Simmel and the Methodological Problems of Formal Sociology

Author(s): Talcott Parsons and William J. Buxton

Source: The American Sociologist, Vol. 29, No. 2 (Summer, 1998), pp. 31-50
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27698870 .
Accessed: 02/07/2014 04:15
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The American Sociologist.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 119.15.93.148 on Wed, 2 Jul 2014 04:15:33 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Simmel and the Methodological

Problems
of Formal
Sociology
Edited

Talcott
Parsons
by William
J. Buxton

Introduction

to define the subject-matter

and boundaries
of sociological
science
Attempts
have gone somewhat out of fashion, and it is not proposed,
in the present paper,
to attempt to bring such discussions
back into favor. It does, however,
happen,
over
that in controversies
such questions,
issues some
important methodological

a particularly pointed
them a favorable
formulation which makes
to enter upon the discussion
of the underlying problems.
true in the case of Simmel.
is particularly
to
Simmel's
contributions

times receive

point
This

at which

as opposed
to his individual essays on particular
social
in the history of the former
Indeed his position
forms, are relatively meager.
field rests largely on his single formula that sociology
should become
the spe

general

social

theory,

on his discussion
of the nature of "soci
forms," and
*
underlies
that formula.
This has sufficed to attract a great deal of
ety" which
attention to Simmel's work and even, in a modest way, to make him the founder
of a "school,"
the so-called "formal school" of sociology. But the influence of the
cialized

science

of "social

to people who
has been by no means
of analysis he advocated
confined
would
call themselves
and discussion
of some of
explicitly formal sociologists,
the methodological
to lead
associated with Simmel's formula promises
problems
mode

farther than either placing Simmel more accurately

in the history of social theory,
or helping
to arrive at a critical judgment of the work of those who profess to
follow him.
It is common
that in the earlier stages of self-consciousness
knowledge
a
as
it in a synthetic
the
science,
strong to conceive
sociology
tendency was
"encyclopedic"

sense,

as

the

sys

of
or

. . .

is a transcription of the original typed manuscript along with the handwritten changes made by Talcott
Parsons. The footnotes (indicated now with asterisks) are those of Parsons. The original pagination
has
been
indicated with numbers in brackets. These match
the page numbers cited by Edward Shils in his
comments. Explanatory endnotes have been added. Parsons began the article with an alternative introduc
is included here under the heading of Introduction
1.
tion, which
*
See Georg Simmel, "Das Problem der Soziologie"
[Simmel, 1923].
printed as chapter I of his Soziologie
This

Parsons

31

This content downloaded from 119.15.93.148 on Wed, 2 Jul 2014 04:15:33 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

the Methodological

and

Simmel

Problems

of Formal

Sociology

as the author of a
as a general
social theorist is primarily known
the scope and subject-matter
that sociology
of sociology,
formula for defining
*
should be the study of "social forms." The object of the present essay is not to
as such.
of the scope and limits of the science of sociology
revive the discussion
Simmel

views on this subject

there may be important methodological
underlying
at
issues of a more general nature. Investigation
of the methodological
position
famous formula may well
the basis of Simmel's
lead into problems
of very gen
to certain of these problems
eral interest. It is as an avenue of approach
that a

But

critical

analysis
It is common

of the concept

of social

form is here

attempted.
of
knowledge
stages of self-consciousness
a
as
the tendency was
it in a synthetic or
science,
strong to conceive
sociology
as
statement
our established
the
tematic
all
of
sense,
[2]
sys"encyclopedic"
that in the earlier

of the concrete
social life of man.1 This tendency had
knowledge
generalized
two effects: to give an air of great pretentiousness
to the ill-established
infant
not
serve
to
to
did
it
in
endear
its neighbors
the learned world,
discipline, which
it had any independent
and to raise, in an acute form, the question
of whether
to make beyond
that of the older and better established
fields such
as economics,
and the others deal
the many branches
of history, jurisprudence,
The claim only to make
the final synthesis
ing with human social relationships.
a
on
to erect an
dubious
seemed
rather thin, and scientifically
basis
which
contribution

science. After all why could not this synthesis be left, as it had
independent
in the past, to the philosophy
of history?
been
one of the first to revolt against
this encyclopedic
Simmel was
tendency,

as a special and not an ency

that sociology be constituted
advocating
class of social phe
science. He maintained
that there was no concrete
clopedic
nomena which was not already the subject of a social science?men's
economic
strongly

etc. Hence
the only place for sociology
life, their religion, art, law, government,
a
new
not
in
hitherto
the
class of phenomena
lay, in his opinion,
discovery of
to which
the same
but in a new analytical point of view according
neglected,
were
sci
concrete
social
the
these
other
which
of
phenomena
subject-matters
studied.
ences, had not yet been
between
social
famous distinction
[3]

Simmel

couches

relationships which
social
life. Concrete

It is in this context
"form" and

his discussion

is one

of several

primarily

that he

formulated

his

"content."
of social
in terms of the concept
ways of looking at human social

possible
of course, unified,
are,
integral phenomena.
relationships
a
into two classes of
kind
of
be analyzed
abstraction,
by
They may, however,
or
some
all
of
those
consists
of
first
elements.
The
may be
qualities which

but which
in the relationships,
who participate
of the individuals
predicated
does
Simmel
itself.
as
the
of
treated
be
relationship
may
analytically
independent
not attempt to give any systematic account of these elements, but puts forward
*

Developed
Soziologie

in his essay
mainly
[Simmel 1923].

"Das Problem

der Soziologie"

32 The

which

was

American

reprinted

as Chapter

Sociologist/Summer

This content downloaded from 119.15.93.148 on Wed, 2 Jul 2014 04:15:33 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

I of his

1998

a few suggestions. He uses four different terms in the discussion:

impulses (Triebe),
motives
ends (Zwecke),
interests (Interessen)
and, on one occasion,
(Motive).
in the use of interests as the more general term
is an implied classification
There
classes of interests. When,
inter
however,
impulses and ends as particular
a social relationship,
as is usually empirically
are pursued within
the case,
he
calls
element
which
the
there is an additional,
"mode"
analytically separable
or
is
the
existence
interaction
of
It
"form"
such
of
(Art)
(Wechselwirkung).
and
of
their
forms of interaction which makes both of discrete
dis
individuals,
and

ests

a "society."
It would
that form in this sense is precisely
appear
that which makes
attributes of an analytically
the difference between
separated
a
concrete
of
such
and
social
constituted
indi
the
individual,
entity
by
plurality
*
one
another.
viduals
in
mutual
with
interrelations
functioning
Simmel's use of this starting point as a basis for a scientifically
[4]
important
crete motives

line of analysis

rests on

conceptualization
classes of interests

three interrelated

of the traditional

social

theses. The first is that the

empirical
is in fact couched
sciences
in terms of

are analytically
from
sense, which
separable
in
which
he
stands.
The
second
thesis
holds
relationships
**
a
in relation to the diversity of classes of interest,
constitutes
in the foregoing

the forms of the social

that form, seen
common
element

The
third
running through all of their social relationships.
that form and content are independently
that
the
"same"
variable,
ismanifested
in different forms, while
the "same" form is similarly to be

maintains
content

in connection
with different contents. Thus he says that an economic
of wealth, may be pursued
in a competi
interest, the interest in maximization
tive form, by engaging
in a competitive
others
motivated
struggle against
by the
same interest, or may take the form of combination
in the pursuit of the com
mon goal, as inmonopolistic
combinations
and trusts. On the other hand, the form
found

of "competition"
interests, or itmay involve erotic inter
may involve economic
ests as in rivalry for the favor of a woman,
or any one of a variety of other types.
The main key to the problems discussed
in this paper
is the status of the first
thesis. The other two are, as they stand, entirely acceptable,
the only question

that of their implications

before approaching
necessary,
being

clarification

for the methodology

of social theory. It will be
the problems
involved in the first, to attempt a
that provided
form is a
by Simmel, of the sense in which

beyond
and of the independent
element,
variability of form and content.
It may be noted in advance, however,
that Simmel fails to give us even
[5]
the outline of a thorough critical analysis of the prevailing
of
conceptualization
what
he calls the "social sciences."
asserts
Above
he
not
and
does
all,
merely
common

attempt to justify in terms of the history and current literature of those sciences,
that all of them lie on the same methodological
level. There can be little doubt

of the inevitability, and for certain purposes,

interests in terms of such categories

human

usefulness

of the classification

as economic,

political,

of

religious,

This is evidently similar to Durkheim's

concept of "society" as resulting from a synthesis of individuals. See
E. Durkheim,
individuelles et representations
in Sociologie
et Philosophie
collectives,"
"Representations,
[Durkheim, 1924] and the author's Structure of Social Action, chapter IX [Parsons, 1937].
**
I.e., in the sense of attributes of the individual formulated in subjective terms. For a definition of "subjec
tive categories"
in this sense see Structure of Social Action
[Parsons 1937], p. 46.

