You are on page 1of 13

How is Society Possible? by Georg Simmel American Journal of Sociology vol. 16 (191 !

11" #ant coul$ %ro%ose an$ answer t&e fun$amental 'uestion of &is %&iloso%&y( How is nature %ossible?( only because for &im nature was not&ing but t&e re%resentation ()orstellung" of nature. *&is $oes not mean merely t&at +t&e worl$ is my re%resentation(+ t&at we t&us can s%ea, of nature only so far as it is a content of our consciousness( but t&at w&at we call nature is a s%ecial way in w&ic& our intellect assembles( or$ers( an$ forms t&e sense!%erce%tions. *&ese +given+ %erce%tions( of color( taste( tone( tem%erature( resistance( smell( w&ic& in t&e acci$ental se'uence of sub-ective e.%erience course t&roug& our consciousness( are in an$ of t&emselves not yet +nature/+ but t&ey become +nature+ t&roug& t&e activity of t&e min$( w&ic& combines t&em into ob-ects an$ series of ob-ects( into substances an$ attributes an$ into causal co&erences. As t&e elements of t&e worl$ are given to us imme$iately( t&ere $oes not e.ist among t&em( accor$ing to #ant( t&at co&erence ()erbin$ung" w&ic& alone can ma,e out of t&em t&e intelligible regular (geset0massig" unity of nature/ or rat&er( w&ic& signifies %recisely t&e being!nature (1atur!Sein" of t&ose in t&emselves inco&erently an$ irregularly emerging worl$!fragments. *&us t&e #antian worl$!%icture grows in t&e most %eculiar reJection (2ie$ers%iel"( 3ur sense!im%ressions are for t&is %rocess %urely sub-ective( since t&ey $e%en$ u%on t&e %&ysico!%syc&ical organi0ation( w&ic& in ot&er beings mig&t be $ifferent( but t&ey become +ob-ects+ since t&ey are ta,en u% by t&e forms of our intellect( an$ by t&ese are fas&ione$ into fi.e$ regularities an$ into a co&erent %icture of +nature.+ 3n t&e ot&er &an$( &owever( t&ose %erce%tions are t&e real +given(+ t&e unalterably accumulating content of t&e worl$ an$ t&e assurance of an e.istence in$e%en$ent of ourselves( so t&at now t&ose very intellectual formings of t&e same into ob-ects( co&erences( regularities( a%%ear as sub-ective( as t&at w&ic& is broug&t to t&e situation by ourselves( in contrast wit& t&at w&ic& we &ave receive$ from t&e e.ternally e.istent ! i.e.( t&ese formings a%%ear as t&e functions of t&e intellect itself( w&ic& in t&emselves unc&angeable( &a$ constructe$ from anot&er sense!material a nature wit& anot&er content. 1ature is for #ant a $efinite sort of cognition( a %icture growing t&roug& an$ in our cognitive categories. *&e 'uestion t&en( How is nature %ossible?( i.e.( w&at are t&e con$itions w&ic& must be %resent in or$er t&at a +nature+ may be given( is resolve$ by &im t&roug& $iscovery of t&e forms w&ic& constitute t&e essence of our intellect an$ t&erewit& bring into being +nature+ as suc&. 4t is at once suggeste$ t&at it is %ossible to treat in an analogous fas&ion t&e 'uestion of t&e a%rioristic con$itions on t&e basis of w&ic& society ! is %ossible. Here too in$ivi$ual elements are given w&ic& in a certain sense always remain in t&eir $iscreteness( as is t&e case wit& t&e sense!%erce%tions( an$ t&ey un$ergo t&eir synt&esis into t&e unity of a society only t&roug& a %rocess of consciousness w&ic& %uts t&e in$ivi$ual e.istence of t&e several elements into relations&i% wit& t&at of t&e ot&ers in $efinite forms an$ in accor$ance wit& $efinite laws. *&e $ecisive $ifference between t&e unity of a society an$ t&at of nature( &owever( is t&is5 t&e latter ! accor$ing to t&e #antian stan$%oint &ere %resu%%ose$ ! comes to e.istence

e.clusively in t&e contem%lating unity (Sub-ect"( it is %ro$uce$ e.clusively by t&at min$ u%on an$ out of t&e sense materials w&ic& are not in t&emselves interconnecte$. 3n t&e contrary( t&e societary unity is reali0e$ by its elements wit&out furt&er me$iation( an$ wit& no nee$ of an observer( because t&ese elements are consciously an$ synt&etically active. *&e #antian t&eorem( 6onnection ()erbin$ung" can never in&ere in t&e t&ings( since it is only broug&t into e.istence by t&e min$ (Sub-ect"( is not true of t&e societary connection( w&ic& is rat&er imme$iately reali0e$ in t&e +t&ings+ ! namely( in t&is case t&e in$ivi$ual souls. 7oreover( t&is societary connection as synt&esis( remains somet&ing %urely %syc&ical an$ wit&out %arallels wit& s%ace!structures an$ t&eir reactions. 8ut in t&e societary instance t&e combining re'uires no factor outsi$e of its own elements( since eac& of t&ese e.ercises t&e function w&ic&( wit& res%ect to t&e e.ternal( t&e %syc&ic energy of t&e observer su%%lies. *&e consciousness of constituting wit& t&e ot&ers a unity is t&e w&ole unity in 'uestion in t&e societary case. *&is of course means( on t&e one &an$( not t&e abstract consciousness of t&e unity conce%t( but t&e innumerable singular relations&i%s( t&e feeling an$ ,nowing about t&is $etermining an$ being $etermine$ by t&e ot&er( an$( on t&e ot&er &an$( it 'uite as little e.clu$es an observing t&ir$ %arty from %erforming in a$$ition a synt&esis( wit& its basis only in &imself( between t&e %ersons concerne$( as between s%ecial elements. 2&atever be t&e tract of e.ternally observable being w&ic& is to be com%re&en$e$ as a unity. t&e consummation occurs not merely by virtue of its imme$iate an$ strictly ob-ective content( but it is $etermine$ by t&e categories of t&e min$ (Sub-ect" an$ from its cognitive re'uirements. Society( &owever( is t&e ob-ective unity w&ic& &as no nee$ of t&e observer not containe$ in itself. *&e t&ings in nature are( on t&e one &an$( more wi$ely se%arate$ t&an souls. 4n t&e outwar$ worl$( in w&ic& eac& entity occu%ies s%ace w&ic& cannot be s&are$ wit& anot&er( t&ere is no analogy for t&e unity of one man wit& anot&er( w&ic& consists in un$erstan$ing( in love( in common wor,. 