Page 47 - Cultural Theory

Edwards-3516-Ch-02.qxd 5/9/2007 5:56 PM Page 36

••• Chris Rojek •••

problem of elusiveness. Simmel always returns to the reciprocity of action and the
manifold processes of circulation and exchange that encompass modern experience.
This is at odds with more powerful and, in terms of contemporary academic power
hierarchies, and it must be added, more successful, traditions that frame the disci-
pline either as the study of social institutions, or commit to some version of action
2
sociology. In both traditions a preference for testing propositions in concrete social
and historical settings is accentuated. In contrast, as Siegfried Kracauer (1995: 225)
noted, Simmel’s sociology shows little interest in situating social interaction in its
appropriate historical context. It engages with other figures and positions in the
social sciences in a fleeting manner, and virtually ignores the natural sciences. Nor is
there any commitment to test propositions via fieldwork. ‘He has no interest,’ writes
Kracauer (1995: 257) ‘in grasping a phenomenon in terms of its obvious meaning,
but instead wants to allow the entire plenitude of the world to pour into it.’ This cre-
ates obvious difficulties both in terms of secondary interpretation and pedagogy.
Third, despite his insistence on the value of a scientific approach to society and
culture, he never elucidated a compelling methodology setting out principles of
research for others to follow. Frisby (1981) gets it right when he characterizes
Simmel’s approach as sociological impressionism. His methodology involves opening-
up analytical consciousness to the complexity and subtlety of the manifold, ever-
changing processes of circulation, exchange and interaction. So mush so that in a
book like The Philosophy of Money (1900), Simmel’s magnum opus, the reader is occa-
sionally overwhelmed by the erudite, multi-layered analysis. Simmel seems to notice
everything and make highly original connections between circulation, exchange and
consciousness. It is probably correct to view him as a sociological virtuoso, much like
Goffman later in the twentieth century, whose insights and style of analysis are fre-
quently breath-taking, but whose originality cannot be readily emulated. Imitators of
Simmel and Goffman have generally achieved little other than to reveal the inim-
itability of their masters. There are no schools of Simmel of Goffman as there are, for
example, of Marx, Durkheim, Weber and Parsons. By definition, the virtuoso in
Sociology and Cultural Studies is a one-off and this presents transparent difficulties
in developing the sociological heritage left by these writers.
Fourth, Simmel was badly served by his American tribunes, especially Albion
Small. They represented him as a formal sociologist, the academic chronicler of the
‘dyad’, the ‘triad’, ‘group subdivisions’, ‘hierarchy’, ‘ritual’ and so on. But these for-
mal concepts are actually secondary to his paramount interest in reciprocity, interac-
tion, circulation and exchange. In Simmel we get an early, unusually sophisticated
sense of the contingent, interrelated, tumultuous character of Modern experience
and its relationship to consciousness. It is this sense that makes it so hard to conceive
of his sociology as a contribution to theories of social policy or character. There is
indeed, no obvious action sociology to be extrapolated from Simmel’s work, save per-
haps a commitment to patiently accumulate scientific knowledge. Instead, the bal-
ance of his work is in developing a critical sympathy with the rhythms of Modernity,
so as to separate its distinctive elements from traditional society and to better under-
stand the character of the times. If Marx was the premier sociologist of capitalism,

• 36 •