Editing Georg Simmel (section)

==Views==

===The Metropolis and Mental Life===
{{Main|The Metropolis and Mental Life}}

One of Simmel's most notable essays is "[[The Metropolis and Mental Life]]" ("{{Langx|de|Die Großstädte und das Geistesleben|label=none|italic=no}}") from 1903, which was originally given as one of a series of lectures on all aspects of city life by experts in various fields, ranging from science and religion to art. The series was conducted alongside the [[Dresden]] cities exhibition of 1903. Simmel was originally asked to lecture on the role of intellectual (or scholarly) life in the big city, but he effectively reversed the topic in order to analyze the effects of the big city on the mind of the individual. As a result, when the lectures were published as essays in a book, to fill the gap, the series editor himself had to supply an essay on the original topic.{{citation needed|date=July 2017}}

"The Metropolis and Mental Life" was not particularly well received during Simmel's lifetime. The organisers of the exhibition overemphasised its negative comments about city life, because Simmel also pointed out positive transformations. During the 1920s the essay was influential on the thinking of Robert E. Park and other American sociologists at the University of Chicago who collectively became known as the "[[Chicago school (sociology)|Chicago School]]". It gained wider circulation in the 1950s when it was translated into English and published as part of Kurt Wolff's edited collection, ''The Sociology of Georg Simmel''. It now appears regularly on the reading lists of courses in [[urban studies]] and [[architecture]] history. However, it is important to note that the notion of the blasé is actually not the central or final point of the essay, but is part of a description of a sequence of states in an irreversible transformation of the mind. In other words, Simmel does not quite say that the big city has an overall negative effect on the mind or the self, even as he suggests that it undergoes permanent changes. It is perhaps this ambiguity that gave the essay a lasting place in the discourse on the metropolis.<ref>Simmel, Georg. 1971 [1903]. "The Metropolis and Mental Life." P. 324 in ''Simmel: On individuality and social forms'', edited by [[Donald N. Levine|D. N. Levine]]. Chicago: Chicago University Press. {{ISBN|0226757765}}.</ref>

{{Blockquote|The deepest problems of modern life flow from the attempt of the individual to maintain the independence and individuality of his existence against the sovereign powers of society, against the weight of the historical heritage and the external culture and technique of life. The antagonism represents the most modern form of the conflict which primitive man must carry on with nature for his own bodily existence. The eighteenth century may have called for liberation from all the ties which grew up historically in politics, in religion, in morality and in economics in order to permit the original natural virtue of man, which is equal in everyone, to develop without inhibition; the nineteenth century may have sought to promote, in addition to man's freedom, his individuality (which is connected with the division of labor) and his achievements which make him unique and indispensable but which at the same time make him so much the more dependent on the complementary activity of others; Nietzsche may have seen the relentless struggle of the individual as the prerequisite for his full development, while socialism found the same thing in the suppression of all competition – but in each of these the same fundamental motive was at work, namely the resistance of the individual to being levelled, swallowed up in the social-technological mechanism.|Georg Simmel|''The Metropolis and Mental Life'' (1903)|source=}}

===''The Philosophy of Money''===
{{main|The Philosophy of Money}}

In ''The Philosophy of Money'', Simmel views [[money]] as a component of life which helped us understand the totality of life. Simmel believed people created value by making objects, then separating themselves from that object and then trying to overcome that distance. He found that things which were too close were not considered valuable and things which were too far for people to get were also not considered valuable. Considered in determining value was the scarcity, time, sacrifice, and difficulties involved in getting the object.<ref name="ritzer" />

For Simmel, city life led to a division of labor and increased [[financialisation]]. As financial transactions increase, some emphasis shifts to what the individual can do, instead of who the individual is. Financial matters in addition to emotions are in play.<ref name=ritzer/>

==="The Stranger"===
{{Main|The Stranger (essay)}}

Simmel's concept of distance comes into play where he identifies a stranger as a person that is far away and close at the same time.<ref name="Simmel, Georg 1976">Simmel, Georg. 1976 [1908]. "The Stranger." In ''The Sociology of Georg Simmel''. New York: Free Press.</ref>

{{Blockquote|The Stranger is close to us, insofar as we feel between him and ourselves common features of a national, social, occupational, or generally human, nature. He is far from us, insofar as these common features extend beyond him or us, and connect us only because they connect a great many people.|Georg Simmel|"[[The Stranger (essay)|The Stranger]]" (1908)|source=}}
A stranger is far enough away that he is unknown but close enough that it is possible to get to know him. In a society there must be a stranger. If everyone is known then there is no person that is able to bring something new to everybody.