3n t&e ot&er &an$( t&e fragments of s%atial e.istence %ass into a unity in t&e consciousness of t&e observer( w&ic& cannot be attaine$ by community of in$ivi$uals. 9or( on account of t&e fact t&at t&e ob-ects of t&e societary synt&esis are in$e%en$ent beings( %syc&ic centres( %ersonal unities( t&ey resist t&at absolute merging in t&e soul of anot&er %erson( to w&ic& t&e selflessness (Selbstlosig,eit" of soulless t&ings must yiel$. *&us a collection of men is really a unity in a muc& &ig&er( more i$eal sense( yet in a muc& lower $egree t&an tables( c&airs( sofa( car%et an$ mirror constitute +t&e furniture of a room(+ or river( mea$ow( trees( &ouse( +a lan$sca%e(+ or in a %ainting +a %icture.+ 4n 'uite a $ifferent sense from t&at in w&ic& it is true of t&e e.ternal worl$( is society +my re%resentation+ ( )orstellung"( i.e.( %osite$ u%on t&e activity of consciousness. 9or t&e soul of anot&er &as for me t&e same reality w&ic& 4 myself &ave( a reality w&ic& is very $ifferent from t&at of a material t&ing. However #ant insists t&at ob-ects in s%ace &ave %recisely t&e same certainty as my own e.istence( in t&e latter case only t&e %articular contents of my sub-ective life can be meant/ for t&e basis of re%resentation in general( t&e feeling of t&e e.isting ego( is uncon$itional an$ uns&a,able to a $egree attaine$ by no single re%resentation of a material e.ternality. 8ut t&is very certainty &as for us( -ustifiably or not( also t&e fact of t&e t&ou/ an$ as cause or as effect of t&is certainty we

feel t&e t&ou as somet&ing in$e%en$ent of our re%resentation( somet&ing w&ic& is -ust as really for itself (genau so fur sic& ist" as our own e.istence. *&at t&is for!itself of t&e ot&er nevert&eless $oes not %revent us from ma,ing it into 3:r re%resentation( t&at somet&ing w&ic& cannot be resolve$ into our re%resenting still becomes t&e content( an$ t&us t&e %ro$uct of our re%resentation!t&is is t&e %rofoun$est %syc&ologico!e%istemological %attern an$ %roblem of sociali0ation. 2it&in our own consciousness we $istinguis& very %recisely between t&e fun$amentality of t&e ego (t&e %resu%%osition of all re%resentation( w&ic& &as no %art in t&e never w&olly su%%ressible %roblematics of its contents" an$ t&ese contents t&emselves( w&ic& as an aggregate( wit& t&eir coming an$ going( t&eir $ubitability an$ t&eir fallibility( always %resent t&emselves as mere %ro$ucts of t&at absolute an$ final energy an$ e.istence of our %syc&ic being. 2e must carry over to t&e ot&er soul( &owever( t&ese very con$itions( or rat&er in$e%en$ence of con$itions( of our own ego( alt&oug& in t&e last analysis we must re%resent t&at soul. *&at ot&er soul &as for us t&at last $egree of reality w&ic& our own self %ossesses in $istinction from its contents. 2e are sure t&at t&e case stan$s t&e same way wit& t&e ot&er soul an$ its contents. :n$er t&ese circumstances( t&e 'uestion( How is Society %ossible? &as a w&olly $ifferent met&o$ological bearing from t&e 'uestion( How is nature %ossible? *&e latter 'uestion is to be answere$ by t&e forms of cognition( t&roug& w&ic& t&e min$ synt&esi0es given elements into +nature.+ *&e former 'uestion is answere$ by t&e con$itions resi$ing a %riori in t&e elements t&emselves( t&roug& w&ic& t&ey combine t&emselves actually into t&e synt&esis +society.+ 4n a certain sense t&e entire contents of t&is boo,( as $evelo%e$ on t&e basis of t&e %rinci%le announce$( may be regar$e$ as t&e material for answering t&is 'uestion. *&e boo, searc&es out t&e %roce$ures( occurring in t&e last analysis in in$ivi$uals( w&ic& con$ition t&e e.istence of t&e in$ivi$uals as society. 4t $oes not treat t&ese %roce$ures as tem%orally antece$ent causes of t&is result( but as %artial %rocesses of t&e synt&esis w&ic& we com%re&ensively name +society. +8ut t&e 'uestion must be un$erstoo$ in a still more fun$amental sense. 4 sai$ t&at t&e function of ac&ieving t&e synt&etic unity( w&ic& wit& reference to nature resi$es in t&e observing min$( wit& reference to society %asses over to t&e societary elements t&emselves. *&e consciousness of constituting society is not to be sure( in t&e abstract( %resent in t&e in$ivi$ual/ but everyone always ,nows t&at t&e ot&ers are connecte$ wit& &imself( alt&oug& t&is ,nowing about t&e ot&er as t&e associate$( t&is recogni0ing of t&e w&ole com%le. as a society usually occurs wit& reference to %articular concrete contents. Per&a%s( &owever( t&e case is not $ifferent from t&at of +t&e unity of cognition+ ($ie ;in&eit $es ;r,ennens"( accor$ing to w&ic& we %rocee$ in$ee$ in t&e %rocesses of consciousness( arranging one concrete content wit& anot&er( yet wit&out &aving a se%arate consciousness of t&e unity itself( e.ce%t in rare an$ late abstractions. 1ow( t&e 'uestion is5 2&at lies t&en( universally an$ a %riori at t&e basis( w&at %resu%%ositions must be o%erative( in or$er t&at t&e %articular concrete %roce$ures in t&e in$ivi$ual consciousness may actually be %rocesses of sociali0ation/ w&at elements are containe$ in t&em w&ic& ma,e it %ossible t&at t&e %ro$uct of t&e elements is( abstractly e.%resse$( t&e construction of t&e in$ivi$ual into a societary unity? *&e sociological a%riorities will &ave t&e same $ouble significance as t&ose +w&ic& ma,e nature %ossible(+ on t&e one &an$ t&ey will more or less com%letely $etermine t&e actual

