the social circle that an individual belongs to depends on where an individual enters into social interaction (Chayko 1420). He argued that where individuals came into social interactions, there was the social integration. Simmel argued that the existence of the social relations or the belonging to one of the social circles was the sum of all the social interactions of the people in the society (Edles and Scott 27). His view towards social integration was that social cohesion would be achieved when there was a form of authority. Simmel argued that the obedience that would have resulted from each person in the society would have summed up to the unity in the community (Edles and Scott …show more content…
29).
Simmel introduced the concept of social geometry, where he propagated the theories of dyad and triad. Simmel said that a dyad was a group of two people and triad was a group of three people (Edles and Scott 31). Simmel argued that in a group of two people, a person was able to retain their individuality. In a dyad, a person was to retain their original mode of behavior. However, if someone chose or found himself belonging to a triad, then one was not able to maintain his individuality since, in the triad, there was a likelihood of the people coming up with the dyad within the triad. When a dyad is formed within the triad, then the people with the characteristics of the dyad are likely to influence the other individual's characters and make him a subject to the group; which seems to be an essential part of the society, which becomes a group (Edles and Scott 33). Simmel further explained that as the group grows wider, an individual becomes separated and his or her influence becomes lesser within the group, compared to when the
group is small. Apart from being isolated, an individual in the large group will grow alone and become segmented (Chayko 1420).
Simmel argued that the bigger the group is, the better it is for an individual. Simmel explained that when an individual is in a large group, it would not be possible to exert control over him or her (Edles and Scott 34). He also stated that when the individual is in a large group, there is a likelihood of the person becoming impersonal and distant; and so the option that would be available for the person was to become a part of a smaller group such as the family, to assist him to cope with the large group. In this way, Simmel, therefore, concluded by arguing that individuals will choose to remain in smaller social groups within the society just because they cannot exert influence in the large groups (Edles and Scott 35).
Regarding the association with small groups, Durkheim argued that people will belong to small social groups since they are related to one another (Durkheim 111). Durkheim claimed that as a result of kinships, people in the society would organize themselves into small groups since the people were sharing common beliefs regarding their kinship. Durkheim explained that due to the shared system of shared beliefs, the violation of the shared social norms would amount to a direct threat to the shared identification with the social norms, and so the reaction to the deviation from the social norms would be a punishment from those who had not dedicated (Edles and Scott 36)
About the large social groups, Durkheim argued that as the society's population grew larger and larger, the division of labor increases resulting to the specialization of the various individuals within the community (Edles and Scott 39). Durkheim argued that in a large society, there was the need for the complex division of labor to facilitate the production of material life. Increased specialization made the people not to hold to the common beliefs in the society and the basis of
collective conscience was dismissed (Durkheim 116). However, he argued that the complexity does not lead to the disintegration of the nation, but the social integration would be achieved as a result of the interdependence between various specializations that existed in the community.
Simmel also argued about the relationship that exists between the distance of a person, and the association of that person with a particular social group (Chayko 1420).
Simmel attached value to the distance of the actor. He explained that if a person is too close to an actor, then such a person would not be considered to be a stranger and would be considered to be part of a group that the person will associate himself with (Edles and Scott 43). He also stated that if a person was far from a group, then such an individual was a stranger and would not be part of a social group. Simmel argued that a particular distance from a group allows one to have an objective relationship with the members of a social group, and that distance shows the commitment of a person to the group (Chayko
1421).
Durkheim, on the other hand, argued that distance was not of too much importance regarding the social relationship a person was to have with a particular group. Durkheim argued that despite the distance, a person having the shared beliefs, one would still be part of a group if he or she was sharing a common belief together with other people who have the same belief (Edles and Scott 43). Durkheim based his argument on the fact that an individual belonging to a social group would be based on the shared beliefs in the society.
Works Cited
Chayko, Mary. "The first web theorist? Georg Simmel and the legacy of ‘The web of group-affiliations’." (2015): 1419-1422.
Durkheim, Emile. The division of labor in society. Simon and Schuster, 2014. 108-197
Edles, Laura Desfor, and Scott Appelrouth. Sociological theory in the classical era: Text and readings. Sage Publications, 2014. 20-60.