Simmel and Space

Emily Gubbini
Space, according to Simmel, has a sociological significance as it influences sociation, interaction between individuals. As sociologists should be interested in studying sociation, space should also be enquired upon. In the same way that language expresses thought processes, 'which occur in words but not through words' (Simmel, 1997: 137-138), space, and the spatial positioning of social actors, is a form in which 'real energies are manifested' (Simmel, 1997: 137-138): it is where interactions are realised and happen, and also a form which limits and sets some preconditions for them (Simmel, 1997). In this essay I will firstly explain Simmels concept of sociation and his distinction between contents and forms of social life. I will then analyse the main claims on space drawing on the essays The Sociology of Space (1903) and The Metropolis and Mental Life (1903). I will analyse the five main qualities Simmel attributes to space (namely, exclusivity, boundary, the capacity of fixing contents, proximity or distance, fluidity); then, I will analyse the main consequences the metropolitan environment has on social life, such as the predominance of reason, punctuality, egoism and the need to be different. Subsequently, comparing his method with the Durkheimian one, I will show that the focus on micro-relations is preferable to the study of external, observable social facts. Finally, drawing on Goffman, I will claim that Simmels insights into the role of space in social interaction cannot be ignored, and that space does have a fundamental impact on interaction. Simmel claims that sociologists should focus on studying 'sociation'. This concept indicates any type of interaction between individuals through social encounters or relationships which are also influenced by the individuals positioning in space . In order to gain knowledge on sociation, one must separate forms and contents of social life. What he means by contents are the subjective, psychological intentions, interests, beliefs and motives; forms are instead material, objective phenomena (shapes, configurations and densities) created by the social and material positioning of the individuals involved in the interaction (Simmel, 1950; Watier, 2008). Through studying the physical or spatial forms that social interactions take, we can see the effects space has on social life and sociation (Watier, 2008). He thinks in fact that space is a form which is shaped by sociation, and that at the same time poses some preconditions for sociation itself. In The Sociology of Space (1903) Simmel lays out five fundamental qualities of space which

structure common life: exclusivity; boundary; the capacity of fixing contents of social formations; the proximity or distance between two people; fluidity (the possibility of moving from place to place). The first quality, the exclusivity of space, refers to the fact that every part of space 'possesses a kind of uniqueness' (Simmel, 1997:138). This quality is especially relevant to land. A social formation is linked to an area of land, then it has a uniqueness that cannot be attained in other ways (Simmel, 1997). Certain associations are such that there cannot be another social formation in the space of land that the previous one occupies. The state, for example, is closely linked to the land it occupies, and there cannot be another state in the same territory. Other associations though are 'mutually permeable' (Simmel, 1997: 139) and thus can occupy same space. Here, an example can be the Church: the institution is closely bound to the territory it occupies, but at the same time its effects are said to be free from any barrier and universal; moreover, institutions of more than one religion can be found in the same city (Simmel, 1997; Frisby, 1984). Secondly, space is divided into units which are 'framed by boundaries' (Simmel, 1997: 141). Simmel claims that the frame of a territory, its boundaries, has two functions for the social group that it contains, as if it were containing an art piece: 'closing the work of art off against the surrounding world and holding it together' (Simmel, 1997: 141). The frame or boundary closes the social group off from the rest of the world, makes the social group subject only to its own laws and changes, and separated from the transformations of the outer world. Furthermore, like it 'symbolizes the self-contented unity of the work of art' (Simmel, 1997: 141), it reinforces the unity and reality of the social group. The boundary strengthens the 'psychological coherence of individual persons' (Simmel, 1997: 141), the homogeneity of society. National borders, for example, close off the nation from the rest of the world and make it different from other nations, just by being enclosed within borders. This diminishes internal differences and promotes homogeneity in values, language, etc. Moreover, psychologically, the social boundary reinforces 'ones own positive sense of power and justice within ones sphere' (Simmel, 1997: 143) just by reminding one that such power and justice do not extend into the other sphere. Thus, 'the boundary is not a spatial fact with sociological consequences, but a sociological fact that forms itself spatially' (Simmel, 1997: 143). The third fundamental quality of space is the fact that it has the capacity of fixing in space the contents of social formations. An example is the determination of a pivot-point, or the 'spatial immovability of an object of interest' (Simmel, 1997: 146). The pivot-point, the fixing of a focal
2