%rocesses of sociali0ation( as functions or energies of t&e %syc&ical occurrence( on t&e ot&er &an$ t&ey are t&e i$eal logical %resu%%ositions of t&e %erfect ! alt&oug& in t&is %erfection never reali0e$ ! society. A %arallel is t&e use of t&e law of causation. 3n t&e one &an$ it lives an$ wor,s in t&e actual cognitive %rocesses. 3n t&e ot&er &an$ it buil$s u% t&e form of t&e trut& as t&e i$eal system of com%lete$ cognitions( irres%ective of w&et&er t&at trut& is reali0e$ or not by t&at tem%oral( relatively acci$ental %syc&ical $ynamic( an$ irres%ective of t&e greater or lesser a%%ro.imation of t&e trut& actually in consciousness to t&e i$eal trut&. 4t is a mere 'uestion of terms w&et&er investigation of t&ese con$itions of t&e sociali0ing %rocess s&all be calle$ e%istemological or not( since t&at structure w&ic& arises from t&ese con$itions( an$ w&ic& &as its norms in t&eir forms( is not cognitions but %ractical %rocesses an$ real situations. 1evert&eless w&at 4 now &ave in min$( an$ w&at must be teste$ as t&e general conce%t of sociali0ation by its con$itions( is somew&at e%istemological( vi0.( t&e consciousness of associating or of being sociali0e$. Per&a%s it s&oul$ be calle$ a ,nowing rat&er t&an a cogni0ing (besser ein 2issen als ein ;r,ennen". 9or in t&is case t&e min$ $oes not imme$iately confront an ob-ect of w&ic& it gra$ually gains a t&eoretical %icture( but t&at consciousness of t&e sociali0ation is imme$iately its ve&icle or inner significance. *&e matter in 'uestion is t&e %rocesses of reci%rocation w&ic& signify for t&e in$ivi$ual t&e fact of being associate$. *&at is( t&e fact is not signifie$ in t&e abstract to t&e in$ivi$ual( but it is ca%able of abstract e.%ression. 2&at forms must be at t&e basis( or w&at s%ecific categories must we bring along( so to s%ea,( in or$er t&at t&e consciousness may arise( an$ w&at conse'uently are t&e forms w&ic& t&e resulting consciousness ! i.e.( society as a fact of ,nowing ! must bear? 2e may call t&is t&e e%istemological t&eory of society. 4n w&at follows( 4 am( trying to s,etc& certain of t&ese a %riori effective con$itions or forms of sociali0ation. *&ese cannot( to be sure( li,e t&e #antian categories( be $esignate$ by a single wor$. 7oreover( 4 %resent t&em only as illustrations of t&e met&o$ of investigation. 1. *&e %icture w&ic& one man gets of anot&er from %ersonal contact is $etermine$ by certain $istortions w&ic& are not sim%le $ece%tions from incom%lete e.%erience( $efective vision( sym%at&etic or anti%at&etic %re-u$ice/ t&ey are rat&er c&anges in %rinci%le in t&e com%osition of t&e real ob-ect. *&ese are( to begin wit&( of two $imensions. 4n t&e first %lace we see t&e ot&er %arty in some $egree generali0e$. *&is may be because it is not wit&in our %ower fully to re%resent in ourselves an in$ivi$uality $ifferent from our own. ;very reconstruction (1ac&bil$en" of a soul is $etermine$ by t&e similarity to it( an$ alt&oug& t&is is by no means t&e only con$ition of %syc&ical cognition (sic" ! since on t&e one &an$ unli,eness seems at t&e same time re'uisite( in or$er to gain %ers%ective an$ ob-ectivity( on t&e ot&er &an$ t&ere is re'uire$ an intellectual ca%acity w&ic& &ol$s itself above li,eness or unli,eness of being!yet com%lete cognition woul$ nevert&eless %resu%%ose a com%lete li,eness. 4t a%%ears as t&oug& every man &as in &imself a $ee%est in$ivi$uality!nucleus w&ic& cannot be sub-ectively re%ro$uce$ by anot&er w&ose $ee%est in$ivi$uality is essentially $ifferent. An$ t&at t&is re'uirement is not logically com%atible wit& t&at $istance an$ ob-ective -u$gment on w&ic& t&e re%resentation of anot&er ot&erwise rests( is %rove$ by t&e mere fact t&at com%lete ,nowle$ge of t&e in$ivi$uality of anot&er is

$enie$ to us/ an$ all interrelations of men wit& one anot&er are limite$ by t&e varying $egrees of t&is $eficiency. 2&atever its cause may be( its conse'uence at all events is a generali0ation of t&e %syc&ical %icture of t&e ot&er %erson( a $issolving of t&e outlines( w&ic& a$$s to t&e singularity of t&is %icture a relations&i% wit& ot&ers. 2e %osit every man( wit& es%ecial bearing u%on our %ractical attitu$e towar$ &im( as t&at ty%e of man to w&ic& &is in$ivi$uality ma,es &im belong. 2e t&in, &im( along wit& all &is singularity( only un$er t&e universal category w&ic& $oes not fully cover &im to be sure( an$ w&ic& &e $oes not fully cover. *&is latter circumstance mar,s t&e contrast between t&is situation an$ t&at w&ic& e.ists between t&e universal i$ea an$ t&e %articular w&ic& belongs un$er it. 4n or$er to recogni0e t&e man( we $o not see &im in &is %ure in$ivi$uality( but carrie$( e.alte$ or $egra$e$ by t&e general ty%e un$er w&ic& we subsume &im. ;ven w&en t&is transformation is so slig&t t&at we cannot imme$iately recogni0e it( or even if all t&e usual car$inal conce%ts of c&aracter fail us( suc& as moral or immoral( free or unfree( $omineering or menial( etc. ! in our own min$s we $esignate t&e man accor$ing to an unname$ ty%e wit& w&ic& &is %ure in$ivi$uality $oes not %recisely coinci$e. 7oreover t&is lea$s a ste% fart&er $own. Precisely from t&e com%lete singularity of a %ersonality we form a %icture of it w&ic& is not i$entical wit& its reality( but still is not a general ty%e. 4t is rat&er t&e %icture w&ic& t&e %erson( woul$ %resent if &e were( so to s%ea,( entirely &imself( if on t&e goo$ or ba$ si$e &e reali0e$ t&e %ossibility w&ic& is in every man. 2e are all fragments( not only of t&e universal man( but also of ourselves. 2e are onsets not merely of t&e ty%e &uman being in general( not merely of t&e ty%e goo$( ba$( etc.