Parsons

33

This content downloaded from 119.15.93.148 on Wed, 2 Jul 2014 04:15:33 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

etc. Furthermore
there seems to be a corresponding
classifica
erotic, aesthetic,
are
in
tion of types of concrete
which
the
of
interests
classes
activity
respective
It
does
follow
that
the
of
the
relation
of
not, however,
predominant.
problem
to the classification
scientific conceptualization
of types of concrete
social phe

in terms of interests, or of classes of acts, can be

formulated
the
assertion
of
that there is an economic
deals
simple
theory which
disposed
by
interests and acts, a political
with economic
which
deals
with
theory
political
interests and acts, a theory of religion, etc. On the contrary it is quite certain
whether

nomena,

of scientific theory to concrete

than this formula would
indicate. This

that the relation

complex
fact; that there is no
to correspond
sciences

has

become

the social
of art"

reality in these fields is far more

is evident from one fundamental

actual

in the theory of the different social

uniformity
to the symmetry of Simmel's
Economic
scheme.
theory
in
sort, unique
system of a peculiar
analytical
developed

a highly
field. On the other hand whatever

may go by the name of a "theory

from
economic
quite
theory. It will, how
fruitful to return to some of these issues after a discussion
of the

is methodologically

ever, be more

different

of the first two theses.

implications
As Simmel defines
the concept
[6]
a
has
"form"
and
that more
relationship

it is a sheer

truism that every social

forms are an inherent feature

complex
In this sense his second
thesis is beyond
system of social relationships.
It is necessary
it
When
only to guard him from one misinterpretation.
dispute.
is said that form is a common
element of the relationships
of all the different
that all the similarities between
parts of society this is not to be taken to mean
of every

any two such fields are on the level of form, and all
of content. Form is not the generic
term of which
*
stitute the particular
The relation is quite
species.
Form is rather a common
in the sense
element

the differences
the classes

on

the level

of interests

con

different.

that every system of social

this
is a truism, has no implica
which
relationships
proposition,
tions for the relations of the particular
kinds of form to be found in any two
concrete
This distinction
of two senses
in which
form may be
relationships.
element gives a valuable
to the more
clue
thought of as a common
general
has

meaning
as such,
Simmel

of the concept
form. For both in his discussions
of social relationships
and of the analogy he dwells on constantly,
that of geometrical
form,
is often referred to as "structure." A brief discus
apparently means what

sion of the meaning

of Simmel's

cations
One

form. But

of the most

of the concept

structure will

do much

to clarify

the impli

procedure.
imbedded

modes
of thinking about "reality" conceives
as
of "parts" or "units" which
stand in a system of
"phenomena"
consisting
to each other. A plurality of units in determinate
relations
mutual
intelligible
is often said to constitute a "system." The relations between
relations
the units
are then spoken of as the "structure" of the system. [7] A unit in these terms is
deeply

the referent of a combination

*

of empirically

Both Sorokin [1928: 399-400]

and Abel [1929: 28-29]
guard himself against this misinterpretation.

descriptive
attribute this view

propositions

which

have

to Simmel. He did not sufficiently

34 The American Sociologist/Summer 1998

This content downloaded from 119.15.93.148 on Wed, 2 Jul 2014 04:15:33 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

a unitary existential
of the "same" thing. To say
reference, that is are descriptive
has brown hair
that John Jones is five feet eight inches tall, weighs
150 pounds,
a partial description
of one kind of unit, a "man."
and brown eyes, constitutes

to say John Jones is five feet eight, George

Smith weighs
175, Frank Brown
does not constitute
blue eyes, and James Johnson has red hair, obviously
even a partial description
of a single person.

But
has

to each
of a system of units standing in structural relations
conception
unit
it
a
and
than
that
of
of
element
other implies
further conceptual
relations;
in terms of which
the system
implies what may be called a "frame of reference"
a system consists
of "particles"
is described.
in the classical mechanics
Thus
of "properties")
in terms of a certain combination
(i.e.,
"things" describable
The

to one

in space and time. The concepts

of
of any concrete
system,
space and time, are not parts of the description
particle,
in terms of which
but the frame of reference
any system of one class, a "me
existing

"in" and

chanical"

system, must be described.

is a further fundamental
conception

There

related

another

which

seems

to be

inseparably
or
that of "process"
relations,
go on in
change.
Systems do not, for the most part, remain static, but processes
a later
a
so
at
one
ceases
to
at
was
accurate
time
be
which
them;
description
one. The foregoing considerations
to
A
the
of
process.
meaning
help
specify
connected

with

those

of units

and of structural

to "something,"
that is to a unit, or a combination
of change happens
process
as involving the prop
of such units in a system. The change must be described
erties of one or more units in the system, or one or more
structural relations
the system, or some combinful process
is capable
is one which

within

[8] ation of both. Finally the only meaning

in terms of the frame of
of description

at a given time. Thus

to say
in terms of mechanics,
being employed
in a given time is a meaningful
that the velocity
doubled
of a given particle
of process,
but to say that the particle changed
from a velocity of
description
to a state of repression
to the father, is
1000 ft. per second
of the antagonism
reference

as applied
to the same
may be meaningful
propositions
descriptive
at an earlier
concrete
object, e.g., a "man" but even though the first is applicable
us
a
not
at
to say that
facts
entitle
the
these
does
second
time,
later, knowing
a change,
has taken place, because
the
the man has undergone
that a process

not.

Both

in terms of the same frame of reference.

seem to be involved in our think
This fundamental
schema of thought would
in connection
with the
rather
than
about
ing
merely
reality generally,
empirical
our
not
is
involved
in
if
identical
schema
A
world."
related,
thinking
"physical
interrelated
such as systems of logically
"ideal" objects
about non-empirical,
are not commensurable

two statements

A symphony has its "themes" or other

compositions.
structural relations. But the very ubiquity of the schema
itmay have
in its use, for in different uses and contexts
should make us cautious
sense empirical
a very different significance.
Indeed before we can say inwhat
to be aware
is derivable by its use, it is essential
of causal relations
knowledge
or artistic

propositions,
units which

have

of a certain

fundamental

certain

relativity

in the status of the different categories

of the

schema.