The stranger bears a certain objectivity that makes him a valuable member to the individual and society. People let down their inhibitions around him and confess openly without any fear. This is because there is a belief that the Stranger is not connected to anyone significant and therefore does not pose a threat to the confessor's life.{{citation needed|date=October 2017}}

More generally, Simmel observes that because of their peculiar position in the group, strangers often carry out special tasks that the other members of the group are either incapable or unwilling to carry out. For example, especially in pre-modern societies, most strangers made a living from trade, which was often viewed as an unpleasant activity by "native" members of those societies. In some societies, they were also employed as [[arbitrator]]s and judges, because they were expected to treat rival factions in society with an [[Impartiality|impartial]] attitude.<ref>{{cite journal|author=Karakayali, Nedim|doi=10.1111/j.1467-9558.2006.00293.x|title=The Uses of the Stranger: Circulation, Arbitration, Secrecy, and Dirt|year=2006|journal=Sociological Theory|volume=24|issue=4|pages=312–330 |hdl=11693/23657|s2cid=53581773|hdl-access=free}}</ref>

{{Blockquote|Objectivity may also be defined as freedom: the objective individual is bound by no commitments which could prejudice his perception, understanding, and evaluation of the given.|Georg Simmel|"The Stranger" (1908)|source=}}

On one hand the stranger's opinion does not really matter because of his lack of connection to society, but on the other the stranger's opinion does matter, because of his lack of connection to society. He holds a certain objectivity that allows him to be unbiased and decide freely without fear. He is simply able to see, think, and decide without being influenced by the opinion of others.{{citation needed|date=July 2017}}

===On secrecy===
According to Simmel, in small groups, secrets are less needed because everyone seems to be more similar. In larger groups [[Sociological aspects of secrecy|secrets are needed]] as a result of their [[heterogeneity]]. In secret societies, groups are held together by the need to maintain the secret, a condition that also causes tension because the society relies on its sense of secrecy and exclusion.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Simmel |first1=Georg |title=The Sociology of Secrecy and of Secret Societies |journal=American Journal of Sociology |date=1906 |volume=11 |issue=4 |pages=441–498 |doi=10.1086/211418 |s2cid=55481088 |url=https://zenodo.org/record/2422431 }}</ref>
For Simmel, secrecy exists even in relationships as intimate as marriage.{{citation needed|date=July 2017}}In revealing all, marriage becomes dull and boring and loses all excitement. Simmel saw a general thread in the importance of secrets and the strategic use of ignorance: To be social beings who are able to cope successfully with their social environment, people need clearly defined realms of unknowns for themselves.<ref>{{cite journal|author=Gross, Matthias |doi=10.1177/1749975512445431|title='Objective Culture' and the Development of Nonknowledge: Georg Simmel and the Reverse Side of Knowing|year=2012|journal=Cultural Sociology|volume=6|issue=4|pages=422–437|s2cid=144524090|author-link=Matthias Gross}}</ref> Furthermore, sharing a common secret produces a strong "we feeling." The modern world depends on honesty and therefore a lie can be considered more devastating than it ever has been before.{{citation needed|date=July 2017}}
Money allows a level of secrecy that has never been attainable before, because money allows for "invisible" transactions, due to the fact that money is now an integral part of human values and beliefs. It is possible to buy silence.<ref name=ritzer/>

===On flirtation===
In his multi-layered essay, "Women, Sexuality & Love", published in 1923, Simmel discusses [[flirtation]] as a generalized type of social interaction. According to Simmel, "to define flirtation as simply a 'passion for pleasing' is to confuse the means to an end with the desire for this end." The distinctiveness of the flirt lies in the fact that she awakens delight and desire by means of a unique antithesis and synthesis: through the alternation of accommodation and denial. In the behavior of the flirt, the man feels the proximity and interpenetration of the ability and inability to acquire something. This is in essence the "price." A sidelong glance with the head half-turned is characteristic of flirtation in its most banal guise.<ref>Simmel, Georg. 1984 [1923]. "Women, Sexuality & Love"</ref>

===On fashion===
In the eyes of Simmel, fashion is a form of social relationship that allows those who wish to conform to the demands of a group to do so. It also allows some to be individualistic by deviating from the norm. There are many social roles in fashion and both objective culture and individual culture can have an influence on people.<ref name=":02">{{Cite web|url=http://socio.ch/sim/work.htm|title=Georg Simmel: Work|website=socio.ch|access-date=2018-05-05}}</ref> In the initial stage everyone adopts what is fashionable and those that deviate from the fashion inevitably adopt a whole new view of what they consider fashion. Ritzer wrote:<ref name=ritzer/>{{rp|163}}

{{Blockquote|Simmel argued that not only does following what is in fashion involve dualities so does the effort on the part of some people to be of fashion. Unfashionable people view those who follow a fashion as being imitators and themselves as mavericks, but Simmel argued that the latter are simply engaging in an inverse form of imitation.|[[George Ritzer]]|"Georg Simmel"|source=''Modern Sociological Theory'' (2008)}}
This means that those who are trying to be different or "unique," are not, because in trying to be different they become a part of a new group that has labeled themselves different or "unique".<ref name=ritzer/>