( but we are onsets of t&at not furt&er in %rinci%le nameable in$ivi$uality an$ singularity of our own selves w&ic& surroun$s our %erce%tible actuality as t&oug& $rawn wit& i$eal lines. *&e vision of our neig&bor( &owever( enlarges t&is fragment to t&at w&ic& we never are com%letely an$ w&olly. He cannot see t&e fragments merely si$e by si$e as t&ey are actually given( but as we offset t&e blin$ s%ot in our eye so t&at we are not conscious of it( in li,e manner we ma,e of t&ese fragmentary $ata t&e com%leteness of an in$ivi$uality. *&e %ractice of life is more an$ more insistent t&at we s&all form our %icture of t&e man from t&e real $etails alone w&ic& we em%irically ,now about &im/ but t&is very %ractice rests u%on t&ose c&anges an$ a$$itions( u%on t&e reconstruction of t&ose given fragments into t&e generality of a ty%e an$ into t&e com%leteness of t&is i$eal %ersonality. *&is %roce$ure( w&ic& is in %rinci%le attem%te$( alt&oug& in reality it is sel$om carrie$ t&roug& to com%leteness( o%erates only wit&in t&e alrea$y e.isting society as t&e a%riori of t&e furt&er reactions w&ic& $evelo% between in$ivi$uals. 2it&in a s%&ere w&ic& &as any sort of community of calling or of interests( every member loo,s u%on every ot&er( not in a %urely em%irical way( but on t&e basis of an a%riori w&ic& t&is s%&ere im%oses u%on eac& consciousness w&ic& &as %art in it. 4n t&e circles of officers( of c&urc& members( of civil officials( of sc&olars( of members of families( eac& regar$s t&e ot&er un$er t&e matter of course %resu%%osition!t&is is a member of my grou%. 9rom t&e common basis of life certain su%%ositions originate an$ %eo%le loo, u%on one anot&er t&roug& t&em as t&roug& a veil. *&is veil $oes not( to be sure( sim%ly conceal t&e %eculiarity of t&e in$ivi$ual( but it gives to t&is %ersonality a new form( since its actual reality melts in t&is ty%ical transformation into a com%osite %icture. 2e see t&e ot&er %erson not sim%ly as an

in$ivi$ual( but as colleague or comra$e or fellow %artisan/ in a wor$( in&abitant of t&e same %eculiar worl$/ an$ t&is unavoi$able( 'uite automatically o%erative %resu%%osition is one of t&e means of bringing &is %ersonality an$ reality in t&e re%resentation of anot&er u% to t&e 'uality an$ form $eman$e$ of &is sociability (So0iabilitat". *&e same is evi$ently true of members of $ifferent grou%s in t&eir relations wit& one anot&er. *&e %lain citi0en w&o ma,es t&e ac'uaintance of an officer cannot $ivest &imself of t&e t&oug&t t&at t&is in$ivi$ual is an officer. An$ alt&oug& t&is being an officer may belong to t&e given in$ivi$uality( yet not in -ust t&e sc&ematic way in w&ic& it %re-u$ges &is %icture in t&e re%resentation of t&e ot&er %erson. *&e li,e is t&e case wit& t&e Protestant in contrast wit& t&e 6at&olic( t&e merc&ant wit& t&e official( t&e layman wit& t&e %riest( etc. ;veryw&ere t&ere occur veilings of t&e outline of reality by t&e social generali0ation. *&is in %rinci%le %ro&ibits $iscovery of t&at reality wit&in a grou% w&ic& is in a &ig& $egree socially $ifferentiate$. Accor$ingly man<s re%resentation of man is t&rown out of true by $islocations( a$$itions an$ subtractions from all t&ese categories( w&ic& e.ert an a %riori influence( since t&e generali0ation is always at t&e same time more or less t&an t&e in$ivi$uality. *&at is( t&e in$ivi$ual is rate$ as in some %articulars $ifferent from &is actual self by t&e gloss im%ose$ u%on &im w&en &e is classifie$ in a ty%e( w&en &e is com%are$ wit& an imagine$ com%leteness of &is own %eculiarity( w&en &e is cre$ite$ wit& t&e c&aracteristics of t&e social generality to w&ic& &e belongs. 3ver an$ above all t&is t&ere sways( as t&e %rinci%le. of inter%retation in cognition( t&e t&oug&t of &is real solely in$ivi$ual e'uation/ but since it a%%ears as t&oug& $etermination of t&is e'uation woul$ be t&e only way of arriving at t&e %recisely foun$e$ relations&i% to t&e in$ivi$ual( as a matter of fact t&ose c&anges an$ res&a%ings( w&ic& %revent t&is i$eal recognition of &im( are %recisely t&e con$itions t&roug& w&ic& t&e relations&i%s w&ic& we ,now as t&e strictly social become %ossible ! somew&at as wit& #ant t&e categories of reason( w&ic& form t&e imme$iately given into 'uite new ob-ects( alone ma,e t&e given worl$ a ,nowable one. =. Anot&er category un$er w&ic& men (Sub-ecte" view t&emselves an$ one anot&er( in or$er t&at( so forme$( t&ey may %ro$uce em%irical society( may be formulate$ in t&e seemingly trivial t&eorem5 ! ;ac& element of a grou% is not a societary %art( but beyon$ t&at somet&ing else. *&is fact o%erates as social a%riori in so far as t&e %art of t&e in$ivi$ual w&ic& is not turne$ towar$ t&e grou%( or is not $issolve$ in it( $oes not lie sim%ly wit&out meaning by t&e si$e of &is socially significant %&ase( is not a somet&ing e.ternal to t&e grou%( for w&ic& it nolens volens affor$s s%ace/ but t&e fact t&at t&e in$ivi$ual( wit& res%ect to certain si$es of &is %ersonality( is not an element of t&e grou%( constitutes t&e %ositive con$ition for t&e fact t&at &e is suc& a grou% member in ot&er as%ects of &is being. 4n ot&er wor$s( t&e sort of &is sociali0e$!being ()ergesellsc&aftet!Seins" is $etermine$ or %artially $etermine$ by t&e sort of &is not!sociali0e$ being. *&e analysis to follow will bring to lig&t certain ty%es w&ose sociological significance( even in t&eir germ an$ nature( is fi.e$ by t&e fact t&at t&ey are in some way s&ut out from t&e very grou% for w&ic& t&eir e.istence is significant/ for instance in t&e case of t&e stranger( t&e enemy( t&e criminal( an$ even t&e %au%er. *&is a%%lies( &owever( not merely in t&e case of suc& general c&aracters( but in unnumbere$ mo$ifications for every sort of

