Simmel: The Stranger & “Group expansion and the development of individuality”

 

Background I: Where Simmel fits.  Simmel is often seen as one of the most creative early modern/late classical social theorists.  Simmel was generally a formalist – trying to identify key aspects of social life that were based on formal regularities (expansion of group size, difference between dyad and a triad, maximum size of a sustainable group, etc.).  Within this formalism, however, his work covers lots of ground based on ideas, relations, production and so forth.  This contrasts with approaches that focus on a particular social problem or topic area or a single method of approach.  This heterogeneity has led some to criticize that Simmel is “insight sociology” – good tidbits of ideas but nothing systematic or large-scale.

 

We’re using a selection of Simmel that focuses on the relation between an individual and society.  It’s one of the earliest “structural” approaches to questions about *(what we’ve been calling) the problem of identity.   His structural approach differs significantly from other sources about “the self” and links nicely with the more macro approaches of Marx, Weber & Durkheim.

 

 

Background II: A primer on network structure.  Simmel is also seen as one of the “founding fathers” in the field of social networks.  Social networks is a subfield of sociology that attempts to understand social life through the patterns and process of social relations.  This work maps, measures, and builds directly on patterns of “who connects to who.”  While it gets the history wrong (Simmel was first, Social Networks came out of his work), it’s useful to have some concepts from Social Networks to help explicate his work.  We’ll revisit many of these over the course of the semester, but I want to introduce a couple of key concepts right now.

 

A)    Adjacency.   The simplest element of a social network is the relation – a tie from one person to another.  Conceptually, we can record relations as points and lines, where points represent people and lines the relations.  We say two people (points) are “adjacent” if there is a relation between them.  We record the data on adjacency in an adjacency matrix, where the rows and columns index people and the cell value is 1 if they are connected, 0 otherwise. 

 

Example:

 

 

 



Note that as the number of people increase, the number of potential relations increases much faster (N*N-1) – this is fundamental to the points about expansion that Simmel makes.

 

B)    We can think of two ways that networks matter: through connection and through position.

a.       Connection.  Networks are groups when sets of people have lots of ties to each other.  This is exactly what Durkheim and Weber meant by “social groups” or “communities” as well.   When groups are connected, it is more likely that communication passes between them and so forth and thus we expect coordinated action & behavioral similarity.

 

b.      Position.  Position refers to occupying a particular pattern in the system of relations.   Consider the relation “gives orders to” in the military.  In the network based on this relation, two “Captains” will have the same position, in that they both give orders to Lieutenants and take orders from Majors, even though they are not directly connected to each other.  Similarly, roles like  “CEO” “Mother” or “Lover” (and many many more) can all be represented as a particular pattern in the network of exchange relations.   We refer to these positions as “structurally equivalent.”  When Simmel refers to populations becoming larger, but different populations becoming more similar as they grow, he’s making an argument about the diversity of structural equivalent positions.

 

 

 

The Stranger

In this work, Simmel (GS) is identifying a particular social “form” – an archetype that he thinks is general across lots of societies.  The form “stranger” is one of many that Simmel describes.

 

What?

The Stranger is defined by being both close and far.  Physically close but socially distant.

 

-          The stranger is a “potential wanderer,”  while his position is “fixed within a certain spatial circle … his position within it is fundamentally affected by the fact that he does not belong in it initially and that he brings qualities into it that are not, and cannot be, indigenous to it.” (p.294)

-          This is somebody who is “other” to us – not part of our group, but for some reason in our group none-the-less. 

-          Strangers are mobile and connected to multiple social world, such as the discussion of the trader.

o       Traders are (were?) by definition strangers –to gain access to goods outside, one has to be able to be both here and there.  

-          Note he does not mean people who are just passing through – people for whom we have no real social connection.  When he says the relation to the stranger is a real “positive social relation” it’s this distinction he refers to.

 

Effects: How does the position of stranger differ from non-stranger?  What does it allow and why?

-          Mobility: Ability to move between social groups is nearly definitional for strangers.  This makes it possible to expand as a trader.