35

Parsons

This content downloaded from 119.15.93.148 on Wed, 2 Jul 2014 04:15:33 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

structure. This is true whether

the sys
[9]
Every system has a determinate
tem is "static," that iswhen no changes
significant to the observer are going on,
over
on changes
or it is "dynamic," where
interest is centered
the observer's
*
must
not
involve
structural
But
it
of
be
which
course,
time,
may,
changes.
one
is
the
frame
reference
fundamental
that
of
of the
forgotten
conceptual

of thought into which

of structure here
the concept
fits. Any given structure is relative to the frame of reference in terms
A structure is a set of determinate
the relevant systems are described.

of the schema

elements
considered
of which

a plurality of a certain kind of units, described

in terms of a
certain frame of reference. On any given level of analysis a structure may be
as static without
or certain processes
as
conceived
process,
may be conceived
relations

between

an unchanging
structure, or finally, the structure
a process
as undergoing
of change. Thus
the structure
terms is constant,
and for most purposes
ordinary common-sense
in any processes
it.
interested
which
may be occurring within
going on
conceived

"within"

itself may

be

of a table
we

in

are not

It is usually
is a
of a house, however,
structure of the pipes and

as a static system. The plumbing

described
system
different kind of system. There is a constant physical
but within
this structure an important process
appliances,
or

ous

ovum

goes on, the continu

a
embryo, from fertilized
Finally
developing
a
to mature
is
still
different
kind
of
organism,
system in that, from the
a continuous
interests biologists,
it is undergoing
of view which
process
intermittent

point
of structural

flow

change.
authorities

of water.

to all these types of

that in relation
be agreed
use
struc
in
the concept
fundamental
of
the
systems
relativity
ture as a set of constant
is a sense in
relations even at any given time. There
as a
is an illusion. What
is described
the static aspect of all structures
which
of process.
[10] "really" only in certain uniformities
"rigid" structure consists
Thus a candle flame has a specific "form," a structure, but here even for com
But most

there

would

is a certain

is a process, within
the form there is
the burning of the candle
But the physicist
of hot gases, and rapid chemical
change.
us
same
or
true
the
is
of the cool wax,
of the static table. These
will
tell
structures are only relatively uniform and
so solid and substantial
seemingly
mon

sense

intense movement

If this is true of the systems which

of very complex processes.
treats as static, it is doubly so for that of the developing
embryo.
of the
out this underlying aspect of process
does not dispose
But pointing
of structure. When
the physicist
of the concept
relevance
attempts to describe
terms of a deeper
so
on
in
within
the
table
he
does
the processes
going
partly
stable

resultants

common

sense

systems of atoms and electrons

lying structure, that of the physical
is
What
has
that
the shift from consideration
up the table.
happened
in the common
*

36

sense description

of the table, to that of process

which

make

of structure

in the physicist's

that whether a system is static or dynamic is not a question of whether process

It should be remembered
is focussed on the
the attention of the observer
"really" goes on in the system, or not, but of whether
or on the structural uniformities of the system. Thus, in the example used below, to common
processes,
sense a table is "solid" and unchanging over a short period (unless for instance it catches on fire) but to
a physicist the same object
is a dynamic system of rapidly moving atoms or electrons.

The

American

Sociologist/Summer

This content downloaded from 119.15.93.148 on Wed, 2 Jul 2014 04:15:33 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

1998

a shift in frames of reference. There

is no inherent meth
to set a limit to the possible
number of such steps. A table
sense may be interpreted as a very com
so simple to common

involves

description,

reason

odological
which
appears

But his most

involving a highly dynamic process
by the physicist.
structures
like the
and
the
etc.,
electron,
units,
proton
elementary
elementary
a still
terms
in
turn
to
of
when
in
be
atom, may
prove
analyzed
equally complex
more
reference.
frame of
elementary
system

plex

a concrete
type of system, such as a system of social
dealing with
is the structure of the
not
to inquire what
it
is
hence
enough
relationships,
to the
relevant
will
be
structural
levels
of
Different
categories
according
system.
terms
is
and analyzed,
the system
described
and
in
frame of reference
of which
When

are put.
use to which
the structural categories
of Simmel's
third thesis, that
of the implications
It is in this connection
that the
variable.
independently

to the methodological
according
This
[11]
brings us to some
form and

are

content

a study of social "forms" can constitute

arises as to the sense inwhich
problem
science.
Simmel apparently
the analytical
framework of a theoretical
considers
one
on
be
called
this question
which
for
the
level
may,
purposes,
present
only

is
concretely descriptive. The form or structure of a system of social relationships
a "descriptive aspect" of such a system. It consists in certain facts about the system

which

can be

stated

in relative

isolation

from other

facts, that is, in the present

are
of the "interests" which

in isolation from the classificatory

character
case,
Simmel claims independent
vari
involved in the system. On the level on which
a
can
no
is
that
fact.
there
this
be
doubt
ability
variability
that this independent
Furthermore
there can be no doubt
variability under
*
some
in
certain conditions,
For
causal
the logic of cau
possesses
significance.
or
no other test of
term
if
is
there
is
that
sation,
"determination,"
objectionable,

can be demonstrated
variation which
than the independent
significance
same
cases
value of one variable
of different
in
involving the
by comparison
different combinations
with
the values of others, by experiment
under con
or by what
is usually known as "comparative method." What
trolled conditions,
causal

constitutes

variables

detail

but

content

in a

sense cannot
be discussed
in
logically acceptable
reason why form and
not seem to be any obvious

there does

here,
on the one

hand,

tute

or various
variables

logically
satisfactory
it is possible,
then, is not whether
but whether
by Simmel's
procedure,

sub-categories
in the most
scientifically,
it is more

of each, should not consti

formal sense. The problem

to accomplish
"anything"
fruitful than other method

ological
possibilities.
At this point the previously
of the relativity of
introduced considerations
[12]
Itmay be asked whether
relevant to our problem.
the concept
structure, become
of analytical theory
in the sciences which
the highest development
have achieved

systems they deal with in the most concrete descrip

The answer
is
tive level, is usually
treated as one, or a system of variables.
as
in
the
no.
of
units
related
also
of
the
The
structure,
it,
description
uniformly
the structure of the concrete

See below

for a further discussion

of this problem.

Parsons

37

This content downloaded from 119.15.93.148 on Wed, 2 Jul 2014 04:15:33 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

is treated as

the statement

good example
in elementary

is the way

to be tackled by theoretical
of the problem
analy
itself. Put some
the conceptual
materials
of the analysis
sis, not as providing
structures are generally
what
treated, not as the values of
differently, concrete
as
more
interaction
the
resultants
of
the
than one variable. A
of
but
variables,
inwhich

the structure

of a waterfall

would

be

treated

It, like any other object of analysis, has a "form," which

physics.
as involving for instance, an arc
is perfectly capable
of geometrical
description
even occur
never
to a physicist
it
to
But
of
of a certain
would
type
parabola.

any aspect of the flow of water over a fall as

explain
as a causal factor. He
considered
the arc of a parabola
on the one hand a deeper-lying
structure, that of the
the fact that they were
rigid enough not to
including
short period.
The
problem.

This

structure would

be

treated

the result, in any part, of

treat as "causes,"
would
contours
of the riverbed,

erode

as a set of

significantly
"constants"

constants

other main

would
be the relevant properties
its specific gravity and viscosity. Then as the values of variables would
the volume
and rate of flow of water, from which,
in combination
concrete
of
the
form
the
for the
the
formula
constants,
fall, including

over
of

the

of water,
be

treated

with

the

particular
in question, would
that itwould
[13] be derived. This does not mean
parabola
not be possible
to ascertain
for physicists
the parabolas
of waterfalls
by direct
and use these formulas as the values
in the
of a basic variable
observation,
It
is
not
of
what
it
that
that
method
would
be
happens.
explanation
only
by
same
a
to
with
the
of
derive
theoretical
formulas
of
degree
possible,
simplicity,
but to a large
degree of generality, applying not only to waterfalls,
comparable
of
other
variety
physical phenomena.
is taken from a simple field of application
This example
of a particular
theo
retical system, the classical mechanics.
The long experience
of the science
of

seems to have shown that this system gives accurate

results only in so
physics
to conceive
as
far as it is possible
the concrete
it applies
systems to which
a
certain
come
to
or
which
has
"atomistic"
be
called
type,
closely approaching
"mechanical."