in$ivi$uality. *&at every moment fin$s us surroun$e$ by relations&i%s wit& &uman beings( an$ t&at t&e content of every moment<s e.%erience is $irectly or in$irectly $etermine$ by t&ese &uman beings( is no contra$iction of t&e foregoing. 3n t&e contrary t&e social setting as suc& affects beings w&o are not com%letely boun$e$ by it. 9or instance( we ,now t&at t&e civil official is not merely an official( t&e merc&ant not merely a merc&ant( t&e military officer not merely an officer. *&is e.tra!social being( &is tem%erament an$ t&e $e%osit of &is e.%eriences( &is interests an$ t&e wort& of &is %ersonality( little as it may c&ange t&e main matter of official( mercantile( military activities( gives t&e in$ivi$ual still( in every instance( for everyone wit& w&om &e is in contact( a $efinite s&a$ing( an$ inter%enetrates &is social %icture wit& e.tra!social im%on$erabilities. *&e w&ole commerce of men wit&in t&e societary categories woul$ be $ifferent( if eac& confronte$ t&e ot&er only in t&at c&aracter w&ic& belong/ to &im in t&e role for w&ic& &e is res%onsible in t&e %articular category in w&ic& &e a%%ears at t&e moment. *o be sure( in$ivi$uals( li,e callings an$ social situations( are $istinguis&e$ by t&e $egree of t&at 4n!a$$ition w&ic& t&ey %ossess or a$mit along wit& t&eir social content. *&e man in love or in frien$s&i% may be ta,en as mar,ing t&e one %ole of t&is series. 4n t&is situation( t&at w&ic& t&e in$ivi$ual reserves for &imself( beyon$ t&ose manifestations an$ activities w&ic& converge u%on t&e ot&er( in 'uantity a%%roac&es t&e 0ero %oint. 3nly a single life is %resent( w&ic&( so to s%ea,( may be regar$e$ or is live$ from two si$es5 on t&e one &an$ from t&e insi$e( from t&e terminus a 'uo of t&e active %erson/ t&en on t&e ot&er &an$ as t&e 'uite i$entical life( contem%late$ in t&e $irection of t&e belove$ %erson( un$er t&e category of gis terminus a$ 'uem( w&ic& it com%letely a$o%ts. 2it& 'uite anot&er ten$ency t&e 6at&olic %riest %resents in form t&e same %&enomenon( in t&at &is ecclesiastical function com%letely covers an$ swallows &is being!for!&imself. 4n t&e former of t&ese e.treme cases( t&e 4n!a$$ition of t&e sociological activity $isa%%ears( because its content &as com%letely %asse$ over into consi$eration of t&e ot&er %arty/ in t&e secon$ case( because t&e corres%on$ing ty%e of contents &as in %rinci%le altoget&er $isa%%eare$. *&e o%%osite %ole is e.&ibite$ by t&e %&enomena of our mo$ern civili0ation as t&ey are $etermine$ by money economy. *&at is( man a%%roac&es t&e i$eal of absolute ob-ectivity as %ro$ucer( or %urc&aser or seller( in a wor$ as a %erformer of some economic function. 6ertain in$ivi$uals in &ig& %laces e.ce%te$( t&e in$ivi$ual life( t&e tone of t&e total %ersonality( &as $isa%%eare$ from t&e function( t&e %ersons are merely t&e ve&icles of an e.c&ange of function an$ counterfunction occurring accor$ing to ob-ective norms( an$ every t&ing w&ic& $oes not fit into t&is s&eer t&ingness (Sac&lic&,eit" &as also as a matter of fact $isa%%eare$ from it. *&e 4n!a$$ition &as fully ta,en u% into itself t&e %ersonality wit& its s%ecial coloring( its irrationality( its inner life( an$ it &as left to t&ose societary activities only t&ose energies( in %ure abstraction( w&ic& s%ecifically %ertain to t&e activities. 8etween t&ese e.tremes t&e social in$ivi$uals move in suc& a way t&at t&e energies an$ c&aracteristics w&ic& are %ointe$ towar$ t&e inner center always s&ow a certain significance for t&e activities an$ inclinations w&ic& affect t&eir associates. 9or( in t&e marginal case( even t&e consciousness t&at t&is social activity or attitu$e is somet&ing $ifferentiate$ from t&e rest of t&e man( an$ $oes not enter into t&e sociological relations&i% along wit& t&at w&ic& &e ot&erwise is an$

signifies!even t&is consciousness &as 'uite %ositive influence u%on t&e attitu$e w&ic& t&e sub-ect assumes towar$s &is fellows an$ t&ey towar$s &im. *&e a%riori of t&e em%irical social life is t&at t&e life is not entirely social. 2e form our interrelations&i%s not alone un$er t&e negative reservation of a %art of our %ersonality w&ic& $oes not enter into t&em/ t&is %ortion affects t&e social occurrences in t&e soul not alone t&roug& general %syc&ological combinations( but %recisely t&e formal fact t&at influence e.erts itself outsi$e of t&ese $etermines t&e nature of t&is interwor,ing. Still furt&er( one of t&e most im%ortant sociological formations rests on t&e fact t&at t&e societary structures are com%ose$ of beings w&o are at t&e same time insi$e an$ outsi$e of t&em5 namely t&at between a society an$ its in$ivi$uals a relations&i% may e.ist li,e t&at between two %arties!in$ee$ t&at %er&a%s suc& relations&i%( o%en or latent( always e.ists. *&erewit& society %ro$uces %er&a%s t&e most conscious( at least universal conformation of a basic ty%e of life in general5 t&at t&e in$ivi$ual soul can never &ave a %osition wit&in a combination outsi$e of w&ic& it $oes not at t&e same time &ave a %osition( t&at it cannot be inserte$ into an or$er wit&out fin$ing itself at t&e same time in o%%osition to t&at or$er. *&is a%%lies t&roug&out t&e w&ole range from t&e most transcen$ental an$ universal inter$e%en$encies to t&e most singular an$ acci$ental. *&e religious man feels &imself com%letely encom%asse$ by t&e $ivine being( as t&oug& &e were merely a %ulse!beat of t&e $ivine life/ &is own substance is unreserve$ly( an$ even in mystical i$entity( merge$ in t&at of t&e Absolute. An$ yet( in or$er to give t&is intermelting any meaning at all( t&e $evotee must retain some sort of self e.istence( some sort of %ersonal reaction( a $etac&e$ ego( to w&ic& t&e resolution into t&e $ivine All!8eing is an en$less tas,( a %rocess only( w&ic& woul$ be neit&er meta%&ysically %ossible nor religiously feelable if it $i$ not %rocee$ from a self!being on t&e %art of t&e %erson5 t&e being one wit& Go$ is con$itional in its significance u%on t&e being ot&er t&an go$. 