G. Simmel (1858-1918) - world-famous thinker, author of 30 books and numerous articles on philosophy and sociology of culture. The sharpness of the creative mind, breadth of intellectual interests, subtle psychological observations, emotional energy of the presentation style and unusual plots and reflections on life characteristic of his works provide a powerful impetus for the study of cultural phenomena.

G. Simmel's sphere of interests includes a variety of episodes, but they exist in life, and he strives to give them a philosophical and cultural explanation. He wrote articles about contemplation of nature and the meaning of travel, about the role of chance and unexpected adventures in human life. Articles about religion and the personality of God, about the philosophy of history and culture, about love and fate are full of deep meaning. Unexpected are the discussions about the philosophy of money and wealth, about stinginess and generosity, about death and immortality, about fashion and its inconstancy, about male and female culture... The thinker enriched cultural studies with new ideas and prophetic insights. He proposed many new and original problems in cultural studies.

His works about I. Kant and F. Nietzsche, I. Goethe and Michelangelo are devoted to the secrets of creative individuality and the personality of a genius. G. Simmel was more of an initiator of the philosophical understanding of culture than a consistent analyst. But the scientific initiative to discuss vital problems belonged to him, and this is his significance for the development of science. Interest in it continues to this day, although it does not always remain the same.

From a wide range of problems in the philosophy and sociology of culture of G. Simmel, we will focus on two issues of interest

for cultural studies:

1) definition of the concept and essence of culture; historical change in cultural forms; conflicts and cultural crisis;

2) the social meaning and significance of fashion in the history of culture; the relationship between tradition and innovation.

The philosophy of culture is set out in the articles of G. Simmel “The Concept and Tragedy of Culture”, “On the Essence of Culture”, “Changing Forms

466 Chapter 18. Development of cultural thought...

18.3. Problems of culture in the “philosophy of life” 473

Logically, every new fashion is perceived as if it is going to last forever. Therefore, its new models seem especially attractive, although when purchasing them, a person must understand that very soon they will become outdated and will require replacement.

In this whirlpool of fashion changes, the classics remain relatively stable. It represents a relatively stable concentration of fashion elements “around a resting center.” Classic is harmonious and stable, does not allow extreme variations and imbalance. It is also fashion, but at the same time it maintains its integrity, not obeying the momentary impulse.

Fashion as a social phenomenon is not only natural in life, but also completely natural, because it corresponds to a person’s aspirations for renewal and isolation, the use of originality to emphasize individuality and belonging to a certain group. Fashion has a broad impact on culture, involving various layers in the circle of changes, becoming a symbol of novelty in a changing world.

Current page: 3 (book has 20 pages total) [available reading passage: 14 pages]

Sociological theory of fashion
G. Simmel

Another fundamental theoretical development of fashion theory within classical sociology was the fashion theory of Georg Simmel (1858–1918).

G. Simmel is the creator of one of the most developed theories of fashion, which still retains its significance. His fashion theory is a holistic formation that combines theoretical, methodological and historical analysis. The basis of the theoretical and methodological design of fashion is the well-known Simmelian methodology of sociological analysis, the central place in which is occupied by the principle of methodological individualism - the study and description of social and historical life as the result of the combined activities of individuals.

Fashion is by nature a contradictory form of life, embodying contradictory forces and orientations. These orientations are of a deep nature and act as conditions for the existence of any social form and phenomenon. Their identification is a condition for understanding fashion as a social and cultural form of life.

G. Simmel identifies two fundamental, basic forces or aspirations that determine this reality and shape the resulting whole of historical life: the vector of movement towards unification, preservation of unity, on the one hand, and the desire for differentiation, on the other. This dualism, writes G. Simmel, cannot but be “felt by the individual opposites typical of our existence, as the last formative factor.” 14
Simmel G. Fashion // Favorites. Volume 2. Contemplation of life. M., 1996. P. 266.

The first aspiration is the basis of “universality, unity, the calming equality of the forms and content of life, the second is movement, the diversity of individual elements, the restless development of individual content and its transition to another. Each significant form of life and the history of our species represents in its own field special kind combining interest in duration, unity, equality with interest in change, in the special, the unique.” 15
Right there. P. 267.

In the social embodiment of these two orientations, the basis of one of them, as G. Simmel points out, is the psychological tendency to imitation. He defines imitation as a psychological heritage, as a transition from group life to individual life. The appeal of imitation is that it provides us with the opportunity for purposeful and meaningful activity where there is nothing personal or creative. “Imitation,” writes G. Simmel, “gives us in practice a kind of peace, similar to what we feel in theory when we subsume a separate phenomenon under a general concept. … Imitation frees the individual from the torment of choice and allows him to act simply as a creation of the group, a vessel of social contents.” 16
Right there. P. 267.

Imitation, therefore, corresponds to that orientation of our being, which is content with the entry of the individual into universality, and emphasizes the constant.

However, the imitating person is only one of the poles of a single human being. The other pole is teleological man, associated “with our orientation that wants to move towards new, own forms of life.” 17
Right there. P. 268.

Each of these principles, as G. Simmel claims, goes into infinity, and because of this, the life of society represents their constant struggle, in which “the dispute goes on for every inch,” and social institutions act as stable forms of their reconciliation, in which “the antagonism of both the parties adopted an external form of consent.” 18
Right there. P. 268.

Fashion, therefore, according to G. Simmel, is by its nature an institution. As a social institution, it represents the imitation of a model and thereby “satisfies the need for social support, leads the individual into a rut that everyone follows, and provides the general transformative behavior of the individual simply as an example. However, it equally satisfies the need for difference, the tendency to differentiate, to change, to stand out from the crowd.” 19
Right there. P. 268.

She succeeds in this, on the one hand, thanks to the change in content, which gives the fashion of the present an individual imprint that distinguishes it from the fashion of the past and future. On the other hand, due to the fact that fashion is always, as G. Simmel claims, of a class nature, and the fashion of the upper class is always different from the fashion of the lower. “Fashion is therefore nothing more than one of the forms of life through which the tendency towards social equalization is united with the tendency towards individual differentiation and change in a single activity.” 20
Right there. P. 268.

Fashion, according to G. Simmel, is a product of the division of society into classes; it expresses itself “as a part whose dual function is to internally connect a certain circle and at the same time separate it from others.” 21
Right there. P. 269.

Fashion means joining equals in social status and separation from inferiors. To connect and disconnect – these are the two main functions of fashion, which are of a purely social nature. This is confirmed by the simple fact that, as G. Simmel claims, there is “not a trace of expediency” in fashion.

This last statement is key and central in understanding how G. Simmel interprets fashion. He clearly distinguishes between clothing, which essentially, by its nature, corresponds to our needs, and fashion, which is sometimes ugly, disgusting, absurd and meaningless, which “testifies to its indifference to the objective standards of life and points to another of its motivations, namely the typical social as the only remaining probable.” 22
Right there. P. 269.

Fashion in this sense, or as G. Simmel also calls it “new fashion,” is a historical phenomenon. It appears only in highly differentiated, and therefore highly developed, societies, in which each social group, including through fashion, expresses its “unity within and differentiation without.” Where the need for internal unity and external isolation is absent, fashion will not be established and “its reign will end.” That is why fashion is not varied in the lower classes and is practically absent among primitive peoples. These peoples lack the fear of confusion and erasure of differences, which “forces the classes of civilized peoples to resort to differentiation in clothing, behavior, tastes, etc.” 23
Right there. P. 262.

Origin new fashion G. Simmel associates it only with the upper classes and with European societies of the New Age with their “individualistic splitting,” against the background of which the “unifying moment of fashion” becomes especially significant. G. Simmel links the existence of fashion in his contemporary era with the middle class and urban form of life, as well as with the economic rise of the lower strata at the same pace as in big cities.

G. Simmel points to another aspect of fashion, which is especially significant for its modern understanding. The speed and speed of the passage of social time in European societies of the New Age, as opposed to the stability and immutability of primitive societies, leads to the speed of fashion change: “the more nervous the era, the faster its fashions change, because the need to change irritation is one of the essential components of fashion, closely associated with the excitement of nervous energy." 24
Right there. P. 273.

The specifically “impatient” pace of modern life testifies, as G. Simmel believes, not only to the thirst for a quick change of content, but also to the formal attractiveness of the border, “beginning and end,” “coming and going.” The point is that fashion acquires the attractiveness of the border, novelty and transience, being on the “watershed between the past and the future”, it gives a strong “sense of the present”. The opposite is also true - emphasizing the present is simultaneously emphasizing change. Fashion thus creates and records a sense of social time.