The

to treat

the units

relations

to other

solar

system

feature of such systems for us is that it is possible

as descriptively
their properties
of their
independent
treatment of the
units of the system. Thus
in the Newtonian
relevant

and

the masses
of

of the bodies

the distances

which

make

from or velocities

it up are treated as entirely

to each other.
It is,
relative

independent
this assumption which,
in relation to certain astronomical
however,
precisely
the theory of relativity has had to question.
it cor
If I understand
problems,
introduced by the theory of relativity, and the other great
rectly, the innovations

of modern
the quantum
the fact that
physics,
theory, have in common
*
no
as
treat
their
sense.
in
atomistic
this
longer
they
systems
strictly
even in
If a certain modification
of this type of theory has proved necessary
it is not surprising that currents of thought of fundamental
physics,
importance
branch

38

A comparative
example from the social field is that of the way inwhich an economist would ordinarily treat
a competitive market situation. Such a market has a structure just as a waterfall has. The term competition
is descriptive
of an aspect of that structure just as the parabolic
curve is of the physical structure. More
over, competition, being a mode of the interrelations of human individuals in a process of social interaction
is in Simmel's
technical sense a "social form." Competition
is not, however, a variable
in the system of

The

American

Sociologist/Summer

This content downloaded from 119.15.93.148 on Wed, 2 Jul 2014 04:15:33 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

1998

reflection on such
[14] fields have, since conscious
it an obligation
of scientific analysis
subjects began, always refused to consider
term
with as strictly atomistic. The
to treat the systems they were
concerned
in the biological

and

social

the difference
for the property which primarily makes
generally acceptable
to be that such systems are to a greater or less degree
"organic."** The
it is impossible
to
usual definition of an organic
system is one relative to which

most

seems

in and
of their mutual
relations
of the parts as independent
a
arises
whether
the
thus
of
system
"organicity"
question
alters the status of structure as a variable from the case of the atomistic
system.
an important sense in which
this is true. To be sure it
is undoubtedly
There
to understand
of a system solely in terms of the
is never possible
the behavior
treat the properties
to the whole.
The

terms which
relational
of its units. There are always certain minimum
properties
are required,
in order that the conception
in terms of the frame of reference,
of
an existent
sense at all; what
I have elsewhere
make
called
its
system should
***
a
are
in
mechanical
like
distance
relations.
These,
system,
always
elementary
a system is organic
to an impor
taken account of in an atomistic analysis. When
are not
features which
the total system has descriptive
logically required by the frame of reference as such. Since they are properties
from those of the units, they are,
of the total functioning
system, not derivable
tant degree,

according
structure

however,

to the definition

adopted

here,

closely

identified with

the form or

of the system.
It is true that Simmel was

forms of
attacking certain extreme
self-consciously
but a mode
social theory; social form to him was not a "substance,"
"organic"
But nevertheless
itmay well be suspected
that in treating form as an
of process.
a
was
he
with certain
variable
of
way
dealing adequately
seeking
independent

of

these [15] organic

features of social systems. This may well
be the main
reason why he did not bring in the rather obvious considerations
just discussed
as to why structural categories
on the immediately descriptive
level do not have
an important place
in the analytical
theory of mechanics.
This

presumption

of social

thought,
"utilitarian"
social

connotations

is greatly strengthened
by an important fact of the history
economic
the extent to which
theory and the closely related
since one of the several
has
been
"individualistic,"
theory

of this term is atomism

in the sense

of this discussion,
and has,
as
in Germany
in Simmel's
attacked
such. It
time, been continually
particularly
that Simmel was
of the
may well be suspected
seeking a way of taking account
elements
individualistic
without
the
theories,
organic
neglected
involving
by
so common
has been
of the latter in all respects, which
repudiation
in the organic
situation underlying
traditions of social thought. The analytical
this presumption
is in need of further clarification.

wholesale

economic
analysis is habitually applied.
theory, it is a descriptive aspect of the systems towhich economic
is competitive
of anything, but is something for the economist
to
That a market
is not the explanation
in the
explain. As causal factors, on the other hand, the economist will use the numbers of participants
resources on either side, among them, the "conditions"
market on both sides, the distribution of economic
of demand for the particular product or service dealt with and the supply of cost conditions.

**
See Structure
***
Ibid., p 734.

Parsons

of Social

Action,

pp 3Iff, pp 738ff.

39

This content downloaded from 119.15.93.148 on Wed, 2 Jul 2014 04:15:33 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

is a sense

in which

the basic
of economics
in
schema
explanatory
to that of classical
to a competitive market situation is closely analogous
has a structure, the individu
mechanics.
Such a competitive market undoubtedly
There

relation

to one another, on the

forms of relationship
as
to
sales.
actual and potential
hand
parties
in the case of the waterfall, would
like physicists
But traditionally economists,
not attempt to explain anything by the "form" of competition.
The competitive
as a statement of the analytical problem.
rather be described
market would
als in it stand

in certain

determinate

as competitors,

one

Explanation
"motivation"

on

the other

be in different
however, would
the maximization
of individuals,

terms, this time of elements of the

of money proceeds
from the trans

features of the situation,

and, on the other, hand, of certain deeper-lying
as
such
the
the relevant commodi
available
of
[16]
quantities
partly structural,
ties or services, or the "costs" of producing
and
the
of demand"
"conditions
them,
as
are
not consumers, of others
on the part of buyers
ultimate consumers, or if they
actions,

in the society.
This kind of schema
in the utilitarian

has,

general
central
tion

of
conception
inwhat
position

in the social

field

for the analysis of certain

of thought, been

tradition

types of social
out
broadened

relationships
to the more

a
As such it has occupied
relationships."
has perhaps
been the most
tradi
important theoretical
in modern
times. At the same time there has been an

"contractual

movement

of thought which
has shown
that the elements
usually
in
economic
the
of
analysis
competitive markets, or in the
explicitly
account
to account
of contractual
for certain
broader
relations, are inadequate
of the important features of systems of such relations, above all their stability,
extend beyond
of motivation which
the range of "immediate eco
and elements
important

formulated

is that while
The essential point
individualistic
theories
on
stress
to
what
be
called
the
"factual"
conditions
of
tended
have
may
lay
the biological work-powers
of men etc.
contractual
relations, natural resources,
on the one hand, their biological
of thought
needs on the other, the movement
nomic

self-interest."*

in question
such
has laid stress on what may be called
"normative"
conditions,
the institutional
rules of honesty and other aspects of the property
system,
in economic
activities.
and of the ultimate values directly expressed
of the analy
that for purposes
Both these types of elements have in common,
or
a
even
sis of the action of a particular
limited
of
individual,
sub-system of
as

as a particular market-price
problem,
they may, with relatively little
to
Their crucial analytical
[17] importance
accuracy often be neglected.
damage
as variables,
evident with
the attempt to formulate a general
has only become
action

such

ized analysis of total social systems.

Seen in this context, Simmel's attempt was

certainly leading in the right direc

since their importance was not
In terms of his approach
these elements,
an
evident from the consideration
of
isolated
individual, are neces
necessarily
on
his emphasis
involved in the structure of total systems. Hence,
sarily closely
tion.

1893: bk II, ch. 7; Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and

Durkheim,
See also Structure of Social Action, chap. XIII and XIV.

40 The

the Spirit of Capitolism

American

[Weber

Sociologist/Summer

This content downloaded from 119.15.93.148 on Wed, 2 Jul 2014 04:15:33 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

1930].