8eyon$ t&is converging towar$ t&e transcen$ental( t&e relations&i% to nature as a w&ole w&ic& t&e &uman min$ manifests t&roug&out its entire &istory s&ows t&e same form. 3n t&e one &an$ we ,now ourselves as articulate$ into nature( as one of its %ro$ucts( w&ic& stan$s alongsi$e of every ot&er as an e'ual among e'uals( as a %oint w&ic& nature<s stuff an$ energies reac& an$ leave( as t&ey circle t&roug& running water an$ blossoming %lants. An$ yet t&e soul &as a feeling of a somet&ing self!e.istent (eines 9ursic&seins" w&ic& we $esignate wit& t&e logically so ine.act conce%t free$om( offering an o%%osite (ein Gegenuber un$ Paroli" to all t&at energy an element of w&ic& we ever remain( w&ic& ma,es towar$ t&e ra$icalism w&ic& we may e.%ress in t&e formula( 1ature is only a re%resentation in t&e &uman soul. As( &owever( in t&is conce%tion( nature wit& il its un$eniable %eculiarity (;igengeset0lic&,eit" an$ &ar$ reality is still subsume$ un$er t&e conce%t of t&e ego( so on t&e ot&er &an$ t&is ego( wit& all its free$om an$ self!containing (9ursic&sein"( wit& its -u.ta%osition to +mere nature(+ is still a member of nature. Precisely t&at is t&e overla%%ing natural correlation( t&at it embraces not ione +mere nature(+ but also t&at being w&ic& is in$e%en$ent an$ often enoug& &ostile to +mere nature(+ t&at t&is w&ic& accor$ing to t&e ego<s $ee%est feeling of selfis&ness is e.ternal to t&e ego must still be t&e element of t&e ego. 7oreover( t&is formula &ol$s not less for t&e relations&i% between t&e in$ivi$uals an$ t&e %articular circles of t&eir societary combinations/ or if we generali0e t&ese

combinations into t&e conce%t of societary!ness in t&e abstract( for t&e interrelation of in$ivi$uals at large. 2e ,now ourselves on t&e one si$e as %ro$ucts of society. *&e %&ysiological series of %rogenitors( t&eir a$a%tations an$ fi.ations( t&e tra$itions of t&eir labor( t&eir ,nowle$ge an$ belief( of t&e w&ole s%irit of t&e %ast crystili0e$ in ob-ective forms!all t&ese $etermine t&e e'ui%ment an$ t&e contents of our life( so t&at t&e 'uestion mig&t arise w&et&er t&e in$ivi$ual is anyt&ing more t&an a rece%tacle in w&ic& %reviously e.isting elements mi. in c&anging %ro%ortions/ for alt&oug& t&e elements were also in t&e last analysis %ro$uce$ by in$ivi$uals( yet t&e contribution of eac& is a $isa%%earing 'uantity( an$ only t&roug& t&eir generic an$ societary merging were t&e factors %ro$uce$ in t&e synt&esis of w&ic& in turn t&e ostensible in$ivi$uality may consist. 3n t&e ot&er &an$ we ,now ourselves as a member of society( woven wit& our life!%rocess an$ its meaning an$ %ur%ose 'uite as inter$e%en$ently into its coe.istence (1ebeneinan$er" as in t&e ot&er view into its succession (1ac&einan$er". >ittle as we in our c&aracter as natural ob-ects &ave a self!sufficiency( because t&e intersection of t&e natural elements %rocee$s t&roug& us as t&roug& com%letely selfless structures( an$ t&e e'uality before t&e laws of nature resolves our e.istence wit&out remain$er into a mere e.am%le of t&eir necessity ! 'uite as little $o we live as societary beings aroun$ an autonomous center/ but we are from moment to moment com%ose$ out of reci%rocal relations&i%s to ot&ers( an$ we are t&us com%arable wit& t&e cor%oreal substance w&ic& for us e.ists only as t&e sum of many im%ressions of t&e senses( but not as a self!sufficient entity. 1ow( &owever( we feel t&at t&is social $iffusion $oes not com%letely $issolve our %ersonality. *&is is not because of t&e reservations %reviously mentione$( or of %articular contents w&ose meaning an$ $evelo%ment rest from t&e outset only in t&e in$ivi$ual soul( an$ fin$s no %osition at large in t&e social correlation. 4t is not only because of t&e mol$ing of t&e social contents( w&ose unity as in$ivi$ual soul is not itself again of social nature( any more t&an t&e artistic form( in w&ic& t&e s%ots of color merge u%on t&e canvas( can be $erive$ from t&e c&emical nature of t&e colors t&emselves. 4t is rat&er c&iefly because t&e total life!content( &owever com%letely it may be a%%licable from t&e social antece$ents an$ reci%rocities( is yet at t&e same time ca%able of consi$eration un$er t&e category of t&e singular life( as e.%erience of t&e in$ivi$ual an$ com%letely oriente$ wit& reference to t&is e.%erience. *&e two( in$ivi$ual an$ e.%erience( are merely $ifferent categories un$er w&ic& t&e same content falls( -ust as t&e same %lant may be regar$e$ now wit& reference to t&e biological con$itions of its origin( again wit& reference to its %ractical utility( an$ still again wit& reference to its aest&etic meaning. *&e stan$%oint from w&ic& t&e e.istence of t&e in$ivi$ual may be correlate$ an$ un$erstoo$ may be assume$ eit&er wit&in or wit&out t&e in$ivi$ual/ t&e totality of t&e life wit& all its socially $erivable contents may be regar$e$ as t&e centri%etal $estiny of its bearer( -ust as it still may %ass( wit& all t&e %arts reserve$ to t&e cre$it of t&e in$ivi$ual( as %ro$uct an$ element of t&e social life. *&erewit&( t&erefore( t&e fact of sociali0ation bring/ t&e in$ivi$ual into t&e $ouble situation from w&ic& 4 starte$5 vi0.( t&at t&e in$ivi$ual &as &is setting in t&e sociali0ation an$ at t&e same time is in antit&esis wit& it( a member of its organism an$ at t&e same time a close$ organic w&ole( an e.istence (Sein" for it an$ an e.istence for itself. *&e essential t&ing( &owever( an$ t&e meaning of t&e %articular sociological a%riori w&ic& &as