With fashion and in fashion, many social feelings are embodied, such as envy, the need for difference, the need for attention, a special position, a sense of dominance and submission, masculinity and femininity. Women's special commitment to fashion is due to the fact that fashion serves as a kind of "valve that allows women to satisfy their need for a certain distinction and elevation in cases where they are denied in other areas." 25
Right there. P. 280.

For a weak person who avoids individualization, who is afraid to rely on himself in practical life, fashion allows him to avoid responsibility and the need to rely only on his own strength. This form prevents a strong person from using forces superior to others. Fashion, therefore, also acts as a restraining, moderating principle.

In fashion, at the same time, there is a complete absence of a sense of shame, just as there is no sense of responsibility among participants in mass crimes. It frees a person from all responsibility - ethical and aesthetic.

Fashion, as G. Simmel writes, has an essential feature - it “cuts all individualities with one brush, but always in such a way that it does not embrace the whole person, and always remains for him something external, located on the periphery of the personality... Leveling suppression, such thus moves to the layers of outer life so that they provide cover and protection for the inner life.” 26
Right there. pp. 282–283.

In this understanding, fashion is similar to law; it concerns only the external side of life, which is addressed to society and is therefore “a social form of amazing expediency. It gives a person a scheme that allows him to unambiguously justify his connection with the universal, his adherence to the norms that are given by his time, class, narrow circle, and this allows him to increasingly concentrate the freedom that life generally provides in the depths of his essence.” 27
Right there. P. 285.

Sociological theory of fashion
G. Tarda

Within the framework of his general sociological theory, Jean-Gabriel Tarde (1843–1904) analyzes the phenomenon of fashion. The classic of French sociology G. Tarde defined fashion as one of the types of imitation. In his main scientific work, “The Laws of Imitation,” published in 1890, G. Tarde creates a fundamental theory of human behavior and social relations, the basis of which is imitation, or imitation. He considers imitation as a universal explanatory principle of all life - both individual and social. The social and communicative activity of individuals in the form of imitation is, according to G. Tarde, the basis of society.

G. Tarde does not distinguish fashion as a separate social phenomenon, but considers it as a special case of imitation, which, in his opinion, is the basis of society. "Society is imitation" 28
Tarde G. Laws of imitation. SPb.: Society. Benefit, 1892. P. 89.

, writes G. Tarde, and fashion is a special case of imitation: “All similarities of social origin, noticed in the public world, represent a direct or indirect consequence of imitation in all its possible forms: imitation-custom or imitation-fashion, imitation-sympathy or imitation- obedience, imitation-training or imitation-education, blind imitation or conscious imitation, etc.” 29
Right there. P. 14.

G. Tarde's theory of fashion is part of the general concept of social interaction in the form of imitation. Therefore, to understand the concept of fashion in the works of G. Tarde, one should consider the phenomenon of imitation itself.

G. Tarde notes such a quality of social reality as universality: “All this can be very well observed in our European societies, where the extraordinary development of all kinds of fashion, fashion in relation to clothing, food, housing, needs, ideas, institutions, arts, leads to the transformation of the entire population of Europe into people who represent a publication typed in the same type and published in several hundred million copies.” He adds that “it was this amazing leveling that gave birth to statistics and political economy, so aptly called social physics… Without fashion and custom there would be no social quantity, there would be no value or money in particular, and therefore there would be no science of either wealth or finance.” 30
Right there. P. 15.

And G. Tarde considers imitation to be the main reason for such universal universality: “...everything that is social, and not vital or physical, in the phenomena represented by human societies, whether it be similarity or difference, has as its cause imitation.” 31
Right there. P. 50.

By asking himself the question “what is society?”, G. Tarde polemicizes with traditional views of society as “a group of individuals providing mutual services to each other.” The exchange of services cannot always serve as the basis for classifying a certain relationship as a society. In his opinion, " a necessary condition, without which two beings could not assume mutual duties or recognize mutual rights, is that they must have a common stock of ideas and traditions, a common language or a common translator, and all the close similarities formed by education, i.e. that is, one of the forms of imitation.” 32
Right there. P. 63.

His definition of a social group is as follows: “it is a collection of beings, because they are ready to imitate each other, or because they, without imitating each other now, suit each other, since the characteristics they have in common are ancient copies of the same model.” 33
Right there. P. 68.

Thus, to the question posed above: “What is society?”, G. Tarde gives a clear answer: “society is imitation.” Next, it seems necessary to him to identify the nature of imitation itself: “We now have to ask: what is imitation? Here the sociologist must give the floor to the psychologist.” 34
Right there. P. 74.

Exploring the phenomenon of imitation from this point of view, G. Tarde notes that “society could not live, could not take a step forward, could not change, without possessing the treasure of routine, apeism and a completely sheepish herd, continuously increasing with each subsequent generation.” 35
Right there. P. 76.

To characterize the process of imitation, G. Tarde uses concepts such as “somnambulism” and “magnetizer,” which were popular at the end of the 19th century and characterize human behavior as irrational, dependent and subject to external influence. “I am not fantasizing at all,” he writes, “considering a social person as a real somnambulist.” 36
Right there. P. 77.

The point is that, according to G. Tarde, imitation is mainly of an unconscious nature, however, it is precisely this “somnambulistic” state that is the main characteristic of a “social person”: “ Society is imitation, and imitation is a kind of hypnotism... To be trusting and obedient and to be so to a high degree, as a hypnotic or as a person as a social being, means, first of all, to be an imitator.” 37
Right there. P. 89.

“The social state,” he notes, “as a hypnotic state, is nothing more than sleep, sleep on orders and sleep in an active state. Not to have any ideas other than those suggested, and to consider them spontaneous - such is an illusion characteristic of both the somnambulist and the social person.” 38
Right there. P. 78.

“Social somnambulism” is the “mental” basis of social interaction and the social state as such: “To be in society “at home” means to get into the tone, to succumb to the mood of this society, to speak in its peculiar language, to copy the habits of its people and, finally , to freely surrender to the will of all these numerous streams of influences surrounding us... to what extent to submit to all this, to the point of losing even all consciousness of one’s captivity and slavery... This is emerging social state». 39
Right there. P. 87.

Thus, the main social processes - the processes of imitation - are described by G. Tarde, in fact, as a process of interaction between the “somnambulist” and the “magnetizer”. He sees the main reason for such blind submission of the somnambulist to the magnetizer in the charm of the magnetizer’s personality itself: “at the beginning of any ancient society, a fortiori there should have been a wide-ranging manifestation of the authority of some royally majestic and non-objectionable personalities. Is it true that their reign was based mainly on terror and deceit, as is claimed? No, this explanation is clearly not enough. They could reign thanks to their charm... The magnetizer does not need to lie in order for the magnetized to blindly believe him; he does not need to be intimidated in order to be obeyed without question. He's charming, that's all." 40
Right there. pp. 78–79.

Moreover, it is precisely in the charm or, in modern terms, the charisma of leaders (individuals or entire nations) that G. Tarde sees the reasons for both the establishment of custom and the emergence of fashion: “When magnetizing fashion replaces magnetizing custom, an ordinary symptom of a social revolution begins, a similar phenomenon occurs, only on a larger scale.” 41
Right there. pp. 83–84.

Such a seemingly frivolous scheme of deep social processes of interaction - “magnetizer - somnambulist” - is explained by G. Tarde as ordinary human laziness. Thinking on your own is always more tiring than thinking with the help of another, says G. Tarde.

In addition, this form of behavior is not without, in the understanding of G. Tarde, a certain degree of rationality, since by imitating a leader, a person borrows his strategy for success: “Usually some charming person gives an impulse that is immediately reflected in thousands people who copy him in everything and borrow from him his charm, thanks to which they themselves act on millions of people standing further... I repeat, however, that it is not fear at all, not the violence of the winner, but surprise, the shine of perceived imperious superiority that produces social somnambulism.” 42
Right there. P. 86.

In addition, G. Tarde emphasizes the natural need for the authority of a leader for the majority of individuals to make one or another decision: “An energetic and authoritative person receives absolute power over weak natures; he gives them what they lack: a certain direction. Obedience to him is not an obligation, but a necessity. This is how every social connection arises. Obedience in general is the sister of faith.” 43
Right there. P. 204.

And this - the intellectual and psychological inequality of people - in the opinion of G. Tarde, is one of the reasons for the universal nature of imitation. That is, weaker and less developed individuals imitate stronger and more developed ones.