point, influences the relations of the social group around it. A consequence, for example, could be the creation of economic relations and transactions around a particular space of interest (Frisby, 1984). Another possible quality of the fixing of space is the individualization of a place. The old tradition of naming houses, for example, gives to their inhabitants a sense of spatial individuality, and the place 'a much more autonomous, nuanced existence' (Simmel, 1997: 149; Frisby, 1984: 128). The fourth quality of space is the sensory proximity or distance between two people who are in some kind of relationship. Here Simmel analyses the importance of our three senses in determining interaction. He pays particular attention to sight, as he claims that eye-sight is 'the purest reciprocal relationship that exists' (Simmel, 1997: 151-159). On the contrary, the sense of smell is said to be a dividing factor: the most unconscious of senses, it has created, according to Simmel, the repulsion of the upper for the lower classes, the of the Germans for the Jews and so on (Simmel, 1997; Frisby, 1984). The final quality of space is the possibility 'that people move from place to place' (Simmel, 1997: 160). Interactions between humans are determined by change of space, and are fluid. There are two types of changes in space: when the social group as a whole moves, like in the instance of nomadic populations. When part of the group migrates, this has an effect on the group as a whole. In the case of the nomads, constant migrations suppresses the internal differentiation of the group, and determines a lack in real political organisation (Simmel, 1997). In the case of the movement of only part of the group, while the rest remains sedentary, Simmel analyses the case of the merchants, scholars, craftsmen and religious people who travelled in the middle ages and early modern age. These people were conscious of their unity and homogeneity through books, letters and news which was in that period unavailable through any other means (Simmel, 1997). In order to understand his analysis of space fully, we must look at a more specific study. The Metropolis and Mental Life (1903) focuses on one kind of space, the urban, metropolitan one and analyses the effects of this physical environment on the individuals emotions, thoughts and behaviour. There are two main factors that influence the individual contents, and thus interaction: the intensification of nervous stimulation and the fact that the metropolis is the centre of the 'money economy'. Due to unexpectedness, the rapid changing of images that characterise metropolitan life, there is
3

an intensification of nervous stimulation. Traffic, traffic lights, constant noise and the presence of unknown faces use up a lot of the individuals consciousness. This has two consequences. Firstly, man becomes increasingly more rational and more reserved, as the intellect has to protect him from the threatening outer environment which would 'uproot' him, and that contrasts with rural life, where the rhythm and sensory experience flow 'more slowly, more habitually, and more evenly' (Simmel, 1997: 175-176 and 179). Moreover, the over-stimulation of the nervous system causes, in some city-dwellers, the blas attitude: one cannot react any more to the outer stimuli; everything is experienced as colourless and flat (Simmel, 1997). A second fundamental factor that influences the metropolitan man is the fact that the metropolis is also the centre of the 'money economy' (Simmel, 1997: 176). The presence of capitalism and of the money economy influences man in a series of ways. Firstly, this influences the dominance of the intellect in relations, and a 'matter-of-fact attitude in dealing with men and with things' (Simmel, 1997: 176). Secondly, the dominance of the market means that the producer never enters in contact with the purchaser, therefore relations are impersonal, and everyone has 'intellectually calculating economic egoisms' (Simmel, 1997: 176). If one person, in the chain of production, for example, does not come in contact with the actual purchaser of the finished product, he will put as little effort as possible in the production, and try to make it as cheaply as possible (Simmel, 1997). Finally, punctuality is necessary in the metropolis, because of the complexity of relations. The number of people and different interests they have means that they have to integrate their relations/activities, and, specifically, respect the time limits; otherwise the whole system would break down. Thus, irrational, instinctive attitudes and personalities are excluded from the metropolis (or will simply feel aversion to it, like Nietzsche and Ruskin) (Simmel, 1997). Finally, the fact that in the metropolis relations are impersonal makes the individual want to stand out and be different. Because encounters in the metropolis, compared to a small town, are so brief, 'man is tempted to adopt the most tendentious peculiarities, that is, the specifically metropolitan extravagances of mannerism, caprice, and preciousness' (Simmel, 1997: 183). The individual wants to make others aware of their presence, and thus works on their self-esteem. In contrast, the prolonged, frequent association of men in rural environments means that their image or personality is unambiguous to the eyes of others (Simmel, 1997). How Simmel reaches his conclusions is debatable. He argues that knowledge is reached through
4