its basis &erein( is t&is( t&at between in$ivi$ual an$ society t&e 2it&in an$ 2it&out are not two $eterminations w&ic& e.ist alongsi$e of eac& ot&er ! alt&oug& t&ey may occasionally $evelo% in t&at way( an$ even to t&e $egree of reci%rocal enmity ! but t&at t&ey signify t&e w&ole unitary %osition of t&e socially living &uman being. His e.istence is not merely( in sub$ivision of t&e contents( %artially social an$ %artially in$ivi$ual( but it stan$s un$er t&e fun$amental( formative( irre$ucible category of a unity( w&ic& we cannot ot&erwise e.%ress t&an t&roug& t&e synt&esis or t&e contem%orariness of t&e two logically antit&etical $eterminations !articulation an$ self!sufficiency( t&e con$ition of being %ro$uce$ by( an$ containe$ in( society( an$ on t&e ot&er &an$( of being $erive$ out of an$ moving aroun$ its own center. Society consists not only( as we saw above( of beings t&at in %art are not sociali0e$( but also of ot&ers t&at feel t&emselves to be( on t&e one &an$( com%letely social e.istences( on t&e ot&er &an$( w&ile maintaining t&e same content( com%letely in$ivi$ual e.istences. 7oreover t&ese are not two unrelate$ contiguous stan$%oints( as if( for instance( one consi$ers t&e same bo$y now wit& reference to its weig&t an$ now wit& reference to its color/ but t&e two com%ose t&at unity w&ic& we call t&e social being( t&e synt&etic category ! as t&e conce%t of causation is an a%rioristic unity( alt&oug& it inclu$es t&e two( in content( 'uite $ifferent elements of t&e causing an$ of t&e effect. *&at t&is formation is at our $is%osal( t&is ability to $erive from beings( eac& of w&ic& may feel itself as t&e terminus a 'uo an$ as t&e terminus a$ 'uem of its $evelo%ments( $estinies( 'ualities( t&e very conce%t of society w&ic& rec,ons wit& t&ose elements( an$ to recogni0e t&e reality corres%on$ing wit& t&e conce%t (Society" as t&e terminus a 'uo an$ t&e terminus a$ 'uem of t&ose vitalities an$ self!$eterminings ! t&at is an a%riori of em%irical society( t&at ma,es its form %ossible as we ,now it. ?. Society is a structure of unli,e elements. ;ven w&ere $emocratic or socialistic movements %lan an +e'uality(+ an$ %artially attain it( t&e t&ing t&at is really in 'uestion is a li,e valuation of %ersons( of %erformances( of %ositions( w&ile an e'uality of %ersons( in com%osition( in life!contents( an$ in fortunes cannot come into consi$eration. An$ w&ere( on t&e ot&er &an$( an enslave$ %o%ulation constitutes only a mass( as in t&e great oriental $es%otisms( t&is e'uality of eac& always concerns only certain si$es of e.istence( say t&e %olitical or t&e economic( but never t&e w&ole of t&e same( t&e transmitte$ 'ualities( of w&ic&( %ersonal relations&i%s( e.%eriences( not merely wit&in t&e sub-ective as%ect of life but also on t&e si$e of its reactions wit& ot&er e.istences( will unavoi$ably &ave a certain sort of %eculiarity an$ untransferability. 4f we %osit society as a %urely ob-ective sc&eme( it a%%ears as an or$ering of contents an$ %erformances w&ic& in s%ace( time( conce%ts( values are concerne$ wit& one anot&er( an$ as to w&ic& we may in so far %e@form an abstraction from t&e %ersonality( from t&e ;go!form( w&ic& is t&e ve&icle of its $ynamic. 4f t&at ine'uality of t&e elements now %resents every %erformance or e'uality wit&in t&is or$er as in$ivi$ually mar,e$ an$ in its %lace une'uivocally establis&e$( at t&e same time society a%%ears as a cosmos w&ose manifol$ness in being an$ in movement is boun$less( in w&ic&( &owever( eac& %oint can be com%ose$ an$ can $evelo% itself only in t&at %articular way( t&e structure is not to be c&ange$. 2&at &as been asserte$ of t&e structure of t&e worl$ in general( vi0.( t&at no grain of san$ coul$ &ave anot&er form or %lace from t&at w&ic& now belongs to it( e.ce%t u%on t&e %resu%%osition an$ wit&

t&e conse'uence of a c&ange of all being ! t&e same recurs in t&e case of t&e structure of society regar$e$ as a web of 'ualitatively $etermine$ %&enomena. An analogy as in t&e case of a miniature( greatly sim%lifie$ an$ conventionali0e$ (stilisiert"( is to be foun$ for t&e %icture of society t&us conceive$ as a w&ole( in a bo$y of officials( w&ic& as suc& consists of a $efinite or$ering of +%ositions(+ of a %re!or$ination of %erformances( w&ic&( $etac&e$ from t&eir %ersonnel of a given moment( %resent an i$eal correlation. 2it&in t&e same( every newcomer fin$s an une'uivocally assigne$ %lace( w&ic& &as waite$ for &im( as it were( an$ wit& w&ic& &is energies must &armoni0e. *&at w&ic& in t&is case is a conscious( systematic assignment of functions( is in t&e totality of society of course an ine.tricable tangle of functions/ t&e %ositions in it are not given by a constructive will( but t&ey are $iscernible only t&roug& t&e actual $oing an$ e.%eriencing of in$ivi$uals. An$ in s%ite of t&is enormous $ifference( in s%ite of everyt&ing t&at is irrational( im%erfect( an$ from t&e view%oint of evaluation to be con$emne$( in &istorical society( its %&enomenological structure ! t&e sum an$ t&e relations&i% of t&e sort of e.istence an$ %erformances actually %resente$ by all t&e elements of ob-ectively &istorical society is an or$er of elements( eac& of w&ic& occu%ies an in$ivi$ually $etermine$ %lace( a coor$ination of functions an$ of functioning centers( w&ic& are ob-ective an$ in t&eir social significance full of meaning if not always full of value. At t&e same time( t&e %urely %ersonal as%ect( t&e sub-ectively %ro$uctive( t&e im%ulses an$ refle.es of t&e essential ego remain entirely out of consi$eration. 3r( ot&erwise e.%resse$( t&e life of society runs its course!not %syc&ologically( but %&enomenologically( regar$e$ %urely wit& res%ect to its social contents ! as t&oug& eac& element were %re$etermine$ for its %lace in t&is w&ole. 4n t&e case of every brea, in t&e &armony of t&e i$eal $eman$s( it runs as t&oug& all t&e members of t&is w&ole stoo$ in a relation of unity( w&ic& relation( %recisely because eac& member is &is %articular self( refers &im to all t&e ot&ers an$ all t&e ot&ers to &im. 9rom t&is %oint( t&en( t&e a%riori is visible w&ic& s&oul$ be now in 'uestion( an$ w&ic& signifies to t&e in$ivi$ual a foun$ation an$ a +%ossibility+ of belonging to a society. *&at eac& in$ivi$ual( by virtue of &is own 'uality( is automatically referre$ to a $etermine$ %osition wit&in &is social milieu( t&at t&is %osition i$eally belonging to &im is also actually %resent in t&e social w&ole ! t&is is t&e %resu%%osition from w&ic&( as a basis( t&e in$ivi$ual lea$s &is societary life( an$ w&ic& we may c&aracteri0e as t&e universal value of t&e in$ivi$uality. 