Constituting, according to G. Tarde, the very essence of social life, imitation, both in the form of custom and in the form of fashion, is also a mechanism of social control: “From whatever point of view we consider social life, it, as it develops, fatally leads ultimately to the formation of a certain etiquette, that is, to the triumph of the most complete uniformity (conformisme) over individual arbitrariness.” 44
Right there. P. 195.

The social need for uniformity “is so inherent in the very nature of social man that at the eternal stage of development it becomes conscious, and humanity, in order to give it satisfaction, resorts to quick and violent measures”: in ancient civilization- these are systems of ceremonies and rituals, the strict observance of which was monitored by officials or masters of ceremonies. IN modern world- this is “imitation fashion”: “We laugh at them, forgetting that our great tailors, great milliners, manufacturers, even our journalists represent in relation to imitation fashion essentially the same thing as these secular and religious masters of ceremonies represent.” attitude towards imitation-custom... Thanks to them, our costumes, conversations, thoughts, tastes, our needs of all kinds are cut out according to one template, to deviate from which is considered indecent; and such uniformity from one end of the continent to the other is considered the most undoubted sign of civilization.” 45
Right there. P. 198.

In addition to the above-mentioned social function of control, imitation has general cultural and civilizational functions. G. Tarde calls on “to recognize in the fact of imitation the depth that is truly inherent in it.” “When one person copies another, when one class of society dresses, furnishes, and entertains another class, this is done because this person or this class has already borrowed from another person or class feelings and needs that find external expression in the indicated way.” . 46
Right there. P. 204.

The process of imitation is thus directed from internal content to external forms that express it, and the assimilation of new behavior is a consequence of the assimilation of new ideas. “So,” writes G. Tarde, “imitation, therefore, goes from internal to external, although superficial observations apparently indicate the opposite. At first glance, it seems that a people or a certain class of society, imitating another, begins by imitating in luxury and the arts, that it does this before it is imbued with the tastes and literature, ideas and aspirations, in a word, with the spirit of the people or class being copied; but in reality it happens just the opposite... In the 17th century, when French supremacy was established, French literature already dominated in Europe, and because of this, French arts and French fashions went around the whole world.” 47
Right there. P. 205.

In addition, G. Tarde believes that the most convincing evidence of the development of imitation “from the internal” is the fact that envy, in relationships various classes, never precedes obedience and trust, but, on the contrary, is always a consequence of previous obedience and trust.

Thus, despite his concept of social somnambulism outlined above, according to which imitation is unconscious, G. Tarde, nevertheless, links the process of imitation with the internal logic of the individual. According to this logic, he must first accept ideas, the expression of which will be corresponding external qualities available for imitation: “This movement from the inside out, if we try to formulate it more precisely, comes down to the following: 1) first imitate ideas, and then their expression; 2) first imitate the goal, and then the means. Internal are goals or ideas; external – means or expressions.” 48
Right there. P. 213.

In the imitation of the lower strata by the higher, G. Tarde sees the basis and main manifestation of the democratization of society: “Democratic is the period that begins from the moment when, due to various reasons, the distance between different classes has decreased to such an extent that even the lowest begin to imitate in appearance the highest " 49
Right there. P. 228.

G. Tarde is convinced that all progress, not excluding the progress of equality, was achieved through imitation, and, moreover, imitation of the upper classes. “So,” writes G. Tarde further, “whatever the organization of society - theocratic, aristocratic, democratic - imitation follows the same law everywhere: it spreads from the highest to the lowest, and in this distribution it acts from the inside out.” 50
Right there. P. 233.

Fashion is thus one of the fundamental forms of imitation, a mechanism of social control, it grows out of ceremony and ritual and is associated with the general process of civilization and democratization of society. At the same time, it has a number of specific characteristics. Based on these general theoretical principles, we will indicate the features of fashion as one of the two main forms of imitation.

As noted above, fashion, according to G. Tarde, appears as an alternative to custom and appears as a social innovation and the main form of influence of one group on another, one nation on another. Turning, for example, to history, he comes to the conclusion that “after a certain original form of civilization, having arisen initially among a given tribe, spread by custom for centuries in this closed environment, then breaking out of these narrow confines and continuing to spread among related or alien tribes through fashion", in the end, subjugates all heterogeneous elements and merges them into a new human species adapted to it, into a new nation." 51
Right there. P. 249.

Fashion is also, according to G. Tarde, the source of the main social conflict between adherents of the new and supporters of tradition: “we everywhere notice how fashion and custom are embodied politically in two great parties, the struggle and alternate triumph of which explain all the phenomena of the political progress of peoples.” 52
Right there. P. 281.

In the early stages historical development“custom reigned unchallenged or almost undivided, then began to be replaced by fashion. Meanwhile, fashion is growing, and the party that represents it, initially defeated, finally forces them to accept their innovations.” 53
Right there. P. 283.

And then G. Tarde asks the question: “But does the matter end with the victory of fashion over routine? Not at all. The victory itself becomes complete only after the conservative party, having admitted its defeat, seizes its position, transforms itself into a national party, and pours the juices of tradition into the new graft... The river of custom then enters its channel, albeit extremely expanded, and a new cycle begins. It develops and ends in the same way as the previous one; and this will happen without a doubt until the complete political unification and uniformity of the entire human race.” 54
Right there. pp. 286–287.

The social consequences of adherence to fashion go beyond simple innovation: “When custom is replaced by fashion, a person is less proud of his blood, loses faith, but, due to the progressive assimilation of minds, attaches enormous importance to public opinion.” 55
Right there. P. 344.

G. Tarde considers foreign influences to be the main reason for the emergence of fashion: “But what caused fashion, if not the impetus given by a neighboring country, where new fruitful discoveries were made?” 56
Right there. P. 331.

The spread of imitation beyond the borders of a particular nation, which Tarde called fashion, constitutes, in his opinion, “nothing more than the transfer of the law governing class relations to the international sphere.” Fashion, from the point of view of G. Tarde, is the same custom, but operating in a new social environment and therefore acting as an innovation: “Thanks to the invasion of fashion, all states imitate the state that currently enjoys superiority, just as the lower social the classes imitate the higher ones.” 57
Right there. P. 349.

G. Tarde sees the main consequence of this influence of fashion as the prospect of establishing complete uniformity on the territory of all states involved in it.

In addition to the general socializing function of fashion, G. Tarde especially emphasizes its importance in the economic sphere, primarily for modern industry, which requires the universalization of needs: “... the first and precondition for the development of large industry, significant wealth, as well as art is the widespread dissemination of homogeneous needs and tastes or individual customs». 58
Right there. P. 322.

For G. Tarde it is obvious that without uniformity in needs the development of industrial production is impossible. At the same time, industry, being oriented towards uniform needs by its very structure, is an additional mechanism for “establishing uniformity”: “In our time, in Europe, America and other parts of the world, uniformity in buildings, food, clothing, luxury goods and manifestations of politeness is increasingly spreading. This monotony, which would certainly have amazed Herodotus, does not surprise us at all. It, however, constitutes a fact of enormous importance, because without it the current widespread development of industry would be unthinkable, although, on the other hand, it was precisely the successes of industry that contributed to the establishment of this monotony.” 59
Right there. P. 313.

The development of imitation in the form of fashion, according to G. Tarde, leads to certain characteristic features of industrial development. Firstly, this is the fragility of the goods produced: “... when fashion sets in, monotonous in different places, but changing from year to year, the industrialist cares more about quantity than about durability. One builder of merchant ships in America told Tocqueville that it was best for him to build fragile ships, in view of the variability of taste in them.” 60
Right there. P. 323.

On the other hand, it is the emergence of fashion that, according to G. Tarde, leads to the intellectualization of production and the widespread development of technology: “It is not difficult to see what character the dominance of fashion gives to industry... industry must develop mechanically and scientifically and lose its originality and artistry. In a word, the dominance of fashion is connected, which may seem very strange, with the dominance of reason and, I will add, with the dominance of individualism and naturalism.” 61
Right there. P. 329.

In conclusion, G. Tarde emphasizes the connection of custom and fashion with certain historical stages in the development of civilization and the irreversibility of their state due to the clear correlation of external forms with internal, ideological content. As an exception, he singles out “women’s fashions”: “Why, however, can only women’s fashions develop in the opposite direction, completely independent of the order in which ideas and mores developed? This is undoubtedly explained by the insignificant participation of women in political and intellectual life, their everywhere and always predominant desire to please physically and, despite their passion for change, the basic immobility of their nature.” 62
Right there. P. 364.