an abstraction from social reality. It also follows interpretation and shaping according to 'a priori' categories and rules of sociology. These 'a priori' categories are reached through a philosophical abstraction and without any connection with the empirical world. In sociation, these categories are the 'content' and 'form', which are preconditions for 'sociation', and thus also for studying society (Watier, 2008). An obvious comparison would be with Durkheim's work. Durkheim, contemporary of Simmel, claims quite the opposite: he argues that the sociologist should only be concerned with what is attainable through empirical data and observation. According to Durkheim social phenomena (or 'social facts') are external to the individual consciousness and must be studied 'from the outside, as external things' (Durkheim, 2003:286). Here I agree with Simmel, that there are some kind of categories that act as filters between our knowledge and observable data, and that it is not possible to study things from the 'outside' like Durkheim suggests, and arrive to an external truth. Furthermore, I do not believe that social phenomena are independent from individual consciousness, but instead, like Simmel argues, they are manifested in interaction ('sociation') and are dependent on it. Moreover, one must recognise that Simmel is the first sociologist who concentrates on microrelations instead of focusing attention to large social forms. He shows how important it is to study interaction and individuals, not only macro institutions, and also the importance and influence of space. His insights cannot be ignored and, in my opinion, should be taken into consideration in sociology and sociological research. An example of sociological research where his theories/findings should be and are taken into account is ethnography. Ethnography is a social research method which studies people in their natural settings, in order to understand the social meanings and ordinary activities of these fields. The research participates in such settings, in order to study people by participating in interaction and not imposing external meanings/factors (Brewer, 2000). Erving Goffman, a major theorist of ethnographic methods, also claims that space is important. For example, in a lecture on fieldwork, he mentions the distinction between dyads and triads that Simmel had made. The dyad is a group of two people. The two members see themselves as confronted by the other. Individuality is maintained, and the dyad can involve intimacy. The triad instead involves the creation of two new relationships (more than A-B, there is also A-C and B-C). Factions are formed and a moderator can emerge. Moreover, it is possible that one member exploits the conflict between the other two for his personal advantage (Craib, 1997; Simmel and Wolff, 1950; Goffman, 1987; Wallace and Wolf, 1999). This shows that space should be taken into consideration as both shaped by and shaping interaction.
5

In conclusion, therefore, Simmels analysis of space and the physical positioning of social actors cannot be ignored. In The Sociology of Space (1903) he has shown how space has an effect on sociation; it has five main qualities: exclusivity; boundary; the capacity of fixing contents of social formations; the proximity or distance between two people; fluidity. Moreover, in The Metropolis and Mental Life (1903) he gives an insight into how external, physical stimuli have an effect on the individuals life (by making man more rational, sometimes indifferent and blas); how the money economy promotes an increase in rational, calculating, punctual and sometimes egoistic attitudes; how the continuous contact with unknown people makes man want to stand out and be different. These insights, which draw our attention to areas barely researched, are key. In contrast with his contemporary Durkheim, Simmel uses a method which does not study social phenomena as external and independent from human consciousness, but shows, firstly how our knowledge is mediated by 'a priori' categories; secondly, that social phenomena are dependent and not external to individual interaction. As Goffman also shows, space must be studied as an influence on individuals and interaction, and thus on society itself; therefore, it must be a preoccupation for sociologists.

References Abel, T. (August 1959), The Contribution of Georg Simmel: a Reappraisal, in American Sociological Review,Vol. 24(4), pp.473-479 Brewer, J. D. (2000), Ethnography, Buckingham: Open University Press Craib, I. (1997), Classical Social Theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press Durkheim, E. (2003), Rules of the Sociological Method, in Emirbayer, M., Emile Durkheim: Sociologist of Modernity, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 284-293 Frisby, D. (1984), Georg Simmel, London: Routledge Goffman, E. (July 1989), On Fieldwork, in Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, Vol. 18(2), pp. 123132 Simmel, G. (1997), The Sociology of Space, in Frisby, D. and Featherstone, M., Simmel on Culture, London: Sage Publications, pp. 138-170 Simmel, G. (1997), The Metropolis and Mental Life, in Frisby, D. and Featherstone, M., Simmel on Culture, London: Sage Publications, pp. 174-185 Simmel, G. and Wolff, K. H. (1950), The Sociology of Georg Simmel, New York: The Free Press Wallace, R. A. and Wolf, A. (1999), Contemporary Sociological Theory: Expanding the Classical Tradition, New Jersey: Prentice Hall Watier, P. (2008), Georg Simmel, in Stones, R., Key Sociological Thinkers, London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 90-105