-          Objectivity.  “Because he is not bound by roots to the particular constituents and partisan disputes of the group, he confronts all of these with a distinctly ‘objective’ attitude, an attitude that does not signify mere detachment and nonparticipation, but is a distinct structure composed of remoteness and nearness, indifference and involvement.” (p.296)

o       Confidences & secrets are thus more likely passed to Strangers.

o       Freedom follows from the position of objectivity – ability to see one’s position from “a birds eye view”

-          Generality.  Relations with others are based on “more general qualities” that people have in common.  We relate socially not based on the specific & unique “organic” elements.

o       Note he’s making a case here for the value of attributes to building solidarity.  When the thing that unites two people is also something they have in common with a wider group, then the strength of that relation is inversely proportional to the size of the group.  Of the stranger thus:

 

“He is far from us insofar as these similarities extend beyond him and us, and connect us only because they connect a great many people.” (p.297)

 

o       Centripetal vs. Centrifugal forces: the first pulls us together, the 2nd pushes us apart.

-          Strangeness and Love.  Note he argues a hint of this strangeness enters all romantic relations.  When we see our partner as a completely unique match, then the intimacy is high, but as soon as we see them as one of many potential matches, the intimacy declines.   This is common to most relations, since very little of what we have in common is unique to just us.

 

 

Group Expansion and Individuality

In this piece, GS identifies the relation of individuals to larger collectives by thinking about what happens to individuals when groups grow. 

 

Group expansion and the Transformation of Social bonds

Basic claim: “Individuality in being and action generally increases to the degree that the social circle encompassing the individual expands.” (p.300).

 

Given two completely internally connected but distinct groups, as both grow they will (a) experience in increase in “social differentiation” and (b) ultimately come to look more alike.  Why?

 

The key is that they will all ultimately work out the same set of “social forms.”  He treats this as a natural limit to sociality – that there are only so many social forms out there, and these are basic across societies (if as yet uncataloged).

 

Moreover, while you may get different groups overall, we are likely to find connections between people in different communities who occupy similar positions.

 

Note that this gives us a slightly different vision of the development of the Division of Labor, that rests on a role expansion process on the part of guild masters that pushes us away from equality and toward inequality.

 

Equality & Differentiation tradeoffs

            One of the key themes we get from Simmel is the idea that “pure equality” is an odd idea, and likely impossible.  We need “structure” to sustain a community, and this gives rise to inequality.  But we also need inequality else we’d not have individuality.  He says:

“Accompanying such a differentiation of social groups, there arise[s] a need and an inclination to reach out beyond the original spatial, economic, and mental boundaries of the group and, in connection with the increase in individualization and concomitant mutual repulsion of group elements, to supplement the original centripetal forces of the lone group with a centrifugal tendency that forms bridges to other groups” [p.301]

 

This creates ties to groups more distant (p.303).

 

Social differentiation leads to changes in roles and changes in power & equality.  This represents a wider class of general social tradeoffs:  thus, while being a serf meant you didn’t own the land, in some sense you had free use of a portion of it for yourself.  As formal freedom increased, a different sort of dependency took it’s place.  

 

Note as well his discussion of economic boundaries & class.  The idea is that there is a stronger boundary between lower classes than upper classes, forcing (a) less contact between lower-classes across communities but (b) more homogeneity within the set.

 

Overall, one gets the general sense throughout that social life demands these sorts of trades: one can’t have just any social form, there are constraints the flow from the need to organize social life.  He comes closest to saying this in the last par of this section:

 

“The nonindividuation of elements in the narrower circle and their differentiation in the wider one are phenomena that are found, synchronically, among coesistent groups and group elements, just as they appear, diachronically, in the sequence of stages through which a single group develops.”  (p.303).

 

 

That is:

The relation between size and differentiation is true both across settings and over time.

 

The Relation between personal and Collective Individuality

 

“..in each person…there is … and unalterable ratio between individual and social factors that changes only its form.”  (p.303)

 

The narrower our circle, the less individuality we hold.  But the narrow group itself is unique and likely distinct from the rest of the world.

 

The wider our circle, the more individual we can be within this set, but the group itself is less distinct.

 

Or

 

“the elements of a distinctive social circle are undifferentiated, and the elements of a circle that is not distinctive are differentiated.” (p.304)

 

Note the style of argument: Simmel does not think this is a social law, just a general description he’s seen repeatedly.  This is because he thinks lots of things combine to cause this outcome.  This is what (in the wider book and just hinted at in your selection) he’s hoping to uncover a bit more (though he never claims completeness) with the remaining text.