Thus, to summarize, it can be stated that G. Tarde’s concept of fashion is part of his general concept of social interaction, the main form of which is imitation. G. Tarde identifies two main types of imitation - custom and fashion. Fashion appears as an alternative to custom and appears as a form of social innovation. Otherwise, G. Tarde does not highlight any fundamental differences between the functioning of these two types of imitation - custom and fashion, exploring them as a basic social process and the basis of society. Thus, the phenomenon of fashion appears in G. Tarde as one of the main forms of imitation, the importance of which is increasing in modern industrial societies. In addition, it is a mechanism leading the entire civilization to unified forms and states.

The Theory of Fashion by Georg Simmel

The German philosopher and sociologist Georg Simmel proposed the concept of the “trickle-down effect” in his work “The Psychology of Fashion” in 1905. Its essence is that the highest social classes use certain signs in clothing and accessories to emphasize their social status. The lower classes try to get closer to the higher ones, and therefore copy their clothing or its individual elements. This is the trickle-down effect. This is how fashion spreads through society. Later, the followers of Georg Simmel gave the concept a “trickle-down effect” of economic traits: the higher social classes can afford to differ from the lower ones at great expense. While the lower ones, with the development of cinema, media mass media, more and more want to imitate their superiors. The industry supports this. Manufacturers begin to copy the same models in large quantities, using cheaper fabrics at low prices.

Georg Simmel considers such a status value as “honor” to be an attribute of fashion: the essence of which is to join people of one’s own circle and class and to separate from lower-status strata of the population. In people's behavior, considerations of "honor" and fashion recommendations dominate over considerations of convenience. He emphasizes that most people experience an emotional fusion of approval and envy towards fashion: since not everyone can afford to own many fashion products, those who would like to own them, but do not have such an opportunity, they experience a feeling of envy. At the same time, fashionable goods are not unattainable - there is the possibility of getting what you want as a result of a “happy” coincidence of circumstances. To a certain extent, fashion is a form of self-realization for individuals who need psychological support from the outside. Deliberate unfashionability has the same mechanism, only with the opposite sign.

"Reluctance to follow fashion may arise from the need not to mingle with the crowd, a need which is based, if not on independence from the crowd, then on an internally sovereign position in relation to it; but it may also be a manifestation of weakness and sensitivity, in which the individual is afraid that he will not be able to preserve his not too pronounced individuality if he follows forms, taste, and the laws of community."(G. Zimmel).

Opposition to fashion is not always a sign of personal strength - a strong personality follows fashion, but at the same time has a differentiated attitude towards fashion trends, without sacrificing individuality.

Max Weber's concept of status groups

German sociologist, historian, economist Max Weber of the late 19th century. - early 20th century identified the main factors that influence the inequality of people in society

Like Karl Marx, Max Weber uses the concept of class. To define it, the concept of class status is introduced: “The term “class status” is used to determine the typical probability with which: a) provision of goods, b) external living conditions, c) subjective satisfaction or frustration are characteristic of an individual or group.” Therefore, in his opinion, a class is a group of people who have the same class status. He distinguishes the following classes: a) the “class of owners” who receive income from property; b) the “mining class”, which receive income from the sale of labor; c) “social class”, which consists of intellectuals and specialists who have a high level of education, but do not have property

The attitude to the class of owners is based on the following characteristics: 1) the ability to monopolize the acquisition of expensive goods; 2) the ability to monopolize product policy; 3) the ability to accumulate property due to non-survival of added value; 4) the ability to accumulate capital as a monopoly through control over key positions in the business; 5) the possibility of monopolizing the privilege of socially prestigious types of education and consumption.

In addition, Max Weber identified the following concepts:

- “middle” class - those who own all types of property or are competitive in the labor market thanks to appropriate professional training;

- “status groups” - those whose fate does not depend on the ability to buy cheap goods on the market (for example, slaves). Status groups form a special way of life: style of consumption, communication, nature of marriages;

- “social status” - the ability of individuals to receive positive or negative privileges and prestige, which are based on the following criteria: a) lifestyle, b) education, c) prestige of birth or profession.

Thus, Max Weber, unlike Karl Marx, defines the division into classes not only by the presence or absence of control over the means of production, but also by socio-economic differences not related to property.

Behaviorism

American psychologist John Watson at the beginning of the 20th century. founded a new direction in psychology - behaviorism. In contrast to the dominant direction in psychology at that time - introspection (self-observation), which is characterized by the consideration of a person’s inner world in isolation from the external environment, behaviorism considered the internal state of a person in connection with the external environment.

Behaviorism is based on the theory of Ivan Petrovich Pavlov, who proved that behavior is often a response, a reaction to environmental stimuli. Stimulus-response formula (S - R) is leading in behaviorism The connection between S And R intensifies if there is reinforcement / (S - I - R). Reinforcement can be negative (pain, punishment) and positive (material and moral incentives). The task of psychology is to find stimuli that will cause the desired reaction.

Thus, personality is a set of behavioral reactions inherent in a person, an organized and relatively stable system of skills, and the anticipation and control of behavior depend on an accurate determination of the external conditions that determine behavior.

Gestalt psychology

German psychologists Max Wertegheimer, Kurt Koffke, Wolfgang Köhler at the beginning of the 20th century. created psychological school, which is called Gestalt psychology. its essence lies in the fact that the psyche needs to be studied from the point of view of integral structures - gestalts (German. Gestalt- form, image, structure) - spatially visual form of perceived objects, whose essential properties cannot be understood by summing up the properties of their parts.

Gestalt psychology arose from studies of perception. Its focus is on the characteristic tendency of the psyche to perceive reality as a whole. Opposing the principle of dividing consciousness into elements and constructing complex mental phenomena from them, put forward by traditional psychology, they proposed the idea of ​​the integrity of the image and the impossibility of reducing the properties of the whole to the sum of the properties of the elements. Objects that make up a person’s environment are perceived by the senses not as individual objects, but as organized forms. Perception is not reduced to the sum of sensations, and the properties of a figure are not described through the properties of its parts.

Christian von Ehrenfels is one of the predecessors of Gestalt at the beginning of the 20th century. emphasized that “the whole is a certain reality that is different from the sum of its parts.” One striking example is a melody that is recognizable even if it sounds in a specific arrangement

"If the similarity of two phenomena (or physiological processes) is due to the number of identical elements and is proportional to it, then we are dealing with sums. If there is no correlation between the number of identical elements and the degree of similarity, and the similarity is due to the functional structures of the two integral phenomena as such, then we have gestalt"(Kol.Dunker).

1. The path of life and creativity - 2 pages

2. Element of social life - 4 pages

3. The phenomenon of enmity - 7 pages

4. Formal sociology - 9 pages

5. Philosophy of life and culture - 14 pages

6. Women's culture - 19 pages

7. List of sources used - 24 pages

1. The path of life and creativity.

Georg Simmel (1858-1918) was already a popular philosopher during his lifetime. Thin

a feeling phenomenologist, a dialectician by mentality, he was deeply interested in

the fate of the individual and at the same time developed large-scale

philosophical and historical problems of culture, was acutely worried and tried to comprehend

crisis of European civilization. Weber, Sorokin, Durkheim and other authoritative

Philosophers highly valued the sophistication of thought and the abundance of Simmel's ideas. But they also reproached:

in fragmentation, lack of a system and a clear philosophical worldview.

They called him a “brilliant amateur.”

articles do not fit within the framework of one scientific discipline. Elements of ethics,

aesthetics, psychology, sociology are intertwined in his thoughts. Exactly

therefore, he can be considered a cultural scientist par excellence. Simmel was passionate about building sociological theory and put forward many fruitful ideas. But, feeling an intuitive dislike for “sociological fictions” - hyperbolic systemic constructions - he often preferred the genre of philosophical studies, choosing for research such seemingly insignificant topics as “Laziness”, “Wonderfulness”, “Gratitude”, “Coquetry”, "Fashion". From them he stretched threads to fundamental questions of philosophy and cultural theory.

In the period between the two world wars, sociologists rarely turned to Simmel's work. But in the 60s, due to the crisis of sociology and the advent of the postmodern era, Simmel turned out to be very modern. Its fragmentation is in tune with the spirit of the times of the second half of the twentieth century. Today, among its advantages they note the development of “understanding sociology”, microsociology, conflictology,

personology, communication theory, the idea of ​​the plurality of cultural worlds and

much more. Against the backdrop of the progressive “fragmentation” of sociology and the rejection of

construction of a general sociological theory, Simmel's texts do not seem so

fragmentary. Behind his emphasized subjectivism and skepticism

a philosophical vision of culture is visible.

a merchant, baptized in the Lutheran Church, was the youngest of seven children. His father

died early. My father's friend, the owner of a music publishing house, took charge of

about a talented young man. Georg made his own way in life. Often he experienced

sadness and loneliness. Graduated from classical gymnasium, then - philosophical

Faculty of the University of Berlin. His teachers were Mommsen, Lazarus,

Steinthal, Bastian.