1998

it much
is a way of stating the problems, which
makes
categories
the empirical
role of the non-individualistic
elements
difficult to neglect
it plays
than was
the utilitarian mode
of thought. In this respect
the case with
a role similar to that of conceptions
of organic totality in biology, from Aristotle's
structural

more

down.2
entelechy
But this relative

to
usefulness,
important as itmay be, should not be allowed
distract attention from the fact that Simmel's schema obscures certain very important
which
other developments
of social theory, not open to
analytical possibilities
the above

develop
analysis,

directed against atomism, have opened

up. I should like to
rest upon an
two
of
these
both
of
which
aspects
possibilities,
briefly
to exclude
not of form as such, but of what
Simmel wished
from
criticisms

the "motives" or "interests" of individuals.

sociological
conceptualization,
rather consists of the "mo
Simmel distinguished
form from "content," which
tives" or "interests" of individuals. The latter are then classified
in relation to the

differentiation
is clear on
is not

of human

the one hand

activities,
that what

as "economic,"
etc. It
"religious,"
"political,"
is ordinarily called the "motivation"
of action

in the analytical
of social form, on the other that a
concept
is for Simmel an integral unit which
for his purposes
he
does not attempt to subject to any [18] further analysis. Simmel does not carry
to commit himself, but the presump
his discussion
of the problem
far enough
involved
or an

motive

interest

in terms of a one-to-one
correspondence
its appropriate
motive.
having

tion is that he

thinks

and

act

each

between

motive

act,
But it is precisely
on which
here that the analytical possibility
Simmel's
ap
closes
is no better empirical
the door, opens up. There
proach
justification for
a one-to-one
act and motive
than there was
between
assuming
correspondence
for the

similar assumption
the so-called
"unit character"
logically
underlying
*
was
a
one-to-one
of
in
inheritance
that
there
theory
biology,
correspondence
between
unit of heredity,
the analytical
the "gene," and the concrete
somatic

of the developed
In both cases a similar undesirable
organism.
rigidity
on
one
the
hand
the
denial
of
the possibility of environmental
influence
results,
on the organism,
on the other such conceptions
as that of the "egoism" of the
character

economic

man,

concrete

man's

The

fact

accepted

as a literal total description

of the concrete

business

motives.

is that the
theories

of economic
and
theory or of psychological
not be treated as names for concrete
as
but
entities,

"motives"

should

sociological
In particular
the classifications
of motives,
analytical
categories.
are not classifications
which
Simmel employs,
of concrete motives,
Concrete
distinctions.
analytical
some
involve
combination
always

motives

are

seldom

of the elements

such

as

that

but rest on

types" but almost

in the classifica
distinguished
"pure

tions.

This proposition
could be rigorously proved
in terms of a large number of
different empirical
fields, if space permitted. Here itwill have to suffice to call *
attention to the situation with reference to the problem of "economic motives."
*

On

Parsons

this theory, see H.S.

Jenning's

The Biological

Basis

of Human

Nature

[Jennings,

41

This content downloaded from 119.15.93.148 on Wed, 2 Jul 2014 04:15:33 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

1930].

of the most

inferences
from the older economic
empirical
objectionable
from
this
element of
identification
of
the
flowed
[19] economic
theory
precisely
concrete
the "rational pursuit of self-interest" with
the total con
motivation,
crete motivation
of a concrete
system of action. On the one hand analysis has,

Many

I venture

not

to say, definitely proved,

that economic
in this sense can
motivation
or
the concrete motivation
of the individuals
in market
involved

exhaust

"economic"
relations, but that any concrete motivation
system relevant to
must be far more complex.
the analysis of such phenomena
This is true in spite
it is quite
of the fact that for certain limited purposes
legitimate to treat only
as variables
elements of motivation
these economic
in the analytical problem
in
as
are
account
of
the
others
constants, which,
hand, taking
however,
logically
other

of any sound empirical

conclusions.
premises
the other hand, the investigations which
have demonstrated
the empirical
a
a
of
of
of
contractual
relations, or of the
system
conception
inadequacy
purely
concrete
men
actions
as motivated
en
the
of
of
modern
business
conception
essential
On

of analytical develop
tirely by the pursuit of self interest, have, in the process
ment
come
which
their
to be directly
authors
have
carried
inte
them,
through
a
with
the
motivation
action
in
which
the
grated
theory of
generalized
of
has a crucially
important place, not however,
a
as the concrete motive of
class of action, but as an element standing in certain
In the case
quite definite structural relations to other, quite different elements.
element

of economic

motivation

of Max Weber's

in the spirit of
elements
analysis of the role of "disinterested"
a
articulation
this
with
of
motivation
has
been direct.
general
capitalism,
theory
more
In that of Durkheim's
was
it
indirect, but
relations,
analysis of contractual
of the role of a sense of moral obligation
in the enforce
through his conception
rules, came to be none the less definite.
true
It
is
this
that
of action contains
[20]
generalized
theory of the motivation
of fundamental
in relation to the
structural elements
it
is
Indeed
importance.
structure of social systems of action that it is by far [the] most highly developed
so

ment

of institutional

this is not

a vindication

it is rather a
of Simmel's
analytical approach,
has
several
times
Social
been
mentioned.
conspicuous
example
already
structure described
in Simmel's terms as a complex of forms of social relationship,
is broken down analytically,
is not treated as an independent
variable, or system
far. But

of what

of them, but as a resultant of the interdependence

of a group of other variables.
are not elements of the forms of relationships,
these variables
but of the
motives
of action, the very elements which
from the
Simmel explicitly excluded
to
consideration
of
science.
If
one's
sociological
sociological
analytical
approach
And

author, through the theory of social

theory is, as in the case of the present
"throws out the baby with
action, Simmel's
formula, far from being acceptable,
it excludes
the bath." By definition
from the start the conceptual
elements which

form the basis

of the analytical

system of sociological

See the author's "Reflections on the 'Nature and Significance

ics, Vol. 48 [Parsons, 1934] and Structure of Social Action,
pp. 264ff.

42

theory.

of Economies'"
[Parsons,

The

1937]

American

of Econom
Quarterly Journal
chap. IV, pp. I6lff, chap. VI

Sociologist/Summer

This content downloaded from 119.15.93.148 on Wed, 2 Jul 2014 04:15:33 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

1998

a little farther, I should

of this exclusion
the consequences
Before developing
Simmel's procedure
like to say a few words
about the other respect in which
to soci
on
of
fundamental
shuts the door
importance
analytical considerations
is, as has been
said, a descriptive
aspect of all empirical
sys
ology. Structure
tems. But precisely
the concept

it is common

because

sis on

to all empirical
systems, basing analy
into the methodological
basis of a

fails to build

of structure

are of especial
im
system, certain of the elements which
analytical
to the analysis of the particular
it is applied.
portance
type of systems to which
the more
The further the analytical theory of social action has developed,
[21]
evident it has become how fundamental to it is one feature of action systems, what

particular

I have

elsewhere

their "normative orientation."*

called

Normative

orientation

is an

of the frame of reference of action, the means-end

logical component
indispensable
to think in such terms without
it. Moreover
the basic
it is impossible
schema;
two
necessitates
the analytical distinction
between
fact of normative orientation
classes

of elements

Now

of action

Simmel's

systems, the normative

of the concrete
system

and

"conditional"

elements.

is far from being

"society"
and
of
of the means-end
action,
logically
schema. His definition of content by such terms as impulse, end, interest and
a process
motive
is sufficient to prove that. Indeed, "society" for him is precisely
of continuous mutually oriented action of individuals
in relation to one another.
are processes
The essential
sense of the
in the technical
of action
processes
concept
of the frame of reference
independent

But the "line" which Simmel's distinction

theory of action now under consideration.
between
form and content draws
through the facts singles out the concrete
structural

forms of social

Concrete

structural

for the attention of sociological

relationship
theory.
a category
to which
the whole
fact of
is, however,
and the distinction
and Spannung3
between
normative

form

normative

orientation,
conditional
elements

and

is conceptually
of normative
orientation

whole

problem
a matter
becomes
But

for the "social

this fact has

irrelevant. This

results

over

into the sphere

not for sociology.

sciences,"

the most

in pushing
the
of "content";
it

For in relation to the

far-reaching consequences.
of
it
is
to
the
active
orientation
normative
elements which
action,
theory
plays
the analytical
role analogous
It
is by
[22] to that of energy in physical
theory.
virtue of that alone that the analytical
becomes
the
of
system
theory
dynamic
of process

But without
the capability
of analyzing,
not
change.
in
the
relations
of
the
variation
of
vari
merely describing,
process
independent
it is impossible
to establish
or "laws" in the usual
causal
ables,
relationships
scientific sense. This situation is, in my opinion,
source
the principal
analytical
systems,

of one

and

of the most

sociology,
phenomena,
Simmel's

striking, and
its "static" character.

features of "formal"
scientifically unsatisfactory
It does not yield a causal analysis of empirical
in some sense dynamic
systems.

are always
and formula have
procedure
which

at least two respects.

