Gilman’s multidimensional explanation of gender inequality Nonrational A C T I O N Differential socialization (internalized attitudes) Shared symbolic codes and gender norms Sex ‘principles’ (biology) Individual Collective ORDER Patriarchal institutions Rational

Georg Simmel

Georg Simmel (1858-1918) Born in 1858 in Berlin, son of successful businessman who died when GS was an infant Historical context: Berlin at the time was a crossroads of Europe, of western civilization even, a cosmopolitan center GS was the quintessential Berlin intellectual - tied into intellectual circles, café culture Marginalized from academic life, due to eclectic nature of work and institutional anti- semitism, as Simmel was Jewish GS was unable to secure a professorship until the end of his life, at (mediocre) Strasbourg GS’s marginalized position led to appreciation of social position and its importance in society

Intellectual influences & core ideas Simmel’s work went against two prominent currents of European thought: Historicsm and Organicism Historicism emphasizes fundamental differences b/w natural and social worlds natural sciences seen as the proper domain of objectivity whereas social sciences, if science at all, require interpretive methods, subjectivity Organicism sees natural & social realities as continuous and models social processes on biological ones employs organic metaphors, sees world as one chain of being from simple, natural phenomena to the most complex social patterns archetypal figures: Durkheim, Spencer, Comte Simmel rejected historicism b/c it precluded scientific and generalizing approach to social life and rejected organicism for its reification of social facts, its vision of life as a thing

Society According to Simmel, “Society is merely the name for number of individuals connected by interaction….It is not a ‘substance,’ nothing concrete, but an event: It is the function of receiving and affecting the fate and development of one individual by another” In short society is the array of interactions engaged in by individuals

Society  Sociation Simmel prefers the term “sociation” over “society” “Society” is a reification, “sociation” is not Sociation emphasizes relation and process Insofar as we speak of “society,” we do so only in shorthand

Sociology Sociology’s goal is description and analysis of particular forms of interaction and their crystallization in group characteristics Proper subject matter for sociology is the formal aspects of social life, not the particular content Content refers to the drives, purposes, interests, or inclinations that individuals have for interacting with one another Such motivations, in themselves, are not social but rather are isolated psychological or biological impulses Actions in concert with others to fulfill drives or realize interests are social  a geometry of social life: specifying regularities in diverse content Emphasizes social interaction at the individual & small group level Microsociology of Simmel much different from “grand theory” of the classical writers, especially Marx and Durkheim

Sociology: against reification Reification means “thingification,” making something that is a process or a concept, something abstract, into a thing, e.g. Relationship: when two people become romantically involved, they have a “relationship,” it becomes a thing, tangible force – but really it’s a process of relating Nation: we assume there’s some “essence,” “Americanness,” but it’s really a way of relating America, Americans, are constructed through ongoing interaction Organization: we treat it as a thing rather than a process, a set of relations among people Class, race, gender, etc. gender is more tricky b/c there seems to be some kind of biological component, so there might be some “thingness,” some “essence,” to gender

Sociology: against categories “Sociology asks what happens to men and by what rules do they behave not insofar as they form groups and are determined by their group existence in their totalities but insofar as they form groups and are determined by the group existence because of interaction” Usual tendency is to reduce people to categorical memberships: e.g., women, white, sociologist… It’s not the individual attributes that are of interest, it’s how they’re instanciated (come into being) through action The concepts are only realized via interaction Categorical identities do not determine action, they only exist through action/interaction

The individual in modern society Society and the individuals that compose it constitute an interdependent duality, the existence of one presupposing the other duality: being twofold; dichotomy; a classification into two opposed parts or subclasses Urban societies allow individuals to cultivate unique talents and interests but also leads to a tragic “leveling” of the human spirit Weber observed a similar tendency in bureaucracies Tragedy of culture: objective culture - the ideas and products of human creativity - comes to dominate individual will and self-development or subjective culture

Toward a formal sociology Diverse social phenomena – content & contexts - can be understood in terms of formal similarities Analyze all different kings in terms of kingship Analyze kings and presidents in terms of leadership Forms of interaction among members of different groups (varied content) are importantly shaped by the structural similarities of those groups Focus on formal characteristics of social processes allows GS to preserve historicist emphasis on uniqueness of different moments, events and places, while nonetheless seeing underlying uniformities In other words seeing a structural similarity b/w kingship & presidency is not same as saying all kings and presidents are the same…it allows you to abstract some dimension without losing the content

Quantitative features of social life GS divides the social world into 3 basic forms: Solitary individual Dyad (two persons) each individual can present themselves to the other in a way that maintains their identity either party can end the relationship by withdrawing from it Triad (3 or more people) enables strategies that lead to competition, alliances, or mediation often develops a group structure independent of the individuals in it, whereas this is less likely in the dyad

“Sociability” (1910) sociability: the “play-form of association,” driven by, "amicability, breeding, cordiality and attractiveness of all kinds" interacting with others for the sake of the connection itself Sociable conversations have no significance or ulterior motive, talking is an end in itself for pure pleasure of association not that all serious topics must be avoided, but point is that sociability finds its justification, its place, and its purpose only in the functional play of conversation as such

Resolving the solitariness of the individual Every play or artistic activity has a common element: “a feeling for, or a satisfaction in associating with others, resolving the solitariness of the individual into togetherness, union with others” Depends on “good form,” interaction of the elements through which a unity is made “Since sociability in its pure form has no ulterior end, no content, and no result outside itself, it is oriented completely about personalities.” (297) “But personalities must not emphasize themselves too individually…or with too much abandon and aggressiveness”

The “superficial” nature of sociability To the extent that it’s a form of interaction free of the tensions of “real” life, sociability establishes an “artificial” world, a world without friction or conflict “Inasmuch as sociability is the abstraction of association – an abstraction of the character of art or of play – it demands the purest, most engaging kind of interaction – that among equals….It is game in which one ‘acts’ as though all were equal.” (294)

Coquetry Coquetry or flirtation: a kind of sociability or erotic play in which an actor continuously alternates between denial and consent Idea is to lead the other on “without letting matters come to a decision, to rebuff him without making him lose all hope” “Coquetry is the teasing or even ironic play with which eroticism has distilled the pure essence of its interaction out from its substantive or individual content” It’s not individual behavior, it’s interaction