Simmel's doctoral dissertation was devoted to Kant. He became a privatdozent early on, but in academic circles they were wary of him and did not want to elect him.

a full-time professor, which he became only four years before his death. Almost all

life Simmel did not receive a regular salary and lived on fees from lectures and

student fees. He was a type of philosopher-publicist and salon speaker.

He often performed in front of theater bohemians and became famous as a brilliant lecturer.

He knew how to think out loud and speak insightfully about pressing issues. Exciting

listeners with the energy of his thoughts, Simmel wrote and spoke simultaneously for two

audiences - professional scientists and curious intellectuals. Interest in

exotic themes and a penchant for improvisation gave rise to Ortega and Gasset

compare Simmel to a squirrel jumping from branch to branch and biting off little by little

from every nut.

Simmel was also a “marginalist” because he did not want to occupy a certain

political and ideological position, did not belong to any party or

philosophical school. He felt like a fish in water in the stream of new problems,

was at the same time a romantic and a positivist, a liberal and a socialist,

nationalist and cosmopolitan. When during a lecture it occurred to him

good idea, he changed his point of view “on the fly” and deployed the chain of his

associations in a new direction. Simmel was a skeptic, an analyst. His lectures

captured, aroused thought, but did not contain any positive credo,

faith, beliefs that he could not develop, or carefully concealed.

Today no one would demand such a credo from him. Many of us -

witnesses of the end of the millennium - have long been accustomed to living without faith, without seeing in life

sense. But at the beginning of the twentieth century, the “climate of opinions” was different; the intelligentsia believed in

future, lived with ideas and global projects. Unbelief, Simmel's "omnivorousness"

undermined his reputation. He willingly talked with theatergoers, scientists, poets,

politicians. He shone everywhere, received applause and felt everywhere

a stranger. This life strategy corresponded to his ideas about character

era, its main trends: the enrichment of the universal “objective

culture", the liberation of the individual from group, corporate ties and his

progressive differentiation, erosion of a single self-identity into many

independent selves.

His passion for sociology, which was not on the list of academic disciplines, also did not add scientific weight to him. Germany has a strong scientific tradition in

fields of social and human sciences, each of which had its own specific

subject and methods of research. Simmel's attempts to create sociology as

independent methodological science about society, were perceived as

extravagance.

For Simmel, the source of creative impulses and grateful audience was

"informal Berlin culture". This was the name of the community of scientists, poets,

politicians, lawyers, inspired by the victorious pathos of natural science and

anticipation of great changes. In the 80s of the last century, when Simmel

was just beginning its activities, the spirit of the Prussian soldiery and feudal

bureaucracy coexisted peacefully with the dialectical spirit of Hegelian philosophy. But not

Fifteen years have passed since Berlin began to rapidly transform into a new

capital of Europe. Science, technology, powerful corporations, imperial ambitions have reached

first plan. Krupp, the king of the steel industry, succeeded Kant in

as the leader of the nation. Thermodynamics began to crowd out dialectics. Increase in wealth

military and technical power, was accompanied by sentiments of spiritual emptiness and

confusion. The liberation of the thinking mind from national tradition turned into

cultural groundlessness, lack of incentives to develop philosophical

New ideas came to Germany from abroad. The Russians were especially popular - Tolstoy, Dostoevsky; Scandinavians - Strindberg, Ibsen, Hamsun; French - Zola, Maupassant.

Spiritual confusion, pluralism of worldviews, the fall of authorities - all this, however, also had a positive significance for science. It was pulled away from the surface of life

the veil of his decency. Culture appeared in its irrational

nudity, contradiction, exoticism. Ideological movements of various kinds:

positivism, Kantianism, Marxism, social Darwinism, racism, idealistic

philosophy of history coexisted peacefully and interacted fruitfully until

remained within the scientific community. Later - in the 20-30s, an explosive mixture

Marxism, Darwinism and ancient Germanic myths, seasoned with Nietzschean

romanticism, will spill out into politics and give rise to fascism. The image of a "superman"

future" will capture the minds of advanced German youth. But at the turn of the century

the interaction of science, philosophy and ideology activated minds and prepared the ground

for cultural studies.

At different periods of his life, Simmel was attracted by different problems and different methods

research. Initially, he had an interest in communication, sociality in its

immediate manifestations. Awkwardness at meeting, conflict, love, temptation,

intimacy, internal barriers between people, the secret of identity - someone else's and one's own - here

which excited him and pushed him to explore society. At the same time, Simmel wanted

follow Spinoza's motto: "Do not cry, do not laugh, but understand." He thought that

To achieve success, a sociologist should abandon not only estimates, but also

some specific role or position in society.

In methodology, Simmel initially leaned towards positivism: Spencerianism and

Darwinism. Then he began to look for a priori forms of social cognition, based on

Kant. It was then that his “formal sociology” was born. At the same time there was

"breakthrough" into the phenomenology of culture, in which the dialectic of form and content

are in the spotlight. The last - cultural and philosophical period of life -

painted in aesthetic, romantic, tragic tones. Repulsion from bourgeoisism

and rationalism are now combined in Simmel with conservative patriotism and even

the pathos of militarism. Despair because life seemed to be a failure, and history

It did not live up to expectations, giving rise to internal discord. Deep skepticism of the late

Simmel is combined, however, with an enthusiastic hymn to the eternally young, seething

2. The element of social life.

Refraining from recognizing "social substance", Simmel spoke of a plurality

qualitatively special, large and small forces, elements that make up

social process. He attributed these forces to love, gratitude,

competitiveness, hostility, fashion, the desire for self-affirmation, novelty and much more

Formless and essentially meaningless social elements,

including instinctive, social and spiritual forces, diverse

are combined in society, “stratified” into “form” and “content”, which then

interact with each other. Form is impersonal, universal, inert.

Initially, Simmel relied on physicochemical and biological analogies: he talks about social atoms and molecules, differentiation and integration, social matter, which can be “condensed” and “rarefied.” Social elements can spread like a hurricane wind or freeze in the form for a long time

social institutions, dogmas, customs. Forms, absorbing newly emerging

the elements process them in their own way. Church, state, science are forms.

They draw in love, greed, lust for fame, competitiveness, endowing them with

special symbolic meaning. Later, decomposing social forms transmit

accumulated energy to other, new forms that will comprehend these forces and

symbolize them differently.

Thus, scientific polemics are born from theological disputes, from Protestant

anxiety and preoccupation - passion for money and accumulation, from the monastic

obedience - secular education, from the Orthodox-Russian dream of the Kingdom of God

on Earth - we could add to this - the construction of communism in the USSR.

Simmel did not seek to reduce the complex fabric of social relations to any one

strength, form, as other philosophers did. Durkheim's "solidarity" works

as a unifying force, but only along with hostility and competition. Labor and

capital is, of course, powerful socializing forces, but only in combination with

religion and ethics.

Of the many elements and forces, Simmel singles out money and

socialized intelligence (rationality). These elements are objective and

subjective, constructive and destructive, meaningful and formal at the same time

same time. They create both real institutions and ideological fetishes.

Together with Weber, Simmel introduces the concepts of rationality into sociology,

rationalization, socialized intelligence. Social rationality is not

similar to the absolute Mind of the Enlightenment. She is not pure, selfless

public consciousness. Rationality in society is represented by many

divergent minds. It is not formalized into a strictly logical discourse, it includes

themselves contradictions, unclear, irrational moments. Motivating force

social rationality is not only the “will to power”, as Nietzsche thought.

Perhaps it is the will to serve, to sacrifice, to agree on means and ends, to find

practical benefits. From public rationality is being repressed to the extent that it

perhaps - unexpected, unmanaged components. A specific example would be

serve in the army or bureaucratic chain of command. No specific

rationality does not embrace the entire society. Attempts to plant the same thing everywhere

same discipline, logic, system of ranks, usually encounter powerful

resistance of the “primary” elements. The more totalitarian the system, the more

likelihood of opposition, split, civil war. The most stable and

those societies are effective in which, in the presence of some dominant order,

a certain degree of freedom is retained for all social forces.

Rationalization is replacing tribal consciousness and is gaining strength as traditional societies collapse. Science, technology, bureaucracy, mass systems

communications serve as its support. But rationality is not monolithic, not transparent.

It includes as elements law, tradition, material interests,

good will, ideological myth, moral enthusiasm and even religious zeal.