It has been
as
an
regarded
attempt to work
*

See Structure
throughout

Parsons

of Social
the book.

Action,

[Parsons,

an

out

pointed
out a mode
1937]

chap.

important historical
justification
that in one connection,
itmay
of analysis

II pp 44 ff and Note

of social
A.

Also

43

This content downloaded from 119.15.93.148 on Wed, 2 Jul 2014 04:15:33 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

in
be

phenomena

frequently discussed

theories,
against the atomistic
subject to the criticisms directed
likewise
avoid
and
which
would
"economic
of
those
individualism,"
particularly
time.
his
of
German
much
of
the
social
of
the more extreme
theory
"organicism"
was

which

But

not

to this Simmel

in addition
of much

reproduction

in
very important insight which was
was
that
the
time: This
the realization

another

of the though of his

fruitful scientific
the most

of much

advance
basis

had

is not a naive
conceptualization
a high
external
but
involves
of
the
world,
objects
was
a
sense
dominant
in
this
abstraction.
"Empiricism"

of

of the concrete

of analytical
degree
at the
of social theory in almost all schools
of the methodology
characteristic
the legitimacy, even the necessity, of analytical abstrac
time. To have vindicated
tion

was

a great

service.

theory it does not

are
fruitful for
of [23] abstraction
and directions
equally
on the path of abstraction
is
That Simmel embarked

that all modes

follow
all

scientific
to be

greatly
various

purposes.
commended.

But

distinct modes

to scientific

is essential

But from the fact that abstraction

it is unfortunate
of abstraction

that he

did

their mutual

and

not

the
analyze
relations more

possible
itmay be useful, very
discussion
thoroughly. To clarify the previous
three different types of abstract concepts,
of which
cally, to distinguish
form is only one.
Simmel

was,

of

course,

aware

that

concrete

phenomenon

or

schemati
Simmel's
system,

a verbal

is not

of

as

the

for scientific purposes,

simply
reproduction
But this is not
but involves a selective ordering and abstraction.
external world,
concern. Once
a system has been described,
itmay be analyzed on
the present
into units and their structural relations.
the structural level, as discussed
above,
in a sense an abstrac
It is obvious
that the structural relations always constitute

described

to think of

them as

apart from the

"existing"
a
can
state.
not
which
is
"Marriage"
thing,
they
to any human beings;
it is a mode
in which
reference

it is nonsensical
tion, because
relations
relata, the units whose

exist concretely without

concrete
human beings are related to one another.
The unit of an atomistic system is not an abstraction

in quite

the same

sense.

are thought of as quite inde

in classical mechanics
of a particle
properties
can
to
its
It
of
relations
other
be
taken out of the system and
pendent
particles.
to
still be the "same" particle. But in so far as the system is organic,
this ceases

The

true, and a unit in the sense of an entity thought of as existing apart from
its relations in a concrete
system is a fiction. Itmight be possible
experimentally
or conceptually
to isolate such a unit. But itwould
not be a unit of that system
be

an isolable particle
is a unit of mechanical
[24] sense in which
systems.
to
discussion
abstraction
is
limited
this distinction
of units and
of
as form is
structural
His insistence
that the unit or content, as well
relations.
an abstraction,
that social systems are
is, I think, largely a result of his realization
in the

Simmel's

in the sense of the above discussion.

highly organic
a third type of abstract concept
There
is, however,

in the methodology
what may be called
overlap
44

with

either

which
plays a basic role
That is
and which
of science,
Simmel ignores completely.
or variable.
In content
this may
the "analytical
element"

of the other

two, but

it need

The

not. A variable

American

may

be

Sociologist/Summer

This content downloaded from 119.15.93.148 on Wed, 2 Jul 2014 04:15:33 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

simply

1998

a particle as existing
of a unit or system of units. One can conceive
one
cannot
as independently
conceive
But
"mass"
its
relations.
of
independently
sense
in
"a mass"
non
existent. The expression
the
technical
of
is,
mechanics,
one
mass
is
sensical. Yet
of the theory of mechanics.
of the basic variables
a "property"

are for
content of a variable
coincides
with what
Whether
the conceptual
some purposes
is not, however,
unit or relational concepts
the important point.
never simply describes
It may be said that a system of variables
the units and
on
most
concrete
structural relations of an empirical
the
level relevant
system

within

the frame of reference

Such description,
the
being employed.
including
relations from the properties
of units always
has the
for causal analysis. Such analysis involves in addi
function of stating a problem
to the particular facts of a system of variables.
tion to description
the application
This application
refer
involves, explicitly or implicitly, a comparative
always
abstraction

of structural

ence

to parts of the range of variation of the variables which

lie beyond
the
It
is
virtue
in the particular
of
involved
generalized
only by
description.
of the variable, derived
of the relations of inter- [25] dependence,
knowledge
values

to draw causal
that it is logically possible
Fur
conclusions.
comparison,
from
is derived,
the comparison
from which
such generalized
thermore,
knowledge
cannot be limited to a descriptive
of structures on this most con
comparison
crete

level.*
descriptive
It is true that structural

often play
categories
it is safe to say that this is never

But
explanation.
concrete
descriptive
cussed
there
used
why

structures. We
In the case

an

important role in causal

true when
they are the most
revert to the three types of cases dis

may
of the common-sense

of a table
early
description
is no dynamic problem.
The conception
of the table may, however,
be
to
certain
not
do
take
processes
why
explain
dynamic
negatively
place,
it do not fall to the floor. This causal
for instance objects
upon
placed
in the paper.

be derived merely from observation

of the table.
cannot, however,
in addition
the application
of generalized
It is
analytical knowledge.
safe to say that Simmel did not think of form in relation to this kind of static case.
to the case of the waterfall.
His thinking is more analogous
But the analogy
of form in the sense
in which
he treats it as causally
is not the
significant
knowledge
It requires

concrete

This is causally
form
of the fall, but the structure of the riverbed.
form of the
significant to the process of fall of the water,
including the concrete
it sets limits to the dynamic process
can
of flow. If the physicist
fall, because
take certain features of the riverbed as given, can neglect their interdependence

with

the process
is structural

That

then his dynamic problem

is immensely
simplified.
as
constant
are always
data
for
categories,
dynamic problems,
But these are never the structures of systems on the most
significance.

of causal

of flow,

this distinc
level, but [26] on a deeper one. Simmel, in failing to make
tion of levels in its application
to his methodological
a serious
creates
problems,
confusion. Descriptively
his forms are the forms of concrete
social relationships.
concrete

But

these

On

have

all this, see Structure

795ff.
Parsons

cannot

causal

significance

in relation

of Social

Action,

1937]

[Parsons

chap.

to processes

XVI,

pp. 601-624

45

This content downloaded from 119.15.93.148 on Wed, 2 Jul 2014 04:15:33 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

of change

and chap.