4t is in$e%en$ent of t&e fact t&at it wor,s itself u% towar$ clear conce%tional consciousness( but also of t&e contingent %ossibility of fin$ing reali0ation in t&e actual course of life ! as t&e a%riority of t&e law of causation( as one of t&e normative %recon$itions of all cognition( is in$e%en$ent of w&et&er t&e consciousness formulates it in $etac&e$ conce%ts( an$ w&et&er t&e %syc&ological reality always %rocee$s in accor$ance wit& it or not. 3ur cognitive life rests on t&e %resu%%osition of a %re!establis&e$ &armony between our s%iritual energies( even t&e most in$ivi$ual of t&em( an$ e.ternal ob-ective e.istence( for t&e latter remains always t&e e.%ression of t&e imme$iate %&enomenon( w&et&er or not it can be trace$ bac, meta%&ysically or %syc&ologically to t&e %ro$uction of t&e reality by t&e intellect itself. *&us societary life as suc& is %osite$ u%on t&e %resu%%osition of a fun$amental &armony between t&e in$ivi$ual

an$ t&e social w&ole( little as t&is &in$ers t&e crass $issonances of t&e et&ical an$ t&e eu$aemonistic life. 4f t&e social reality were unrestricte$ly an$ infallibly given by t&is %recon$itional %rinci%le( we s&oul$ &ave t&e %erfect society ! again not in t&e sense of et&ical or eu$aemonistic but of conce%tual %erfection. 7ore fully e.%resse$( we s&oul$ &ave( so to s%ea,( not t&e %erfect society( but t&e %erfect society. So far as t&e in$ivi$ual fin$s( or $oes not fin$( reali0ation of t&is a%riori of &is social e.istence( i.e.( t&e t&oroug&going correlation of &is in$ivi$ual being wit& t&e surroun$ing circles( t&e integrating necessity of &is %articularity( $etermine$ by &is sub-ective %ersonal life( for t&e life of t&e w&ole( t&e sociali0ation is incom%lete/ t&e society &as sto%%e$ s&ort of being t&at ga%less reci%rocality w&ic& its conce%t foretells. *&is state of t&e case comes to a $efinite focus wit& t&e category of t&e vocation (8eruf". Anti'uity( to be sure( $i$ not ,now t&is conce%t in t&e sense of %ersonal $ifferentiation an$ of t&e society articulate$ by $ivision of labor. 8ut w&at is at t&e basis of t&is conce%tion was in e.istence even in anti'uity/ vi0.( t&at t&e socially o%erative $oing is t&e unifie$ e.%ression of t&e sub-ective 'ualification( t&at t&e w&ole an$ t&e %ermanent of t&e sub-ectivity %ractically ob-ectifies itself by virtue of its functions in t&e society. *&is relations&i% was reali0e$ t&en on t&e average merely in a less &ig&ly $ifferentiate$ content. 4ts %rinci%le emerge$ in t&e Aristotelian $ictum t&at some were $estine$ by t&eir nature to AGree, wor$ omitte$B( ot&ers to AGree, wor$ omitte$B. 2it& &ig&er $evelo%ment of t&e conce%t it s&ows t&e %eculiar structure ! t&at on t&e one &an$ t&e society begets an$ offers in itself a %osition (Stelle" w&ic& in content an$ outline $iffers from ot&ers( w&ic&( &owever( in %rinci%le may be fille$ out by many( an$ t&ereby is( so to s%ea,( somet&ing anonymous/ an$ t&at t&is %osition now( in s%ite of its c&aracter of generality( is gras%e$ by t&e in$ivi$ual( on t&e groun$ of an inner +call(+ or of a 'ualification conceive$ as w&olly %ersonal. 4n or$er t&at a +calling+ may be given( t&ere must be %resent( &owever it came to e.ist( t&at &armony between t&e structure an$ t&e life!%rocess of t&e society on t&e one si$e( an$ t&e in$ivi$ual ma,e!u% an$ im%ulses on t&e ot&er. :%on t&is as general %recon$ition rests at last t&e re%resentation t&at for every %ersonality a %osition an$ a function e.ists wit&in t&e society( to w&ic& t&e %ersonality is +calle$(+ an$ t&e im%erative to searc& until it is foun$. *&e em%irical society becomes +%ossible+ only t&roug& t&e a%riori w&ic& culminates in t&e +vocation+ conce%t( w&ic& a%riori to be sure( li,e t&ose %reviously $iscusse$( cannot be c&aracteri0e$ by a sim%le %&rase( as in t&e case of t&e #antian categories. *&e consciousness %rocesses w&erewit& sociali0ation ta,es %lace ! unity com%ose$ of many( t&e reci%rocal $etermination of t&e in$ivi$uals( t&e reci%rocal significance of t&e in$ivi$ual for t&e totality of t&e ot&er in$ivi$uals an$ of t&e totality for t&e in$ivi$ual ! run t&eir course un$er t&is %recon$ition w&ic& is w&olly a matter of %rinci%le( w&ic& is not recogni0e$ in t&e abstract( but e.%resses itself in t&e reality of %ractice5 vi0.( t&at t&e in$ivi$uality of t&e in$ivi$ual fin$s a %osition in t&e structure of t&e generality( an$ still more t&at t&is structure in a certain $egree( in s%ite of t&e incalculability of t&e in$ivi$uality( $e%en$s antece$ently u%on it an$ its function. *&e causal inter$e%en$ence w&ic& weaves eac& social element into t&e being an$ $oing of every ot&er( an$ t&us brings into e.istence t&e e.ternal networ, of society( is transforme$ into a teleological inter$e%en$ence( so soon as it is

consi$ere$ from t&e si$e of its in$ivi$ual bearers( its %ro$ucers( w&o feel t&emselves to be egos( an$ w&ose attitu$e grows out of t&e soil of t&e %ersonality w&ic& is self!e.isting an$ self!$etermining. *&at a %&enomenal w&oleness of suc& c&aracter accommo$ates itself to t&e %ur%ose of t&ese in$ivi$ualities w&ic& a%%roac& it from wit&out( so to s%ea,( t&at it offers a station for t&eir sub-ectively $etermine$ life!%rocess( at w&ic& %oint t&e %eculiarity of t&e same becomes a necessary member in t&e life of t&e w&ole ! t&is( as a fun$amental category( gives to t&e consciousness of t&e in$ivi$ual t&e form w&ic& $istinguis&es t&e in$ivi$ual as a social elementC