Rationality is valuable because it binds these disparate elements into one

whole. Economy, morality, religion, family, work become parts of a single

socio-cultural system. Rationality can be interpreted as a common name for everyone

legalized ideologies when they reach consensus. Rationality -

management tool. We are called upon to support, develop and improve it

politicians, scientists, the entire ruling elite and intelligentsia.

The second social element is money, monetary circulation. The birthplace of money is urban

society with its fleeting, anonymous market connections, vitally important

only for commodity exchange, but also for spiritual interactions. Money is

"perpetual motion machine" of the "social machine", allowing it to be deployed in different

directions. They will unite the efforts and thoughts of millions of people. Circulation of money

similar to the circulation of knowledge and information. Money - in phenomenal terms - is

remuneration for work, generally recognized value, instrument for distribution of benefits,

accepting the type of taxes, duties, interest; instrument of culture, science, education

In the form of investments. Money is a pure function, a medium of exchange - for anything

for anything. But, paradoxically, also independent of will and

element of reason. It can "rage", and then banks, presidents and

states are losing control over it. In the hours and minutes of economic crises

some become beggars, others become millionaires. The power of money has driven out of the sphere

labor and management tools such as slavery, direct violence, personal

devotion. But it also replaced morality, honor, dignity, and faith in goodness.

Money forms the plot basis of many novels, plays, and films. U

they have neither intelligence nor conscience. Money is a fetish, a tool of Satan.

All this was well known to many writers and philosophers, in particular, Marx, who saw in money a legalized instrument for the exploitation of man by man and

demanded their abolition in communist society. Following Marx, Simmel

indicates the irrational and antisocial forms that it can take

money element. This is the stratification of society into rich and poor, meaningless

luxury, overconsumption - at one extreme there is also beggary, the death of talents,

spiritual degradation is on the other.

Money frees an individual from the care of family, community, church, corporation. In them a person finds the realization of the great ideal of Personal Freedom. How?

Firstly, by concentrating the money supply in one hand. Secondly, by

liberation of a person from duties and responsibilities to the master, from

which can be "bought off". Thirdly, by receiving benefits and privileges from

with the help of bribes. Fourthly, by increasing the mass of “services” received from

other persons, while maintaining personal independence from them. Fifthly, by

expanding your social circle. It is clear that money in its liberating function

are destroyers of kinship and tribal relations, a tool

modernization of traditional societies and at the same time the destruction of small cultures.

Money promotes the formation of groups based on common goals, regardless of

social utility, morality of these goals. Hence the organized

crime, brothels, etc. At the same time, an individual, communicating with people

mentally and morally strangers, learns a lot and becomes internally freer.

Therefore, through money circulation lies the path to self-realization and awareness

each individual his own recognition.

Simmel's eight-hundred-page book "The Philosophy of Money" talks about how effective an invention money turned out to be. They materialize the eternal dream of a person with the help of a symbol, a talisman, to have power over the world and one’s own destiny. Money is a “despicable metal”. But for his sake people die, go to

crime, selling body, soul and mind.

Of all possessions, money seems to be the most “obedient”. They do not require “repair” or maintenance. But transactions with big money are risky. A successful investment allows you to make a million overnight, but a unsuccessful one leads to loss

condition.

Money holds together the heterogeneous elements of society, competing in this regard with ideology, religion, and ethics. The introduction of a global currency would greatly weaken

sovereignty of individual states.

It is not easy to explain from what sources money draws its strength. It is clear, in any case, that not only from accumulated labor, but also from various human

needs and fantasies, as well as from the dynamics of demand and social relations.

Money confirms the idea of ​​the symbolic nature of culture. They

are a tool, but easily turn into an end in itself, reducing genuine

values ​​to the level of funds.

The alternative to money fetishism may not be socialism, but a new, genuine spirituality. After all, with the help of money you can build any form of statehood.

It all depends on the person. Money is the energy carrier of culture. They allow

transform social chaos into order. Money is a good example

an “objective”, alienated culture that is opposed to life.

Money and intelligence are the main elements of civilization - objective, impersonal and

spiritless culture. It is they who determine the power and complexity of modern

life, its increasing systematicity and at the same time chaos. Destroyed

emotional-volitional connections between people, alienated forms grow

relationships. Money can give scope to any talent, free from any

dependencies. But at the same time they pull the rug out from under our feet. Freedom is bought

through mental and spiritual devastation, loss of homeland, kinship, love.

Rationality and money are opposed and at the same time supported -

numerous irrational forces of life itself: passions, lust for power, love and

enmity. The conflict between the elements of life and forms of culture was studied in detail by Simmel in

his later articles. But already during the development of formal sociology, Simmel

analyzes a number of forms that are essentially identical to life, are its

elements. These are, in particular, love, gratitude, enmity.

3. The phenomenon of enmity.

Enmity is a particularly characteristic phenomenon, which is both content and

form of life. From Simmel's analysis of enmity grew modern

conflictology. Widespread hostility in the form of wars, class and religious

hatred, ethnic conflicts are obvious. Enmity lends itself to rationality

explanation and settlement. But a correct understanding of enmity requires a combination

scientific-rational and intuitive-personal approaches. The point is that the enmity is

one of the world's elements, acting both in society and in the objective world, and in

the subject itself. It can be minimized, introduced into cultural forms,

rationalized in the form of economic competition, scientific discussion, dispute, but

cannot be completely eradicated. Games, competitions between the parties in court - also

serve as examples of socialized hostility. Hostility is present in the economy,

politics, religion, family relationships and even love itself. It manifests itself in

powerful, short-term discharges, flashes or in sluggish processes, when

There are cyclical rises and falls in tension. Enmity between people -

is natural, as evidenced by the famous saying: “All people are enemies,” which

is as true as its contradictory: “All men are brothers.”

We feel the originality, the origins of enmity in our existence, in that special

the interest we feel in the misfortune of our neighbor, as well as in the “spirit

contradictions", which sometimes arises between the closest people, actively and

deeply exciting each other. "Oppositional instinct", as he suggests

Simmel, “mixes” with human behavior in any situation: a person

asserts itself while denying the other.

In the article "Man as an Enemy" Simmel talks about many cases where small,

even ridiculous reasons served as the cause of bloodshed that lasted for years,

struggle. Here we can recall the struggle between the “Right” and “Left” hand parties in India,

"Scarlet" and "White" Roses in England. It seems that the reasons for hostility

are sought specifically when the energy of tension in society reaches a certain level

limit. The soul has a need to love and hate.

Moralists of all times called on people for peace and harmony. Meanwhile, humanity has always been at war. There was hardly a period in history when there was no

armed conflict. The relationships of primitive groups are almost always -

hostile. Greek cities were constantly at war with each other. They behaved the same way

Russian principalities and Indian tribes. In civilized societies they do

vigorous attempts to eliminate hostilities. Many treatises have been written on “eternal peace”,

which should come as a result of growing up and admonishing a person. However

two world wars between the civilized peoples of Europe are refuted, throughout

apparently this theory. And yet the functionality of consent and love in society

seems more obvious than the need for enmity and hatred. And it's unlikely

it is necessary to explain what a large-scale war threatens humanity in modern

conditions at the turn of the third millennium.

Love is less common than enmity, because it arises when

many circumstances related to age, inclinations, social and

family relations, similarity of deep interests. To create enmity

Even one small reason is enough. Using the law of thermodynamics, we can

to say that enmity expresses a tendency towards a spontaneous increase in entropy, towards

chaotization, while love is a non-entropic process and, for it to increase,

soul work is required. However, Simmel emphasizes the close connection between

enmity and love and focuses on the functionality of enmity.

There is no spontaneous disgust, even a feeling of hatred, between a man and a woman

certain reasons. However, it is a symbol of a healthy, holistic being,

often - a prelude to passionate love.

Close intimacy between people is difficult to maintain, because mental and spiritual relationships, unlike material and economic ones, cannot be static.

The human soul is always in motion and each soul has its own path. Therefore, society, in need of guarantees of reliability and spiritual closeness, puts forward many

prohibitions on innovation in action and thought. To reconcile the two imperatives:

social reliability and spiritual closeness, the church puts forward the dogma of sacrament and

indissolubility of marriage.

The thinner, deeper, more vibrant the connection between people, the easier it is to break. Brilliant

creative personalities They come together for a short time, and then diverge. Are common

interests and common ideology especially strongly provoke enmity. If unity

community has become something taken for granted, then any deviation from them

perceived as painful.