 

 

Illustrations from Religious and Political Settings

-          Here he gives two examples, one from the Quakers and one from the US states.  Were these convincing to you? 

 

The basic relation as a dualistic drive

For GS, we live a “doubled” life:  “We live as an individual within a social circle, with tangible separation from its other members, but also as a member of this circle, with separation from everything that does not belong to it.” (p.305)

 

We can thus be part of something and unique, in turn, but the ratio of the two never changes (There’s only one you, after all).

 

As an example, consider the figure below, which describes social ties among members of a sorority:

 

 

Each point is a member, each line is a strong social contact.  The group on the left (circles) were strongly connected together, but weakly connected to the overall group.  The group at the top (diamonds) are weakly connected to each other (ties are not structured, low reciprocation and such), but all tied to *somebody* in the house, the group on the right (squares) are strongly tied to each other AND widely connected in the house.  Which group do you think would have the strongest positive feelings about the sorority?

 

Answer is the “Middles” – the set on right – who have a balance between individual and connected.

 

The Differentiation Drive as a heuristic Principle

He then goes on to argue that we might see lots of aspects of the world in this sort of balancing way: people who really value individuality are the most likely to follow fashion impulsively, people in small town are often more individual than people in large towns, etc.

 

Stages of Social Commitment

This notion of social circles generalizes: we are often members of multiple such circles, of different sizes and so forth, so the question is always “of more or less” not of complete group or complete individual.

 

Here he’s also essentially making the story more complex.  While individuality increases in large units, we still need familes (very small circles) to function well and so forth.   Familes provide a space to learn how to be an individual (p.307)

 

The Sociological Duality of the Family

Here he extends this idea to the family, noting that sometimes families act as single actors, others as groups.

 

Methodological Implications

This balance of internal cohesion and external repulsion (p.309) takes a more complicated role when social life is ‘nested’ in many groups. 

 

Note as well, that social circles will only “nest” around a single individual, for everyone else, they are intersections where membership only partially overlaps.

 

Freedom & Individuality

The meanings of freedom

Individual freedom is freedom that is limited by individuality (p.310) The more unique an individual becomes, the more difficult it is to find ‘complements’ – things that will make choosing useful.  Thus one is effectively more constrained the more individual one is, even though this individuality creates “freedom” in the abstract sense. 

 

So while we have “freedom” in the social sense of less obligation, a push for uniqueness also makes it difficult to fulfill our obligations.  We are “trapped” with too much choice.  Is this right?

 

The meanings of individuality

Here GS gives us two forms:

a)      Individuality in the sense of the freedom and the responsibility for oneself that comes from a broad and fluid social environment.

b)      Individuality means that a single human being distinguishes himself from all others, and that being different has value in itself.

 

 

 

The history here (according to GS) is that the 18th century was concerned with the first sort of individuality/freedom, and understood that as soon as all fetters were cut, people would be equal and that “man in general” would emerge and differentiation would follow naturally, and thus freedom and equality were equal.

 

The 19th century has been concerned with the second sort, as accentuated by the division of labor.  But the contradict: the first sees value in what we have in common, the second in what we are as unique beings.  But, both go up with expansion in group life.  This is, I [moody] think, is a fundamental puzzle that Simmel was trying to tease out.

 

Group Expansion and the Consciousness of the Ego

He ends by discussing how individuality is experienced.  The basic claim, I think, is that we really only come to see ourselves as unique & different when we see that “I” am something unique and yet common across a wide range of contexts. 

 

Review Questions:

·         Be sure you understand the difference between “Connection” (also called “adjacency”)  and “position” in social networks.  How might these relate to Simmel’s discussion of group size?

·         When we speak of the “problem of identity” we discussed the difference between “what” and “who” – what does this mean?

·         What is a “stranger”?  Examples?

·         Why would a stranger be more objective than a group member?

·         Are students in a college town strangers?  Even though the position is constant (i.e. every year there will be students)?

·         What happens to individuality as groups get larger? Why?

·         How does group distinction change as groups get larger?

·         How does group size affect the relation between two people (from discussion on the stranger)

·          What are the two types of freedom Simmel discusses?  How are these related?

·         Note his discussion of differentiation around p.303., does this contradict Durkheim’s notion of the division of labor?

·         Does uniqueness lessen freedom?