XIX,

in

pp.

in fact
structure, which most
sociological
important dynamic
problems
involve. So, in his empirical
essays, we find that he does not in fact explain social
the forms, and then turns to other elements for his
processes by forms. He describes
social

is his treatment of number as a determinant

explanations. An excellent
example
of social relationships.4
We must not forget, then, that although structural categories may often have
it is only as constant data in a dynamic problem.
causal
This fact
significance,

the generality
of any theory which
depends
primarily on such
are significant only within
Its categories
the range in which
it is
legitimate to assume relative constancy. Beyond that range new dynamic

limits

rigidly
concepts.

empirically
elements must
structural

be admitted

level. After

all

to the problem, which

takes the theory of it off the
the essence
of theoretical
in science
advance
is the

of higher and higher levels of analytical generalization.

The use of form
as
the constructive
of explanatory
concepts
principle
theory, is not an instru
ment in this process
it is a statement of the limitations on theoretical
of advance,
are
which
necessitated
of the time.
generalization
ignorance
by the scientific
reaching

Advance
through
It would

of the "theory of forms," but [27]

comes, not through the development
the replacement
of such concepts by those of dynamic analytical theory.
a more pernicious
be difficult to conceive
doctrine,
methodological

in its long run

to with

than Simmers.
science,
For, if it were
the effect would
be a fixation
of generalized
on the present
levels, the inhibition
of social processes
knowledge
elementary
in the theory of human
social
behavior.
progress
of all analytical

adhered

implications
for
real faithfulness,

social

of the kind of systematization

of which
Simmel's
This brings us to the question
terms
in
is
This
what
has
best
be
discussed
of
of
social
may
type
theory
capable.
case
own
to
is
of
the
of
formal
Simmel's
theory
actually happened
sociology.

great interest. In spite of being the originator of the methodological

program, he
a system of theory on its basis. His other
never even attempted
to develop
a
in
series
consist
of essays on particular
social forms.
writings
sociological
are brilliantly illuminating essays, among the finest things to be found in
These

a*
literature. But even taken together they clearly do not comprise
sociological
as
Simmel
has already been
remarked,
Moreover,
system of formal sociology.
follow out his methodological
does not consistently
program even in these dis
connected
and uses

studies.

It is true that he

talks about

social

forms. He

describes

use
not consistently
are full of reference
to motives

them as his

But he does

them
them as

starting point.
and the
His discussions
categories.
explanatory
The very great fruitfulness and
banned.
other things he has methodologically
use of forms as
not
his
from
these
of
derives,
essays
methodological
originality
the
fact
that
he
from
the
but
tools,
analysis of social
approaches
analytical
phenomena

from an unusual

point

of view which

cuts across

the conventional

etc. But his actual

of economic,
political,
compartments
motivational.
is not "formal," it is overwhelmingly
sense

level which,

however
does

problems,
development
of the systematic
empirical

46

it may
contribute

much
not

analytical

[28] theory
explanatory
Only it remains on a common
illuminate certain hitherto obscure

in any

important
theory of human

The

American

measure
social

to the
life.

Sociologist/Summer

This content downloaded from 119.15.93.148 on Wed, 2 Jul 2014 04:15:33 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

1998

von Wiese.
is that of Leopold
Professor von Wiese
has
a
to
build
Simmel's formula and attempted
system of formal
accepted
is an elaborate
The result of this attempt
classification
of possible

A very different
explicitly

case

sociology.
types of social

It starts from the most general possible

criterion of
relationship.
are
or
"associative"
relations
and
whether
"dissociative,"
distinction,
proceeds
more and more criteria. Empirical material
has a place
by adding progressively
is no attempt at explanation,
only by way of illustration. There
only at pinning
to certain empirical
of the structural types thus constructed,
is not to say that classification,
of structural types as well as other
is not an entirely legitimate and indispensable
But
scientific procedure.
in two respects, on the descriptive
cation has its function mainly
level as
the labels
This

cases.

things,
classifi

stating
on
as
the
the problems
for theoretical
the
mode
of
system
analysis,
analytical,
In the former case a classification
is
variables.
atizing the values of particular
to
extent
to
in
it
direct
the
which
is
inte
significant
scientifically
proportion

a system of analytical
classification
grated with
theory. Professor von Wiese's
nor is it
does not grow out of far-reaching
of
causation,
empirical problems
It
As
it
with
is
formal."
is very
such
any analytical
integrated
system.
"purely
little more
in spinning out the logical implications
than an exercise
of defini

it becomes
further elaborated
the less useful are its creations
[29] as
of empirical
research. This formal sterility is indeed inevitable
if the for
as the sole methodological
mula
of Simmel
is strictly followed,
of a
program
theoretical
science. The situation becomes
clear
through comparison
especially
of the work of von Wiese with
that of Max Weber.
tions. The

tools

The

extensive
to be found inWeber's
system of explicit
conceptualization
is the system of ideal types, most
in the first part of
formulated
fully
no
und
is
There
but what
[Weber 1925].6
(sic)
Wirtschaft
Gesellschaft
question
this constitutes
in the sense of Simmel and von Wiese.
formal sociology
It con
work

firms the fact that the sole possible

mode
of systematization
for such theory is
of types. But there are, apart from the specific concepts
used,
two striking differences from the system of von Wiese.
In the first place Weber's

a classification

in the course of a far-reaching program

constructed
types were predominantly
of empirical
above
all his comparative
in the sociology
studies
of
research,
a
is
Each
in
tool
the
task
of
with
religion.
type
grappling
basically
important
not of classification.
Hence
empirical problems, problems
relationship,
of causal
in origin it is not formal in the sense of Wiese's
system. The formal systematics

is secondary
uses. Weber
to the empirical
did not start with
certain formal
distinctions
and spin out further distinctions
from there.
*
that its systematic aspect
is by
investigation of this system shows
Secondly,
no means
limited to the "formal" side. On the contrary the basic
logical frame
work of the classification
is the outline of an analytical
system of theory, on a
level of analysis than the structure of social relationships.
It is, in fact,
deeper
one of the most complete
versions
of certain aspects
of the "theory of social
to be found in the literature. In spite of the fact that Weber was meth
action"
*

Parsons

See Structure

of Social

Action,

[Parsons

1937]

chap. XVII.

47

This content downloaded from 119.15.93.148 on Wed, 2 Jul 2014 04:15:33 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

unaware
of [30] certain of the vital functions of analytical
theory,
odologically
in his own work he built up the outline of an analytical system, driven, we may
facts. Thus his "formal"
surmise,
largely by the sheer logic of his empirical
a conceptual
is closely
with
of relationships
classification
system on
integrated
a deeper

level. It is this, combined with

analytical
saves
it from the objectionable
which

problems,

its close

to empirical
of von Wiese's

relation

"formalism"

system. Both these features are notably lacking in the latter. In short the formal
is scientifically fruitful precisely because
theoretical work
he did
part ofWeber's
out
not limit himself to Simmel's methodological
carried
formal
but
program,
in empirical
with dynamic problems
of causation
theorizing only in connection

and integrated his formal concepts

research,
system,
directly with an analytical
are essential
of which
tools dealing with the same range of empiri
the concepts
cal problems. What
did on a
Simmel, failing to live up to his own program,
common-sense
with
brilliant
and
dillentantish,
level,
many
arresting insights, but

no

structure of proof of propositions

of far-reaching importance, Weber
a
on
far
level,
higher
building up a rigorous proof of
meticulously
accomplished
not of a brilliant dilettante, but of a sober professional
his theses, in the manner
in science,
scientist. Brilliant dilettantes
have their place
but the progress
of
imposing

can

that stage
hardly be left to their efforts alone. And overcoming
a careful analytical
of
the
methodological
study
problems
underly
as that of Simmel.
ing such proposals
In spite of these virtues, there are a number of points at which Weber
falls

science

necessitates

short of the highest

level of rigor in his proofs
in these respects
of
his
work
capable.
Analysis

his empirical
level is
source of
that one main

of which
shows

is the following of a formal procedure

[31] difficulties lies inwhat, in essence,
not
in Simmel's
is
where
that
This results in
advisable.
sense,
methodologically

his

a kind of "ideal-type atomism" which

cannot be dealt with here.*
unfortunately
in con
A few of the more
important points of this paper may be reiterated
of social
clusion. On the level of his own explicit definitions Simmel's categories
form are not suitable

on the theoretical
tools in problems
of causal explanation
level at all, but only of description
for the purposes
of clear statement of explana
The importance
of this function should not be underestimated,
tory problems.
in science particular
but by the same token, in relation to just what
functions
are important, should be made as clear
types of concepts
on
the
other
hand, not on the most concretely
concepts,

as possible.