We come into contact with a stranger only at separate “points of the soul,” hiding ourselves in a “shell of restraint.” But in a family or political party, conflicts can

flare up over trifles. Accusations of treason and heresies arise on the basis

ideological or spiritual affinity. However, well-mannered and harmonious

It is precisely at the moment of conflict that people realize how insignificant it is compared to

a blessed feeling of intimacy, love or friendship. This is possible because it is high

developed people are able to combine complete dedication with complete inner freedom.

However, for most people in close relationships,

unconscious dependence, reticence, desire to dominate. To

to limit these destructive tendencies, it is necessary to maintain some

optimal distance

The meaning of love, its functionality are clear. Love helps you survive

provides support, reliability, and strength of public relations. But why

need hostility? Why is it more widespread than love? Why is she so easy

flares up and is it so difficult to extinguish it?

Hostility will be “required”, firstly, to maintain competition, which is necessary in economics, science, and art. A certain amount of hostility activates

relationships, makes them more lively and interesting. Secondly, enmity

acts as a defense mechanism. We are hostile to those who humiliate us, force us

question our worth and dignity. Thirdly, enmity is a tool

life renewal. The enmity of “fathers and sons” helps society develop faster

abandon outdated traditions. The feud draws attention to new controversial

points, makes you focus on them. Conflict serves as a signal to begin

change and even rapprochement. The introduction of innovations is often associated with hostility, with

preparation for war. Many scientific discoveries are known to have been made thanks to

arms race. Fourthly, enmity, according to Simmel, precedes rapprochement

and love, serving as a “retreat for a running start.” Hostility helps interaction

crops A fruitful synthesis of many ethnic communities occurred as a result

wars. Fifthly, enmity fuels the dispute in which the truth is born. True

is often clarified and established as a result of a long struggle between parties, at the cost

blood and victims. It is not always possible to come to the truth in a direct and peaceful way.

Simmel considers conflict a constructive mechanism of social life. In contrast

from Marx, who sought to understand the antagonism between classes in order to

to start a war, a revolution, Simmel believes that the closer we come to

awareness of the conflict, the easier it is to overcome it through compromise. In development

In enmity, as in love, the intellect follows the feeling. Into a minor conflict

More and more powerful forces are gradually involved. Hostile confrontation is more common

in all is the result of the spontaneous development of the conflict that arose due to

for a minor reason.

4. Formal sociology.

Natural science differs significantly from sociology. The first is an example of science,

and it is strictly organized. The second consists of knowledge scattered in all areas

culture: myth, religion, art, historical chronicles and biographies. Why

is natural science possible as a science? Firstly, because we can perceive

natural objects using sensations (color, heat, movement, etc.). Secondly,

there are, as Kant showed, universal forms inherent in all consciousness

perceptions (time, space, causality, law, fact) under which we can

“to let down” everything that we see and imagine. Thirdly, a person who knows

nature, can separate itself from the object of knowledge. We are "built" into nature as

living beings, but in the process of cognition they are able to be distracted from our natural

connections and needs, be impartial. Fourthly, our cognizing

consciousness is one thing, but a cognizable object is something completely different.

All these conditions are absent in sociology. Firstly, there are no sensations here that would come directly from the object - society. It is invisible

intangible. The very existence of society as a special reality is subject to

doubt. Sociological "nominalism" derives the concept of "society" as a whole from

the sum of the ideas of individuals who, based on their experience and in

in accordance with their practical tasks, construct an image of society,

which is then “socialized”. Secondly, there are no universal

a priori forms of social cognition. In each specific era, people start from

immutable for them ideas about rights, freedoms, sacred and criminal,

noble and base, about the hierarchy and functions of various classes. But already during life

the next generation, these seemingly unshakable ideas can be

overthrown and ridiculed. Thirdly, the researcher of society himself is his

member and subject to all the prejudices and influences of his time. Universal

natural scientific reason corresponds in the science of society to some

cultural-historical type of rationality - the ability to social generalization,

oriented toward compromise, a combination of realities and symbols in a single picture,

different, sometimes opposing, points of view. Moreover, consciousness itself is in

a significant part of it - in content, motivation, orientation - is social

phenomenon, element of society. It is through consciousness and purposeful contacts

a network of interactions that make up the social system is constituted.

Through language, beliefs, information, holistic attitudes, foundations are formed

society, while natural - age, gender, food, herd forms

interactions constitute only its natural basis.

Fourth, natural science is morally neutral. Doesn't hurt anyone, let's say

study of mating in animals. But a person classifies not only his own

natural functions, but also many motives of social activity and

communication. Lust for power, lust for fame, lust for greed, all kinds of “complexes”

inferiority" are rarely recognized as motivating forces of social action.

The sociologist searches for such an essence, such deep interests, imperatives, carefully

camouflaged, which, if they were explicit, would cause an explosion in many

indignation and sociology itself turned out to be a “subversive science”. Not to be

as such, it often becomes an apologetic science and justifies actions

The most important political decisions are secrets that arouse intense interest. The deep and true truth of sociology would be the revelation of a mystery. And as soon as such a disclosure occurs, sociological knowledge becomes part of

ideology - dominant or revolutionary. In fact, sociology is all the time

fluctuates between criticism and apologetics, taking risks in both cases

its scientific reputation. Attempts to build politically and morally

neutral sociology leads to the fact that it becomes uninteresting to anyone

not necessary. These are some of the obstacles that stand in the way of constructing sociology as

Realizing them, Simmel proposes to build it not as a science of “society”

in general", but as a science about typical, recurring social situations, connections,

situations that are observed in many societies. He calls them "social

forms." They are subject to evaluation, moral interpretation - in accordance with

historical context and the values ​​of the researcher.

Sociology emerges from practical problems management, social work,

education, political struggle. And it can become a science if it is put into

focus on sustainable forms of communication, social interaction,

which are already visible at the group level. These are, for example, dominance, submission,

fashion. Social forms can be filled with broad political, moral,

religious content. We are talking about “pure forms of socialization”, defined

human nature and the character of society. They are also forms of knowledge,

similar forms of knowledge to Kant. Social forms are a product of practical

the interaction of individuals and the associated experience and awareness of reality.

War, family life, scientific communication are examples of forms of interaction. Their

awareness is included in these forms.

The task of identifying the main forms of sociation greatly fascinated Simmel. However, it was possible to solve it only in simple cases. For example, Simmel notes the importance of the number of people in a group from the point of view of possible processes and states in it. Thus, a “dyad” can exist in the form of rivalry, enmity, friendship, dominance and

submission. But in the “triad” more complex combinations are possible. Two faces

compete. The third, which is lower in level of development than the other two, may be the more

however, lead the group, performing a mediating role and representing the group in

society. The larger the group, the less role intelligence and morality play, and

the greater the importance of power, communication qualities, as well as appearance

individuals - in the process of gaining power and social status. Numerous

It is easier for one person to manage a group. Therefore, large countries gravitate towards monarchy,

and small ones - to democracy.

Forms are directly related to processes of change social order,

social structure. But these processes are inseparable from the “contents”, that is

experiences, interests, moods. Thus, the process of stratification of society into elite and

masses, aristocrats and commoners, is associated with the struggle of material, power

interests, which, in turn, are determined by the content of the people's

mentality and values ​​of society.

Simmel likens formal sociology to geometry, which studies forms and

distracted from the content. Another analogy is grammar, which explores

linguistic constructions regardless of the meaning of statements. Third example -

formal logic. Logic, after all, is not only and not even so much a science as

a practical form of organizing and transferring knowledge from one person to another.

It helps protect transmitted information from distortion and does not allow

turn communication into a well-known game called “damaged phone”.

However, when a human relationship or a particular conversation tries entirely

subordinate to the rules of logic, it looks as if the whole meaning of human

Communication comes down to the transfer of information. And in knowledge itself we constantly see

the presence of random associations, insights, intuitions that violate logic.

All this must be taken into account if we want to understand the essence, functions

social forms. Simmel speaks, for example, of bureaucracy in Weber's sense as

natural, normal, effective form of management and maintenance of order. But

what happens when the bureaucracy hardens with the growth of the army, officials,

a decrease in their competence or the penetration of bureaucracy into such creative

spheres like science or art? In these cases, bureaucracy ceases to be

adequate form of management, it “peels away” from the content, activities and

turns into a hindrance to the development of the group.

Pure forms are discovered only in rare cases, since form and content inevitably transform into each other in society.

What do “forms” represent when translated into everyday language, into the practical level of consciousness?

Firstly, these are the boundaries of freedom set by the class or estate framework of life. Secondly, universal moral and legal norms. Thirdly, the methods of communication and achieving communication goals accepted in a given society. Fourthly, ideal types in the Weberian sense, serving both in science and at the everyday level of consciousness for classification, ordering and understanding of the motley stream of life phenomena.