Structural

level, but
descriptive
level of analysis, may have considerable
for explanatory
significance
But even here they play their role in the form of constant data, not
purposes.
as functionally
variables of a system. The more,
then, a theoreti
interdependent
on

the next

cal

scheme

less can
*

to attain a high level of generality as an explanatory

tool, the
hopes
on
structure
it depend,
of the
the
the
facts
of
empirically,
descriptive

See Structure of Social Action,

[Parsons 1937] chap. XVI, pp. 607ff. It is hoped the reader will excuse the
continual references to the author's own work. The explanation
lies in the fact that the content of the
as a chapter of that book which,
it was
for reasons of space,
present paper was originally conceived
to omit. It constitutes an extension of the analytical argument of the book into a slightly different
decided
field. Hence, references must continually be made to the starting points of the extension,
in the book itself.
Without
of the paper will be difficult.
familiarity with these, comprehension

48 The

American

Sociologist/Summer

This content downloaded from 119.15.93.148 on Wed, 2 Jul 2014 04:15:33 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

1998

it applies. To elevate
the formulation
of structural
systems to which
as
as
near
concrete
in
the
level
and
the sole
this
sense,
categories
possible,
structural
of
such
mode
of
categories,
possible
systematization
type-classifica
of theory in any
tion, into the sole methodological
program for the development
empirical

to set rigid limits, which are in principle declared

is (precisely)
science,
empirical
to be [32] insurmountable,
to the development
of analytical explanatory
theory
in the field in question.
This is to cut off at the source the growth of the very
of knowledge
has proved most fruitful in the advancement
type of theory which

are almost universally

branches
of sci
regarded as the most advanced
sciences.
Its inevitable
the physical
effect would
be either to condemn
cut if off from any real
to a rigid and sterile formalism which would
sociology
in what

ence,

grappling with dynamic empirical problems

it to a brilliant dilettantism
else to condemn

of broad

scope and
like that of Simmel

or
significance,
himself which,

of a science, can hardly be

stages in the development
on
a
to
erect
which
for
the general
theoretical
program
satisfactory
so strikingly exemplified
in the
of the field. It is this dilemma,
development
so far, von
directions which
the work
of the two leading formal sociologists
fruitful at certain

however
a

basis

Wiese

and Simmel himself, have taken, which

justified the harsh judgment, that
itwould,
in the long run interests of sociological
theory, be difficult to conceive
a more pernicious
than that of Simmel,
doctrine
if it is taken
methodological
as
the
sole
of
theoretical
program
seriously
defining
acceptable
conceptualization

for an empirical
science.
The author's own conviction

that the dilemma

need

not be accepted
Itmay, however,

has been

the present paper.

be noted
throughout
on knowledge
is based
that analytical
of
the type
theory
here advocated
is not, in the social field a mere program, but a reality which
has
*
a
reached
of
The
of
socio
progress
already
relatively high stage
development.
social sciences,
lies in following
logical theory, as that of the other theoretical
to a higher state, not in turning away from them to follow
up those beginnings
abundantly
expressed
that this conviction

what

is, from this point

like that of Simmel.

of view

an enticing,

but essentially

fruitless program,

At the beginning
itwas
of this paper
said that we do not propose
to revive
the question
of the scope of sociology. No attempt will here be made
to draw
the lines between
and
its
in
the
field
of
human
affairs.
neighbors
sociology
Suffice it to say that it is the author's
that
most
conviction
the
strong
promising
to develop
to our knowledge
its contribution
of man and his social
way
life,
does not lie in making
itmethodologically
have us do,
unique, as Simmel would
in centering
it on a system of analytical
is part of a still larger
theory, which
as
a
of
with
human
action
It is because
social
whole.
Simmel's
system
theory dealing
a
for
to
direct obstacle
program
methodological
sociological
theory constitutes
this kind of development,
to submit to the
that it has seemed worth while
but

profession

That

Parsons

at this time a discussion

this is the case

is the most

important

of the methodological

thesis of The Structure

of Social

issues

underlying

Action

[Parsons

49

This content downloaded from 119.15.93.148 on Wed, 2 Jul 2014 04:15:33 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

1937].

it.

Notes
1. Parsons originally discussed
in relation to economics.
He held that if economics
"encyclopedic
sociology"
were to based upon empiricist principles
itwould have "no place for a logically separate body of principles
of economics."
would
be "merely the application
to a particular body of concrete
Rather, economics
of the general principles necessary for understanding human conduct." Hence,
con
itwould
phenomena
stitute "encyclopedic
"the synthesis of all scientific theory relevant to the concrete
facts of
sociology":
in society." He concluded
human behavior
that "economics
then becomes
(Parsons,
applied
sociology"
1937: 173).
"a realization or actuality as opposed
2. This means,
to a potentiality," or in vitalist philosophy
"a vital agent
or force directing growth and life."
3. Tension.
this issue at length. See Part II, "Quantitative Aspects of the Group,"
4. Simmel discusses
in Simmel (1950).
This material was translated from Soziologie
(Simmel 1923).
5. Parsons was undoubtedly
work (Becker and Von Wiese,
referring to Becker's
adaptation of Von Wiese's
for a course that he taught on European
1932), which he placed on a bibliography
Sociological
Theory.

References
Fred. 1929. Systematic Sociology
in Germany: A Critical Analysis
Abel, Theodore
of Some Attempts
as an Independent
lish Sociology
Science. New York: Columbia University Press.
la Division
du Travail
Social. Paris: F. Alean.
Durkheim, Emile. 1893. De
Emile. 1924. Sociologie
et Philosophie,
with a preface by C. Bougie. Paris: F. Alean.
Durkheim,
Basis of Human
Nature.
New York: W.W. Norton.
Jennings, Herbert S. 1930. The Biological
1934. "Some Reflections on "The Nature and Significance of Economics,'"
Parsons, Talcott.
Quarterly

-.

to Estab

Journal
48: 511-545.
of Economics
1937. The Structure of Social Action. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Parsons, Talcott.
?ber die Formen der Vergesellschaftung,
Simmel, Georg. 1923. Soziologie:
3. Auflage, M?nchen:
Untersuchung
Duncker
und Humboldt.
Simmel, Georg. 1950. The Sociology
of Georg Simmel. Translated, edited, and with an introduction by Kurt H.
Wolff. Glencoe,
IL: The Free Press.
Theories. New York: Harper and Brothers.
Sorokin, Pitirim. 1928. Contemporary
Sociological
der Sozial?konomik.
III. Abteilung: Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft,
1925. Grundriss
2 vols., J.C.B.
Weber, Max.
Mohr (P. Siebeck), T?bingen.
Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism,
trans, by Talcott Parsons, George Allen &
1930. The Protestant
Un win, Ltd., London.
Wiese,
1932. Systematic Sociology: On the Basis of the Beziehungslebre
and
Leopold von and Howard Becker.
von Wiese. Adapted and amplified by Howard Becker. New York: John Wiley and
Gebildelehre
of Leopold
Sons.

50 The

American

Sociologist/Summer

This content downloaded from 119.15.93.148 on Wed, 2 Jul 2014 04:15:33 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

1998