Thus, there is something in common in such institutions as the Court of Louis XIV,

US State Department, Central Committee of the CPSU, Board of Directors of the Industrial Trust. All this -

representative, power, organizing centers in which they collide,

different opinions are coordinated, the interests of peripheral groups are “lobbied”,

decisions are made, political lines are formed. Similar in shape:

political party, gang of thieves, religious sect, teenage group,

scientific school. What do they have in common? Its own “climate of opinions”, “language”, internal

structure of leadership and subordination, the presence of "orthodoxy", the emergence of time from

the time of "heresies" and "schisms", the fight against apostates, traitors,

dissidents.

Finally, fifthly, the form acts as a model of behavior, a social role, a discourse (for example, paternal, superior, propaganda, confessional). Discourse is acquired in the process of learning and socialization and can be enriched or

weaken and degenerate in each subsequent generation. But, be that as it may,

discourse and role - as forms - significantly influence the content of consciousness,

transform the thoughts and feelings of individuals in a certain direction.

Emphasizing the importance of social forms, Simmel “starts” from common

mystical concepts of “national spirit”, “soul of the people”, “historical mission”,

“folk idea”, which supposedly help to comprehend society, historical

era. He would like to present history and changes in social structures as

the process of transformation of impersonal social forms. But being

personalist thinker and aesthetician, he was unable to make deep progress in this

direction. After all, the “projection” of personal subjective contents into images

social phenomena and historical processes - an inevitable moment of social

knowledge. War, revolution, social reform, coup d'etat often

take the form of “courageous deeds”, “betrayals”, “fatal mistakes”,

"troubles", "timelessness". This should not interfere with the study of objective factors, but

may contribute to a better understanding of historical and human significance

Simmel could not help but feel the one-sidedness of his formal sociology and

sought to fill it with a “theory of understanding.” He said that understanding the form,

social phenomenon, is achieved through the process of criticism, doubt, problematization

topics in a way that is understandable to contemporaries. Even distant events

antiquities are subject to “understanding interpretation.” But that's not all. Recognizing

subjectivity of his postulates and assessments, the sociologist must identify and describe more

and personal values ​​that influenced the choice of subject and methods of study. It is forbidden

base knowledge of society on personal experience. But also avoid it in the process

research is impossible. The entire rich spectrum of human feelings;

love, hatred, contempt, admiration, godless aspirations and fanatical

faith is necessary in the work of a historian and sociologist, theorist and phenomenologist. Culture

is realized only on the basis of a full-fledged personal experience of life.

Simmel proposed an extensive list of social forms. Some of them are deeply analyzed. But there is no clear, generally accepted classification of them.

Different researchers group forms in different ways.

Forms differ from each other in the degree of their distance from the flow

life, from its elemental contents. Closest to life, to its content, are

personal, intimate forms - friendship, love. However, they can also become formal,

turning into stereotypes of mass culture. A little further from life

there are economic, political, household and public

creative forms in which the direct movements of mental life are mixed with

powerful ideologies and also interact with power structures. More

strive for complete independence from mass consciousness and from the “social

order." Finally, the “purest” forms of sociation are playful forms. Here

include specially organized games for children and adults and, in addition,

“incorporation” of archaic ritual and festive forms into natural society. Finally,

relict forms of behavior are possible, carried out according to the principle: “art for

art" or "science for science's sake."

Many attempts have been made to classify social forms. Thus, the following were highlighted:

Situations: litigation, exchange, betrayal, bribery;

norms: legal, moral, psychological;

Social personality types: stranger, poor man, aristocrat, leader;

groups: family, secret society, political party, love couple, corporation,

Group structures: hierarchy, centralism, liberalism;

stable forms of interindividual interaction: conflict, compromise,

domination, submission;

Large-scale sociocultural processes: division of labor, urbanization,

secularization, colonization.

It is clear, however, that sociological and cultural analyzes of forms are productive only in a sociocultural and historical context, taking into account form and content.

In its roughest approximation, the form is objective culture. Contents -

subjective. Forms are social, impersonal. Contents are individual,

personal. Forms are the outer layer of consciousness. However, their stability and repeatability

are due to the fact that they grow from deep - innate, unconscious -

"archetypes" (in Jung's sense). So, for example, an aristocrat is a position in a group,

status, a set of group opinions. But the essence of aristocracy "is

nobility of blood, birth", that a person is convinced of his belonging

to the privileged layer. The poor man is also a form. It is not necessarily related to

lack of money. The poor man is pitied, despised, looked down upon or

help. The essence of poverty is “unhappy consciousness”, deprivation of something like that,

what everyone has at their disposal due to the normal order of things.

Simmel's threefold classification of social forms is also common:

processes, types, development scenarios.

Fashion is a process. It did not exist in ancient times and in the Middle Ages. She

comes to replace folk traditions and political despotism. Fashion is associated with

urbanization and modernization. New layers coming to the forefront of life

Using fashion, they emphasize their independence from old authorities and

official power, want to quickly establish their special position. Need

in identification with the advanced cultural layer manifests itself in the form of fashion in the masses,

democratic societies. In a caste-based, closed state, fashion is not needed.

Venetian doges dressed in the same black clothes. Identical tunics,

French jackets, uniforms, were worn by party functionaries in the era of Hitler and Stalin. Fashion

indicates the possibility of individual achievement. After all, “keep up with fashion”

not everyone can. A fashionably dressed person proves that he has taste, energy,

resourcefulness. Fashion is attractive because it gives a sense of the present, a feeling

time. This is a self-accelerating process. What has become especially fashionable

widespread, no longer indicates personal achievements and “comes out of

fashion". Fashion is universal. It concerns not only the length of skirts and trousers, but also

political beliefs, philosophical ideas, scientific methods, religious quests,

love relationship.

Fashion, it would seem, is voluntary. But it is also forced. It can be considered

the democratic equivalent of political and cultural tyranny. Peter the First

forcibly cut the beards of his boyars. The modern politician is looking for himself

hairdresser, consults with psychologists to develop an attractive,

popular image. Fashion is a field for mediocre, dependent fame-lovers. But she

functional: makes industry work, helps unite new

groups and classes, serves as a tool for communication, promotion “up” of gifted

personalities.

The types, according to Simmel, are: rich man, poor man, adventurer, aristocrat, cynic,

coquette, professional, amateur, “insider”, stranger and a number of others. As in

example with fashion, Simmel’s thought when characterizing social types moves

dialectically: from subjective - to objective, from symbolic - to

functional, from external, formal - to substantive, internal.

For example, the characteristics of an aristocrat are interesting. This guy is proud of his

pedigree. He will not fight for “individual rights and freedoms.” It is characteristic of him

an innate sense of equality with all living things and, at the same time, belonging to

elite. An aristocrat values ​​his personal freedom and independence. He is not

displays his hobbies. Outwardly remains calm - both in joy and

in grief. Limits his contacts to a circle of “decent” people. Avoids

professionalism, standardized work for the sake of earning money. He may know more

than a professional, but always emphasizes his belonging to the leisure class,

proud of his amateurism.

An aristocrat is a man of leisure. The snobbery of many aristocrats, their artificial

coldness and harshness in communication allow them to maintain the unity of the class

life, have high standards of personal achievements, including in philosophy and

science, art, collecting paintings, rarities. Aristocratism demands

wearing a mask sometimes weakens mental strength and leads to the degeneration of noble families.

But it has value as an example of impeccable behavior, exposing

"plebeians", vulgarity and bad manners of the "nouveau riche".

The aristocrat is in no hurry, is not particularly interested in anything, and often looks bored. Nevertheless, every mature nation must support the aristocracy with its traditions. Characterized by the popularity of aristocrats among the British, inclined

is proud of its liberalism and democracy.

An interesting and promising form for sociological forecasts is

development scenarios. They replace simple extrapolations and linear

forecasts. Scenario for the development of a group based on an increase in its number

members, outlines as a consequence a whole fan of mutually complementary or

conflicting trends: division of labor, increased competition, intensification

exchange, decreased cohesion, increased freedom and responsibility

individuals, strengthening the unique and social characteristics of the individual. At

building development scenarios combines accurate analysis, intuition and

sociological imagination. It is this type of form that shows the specificity

social science: growing out of practical problems and observations, it rises

to complex abstraction, and then again transforms into practice.

The social forms outlined by Simmel are close to artistic forms and easily

can be illustrated by types of heroes and plots of literary works.

The convergence of sociology and fiction is a characteristic symptom of the transition

from “positivist” sociology to cultural studies.

5. Philosophy of life and culture.

In his philosophy, Simmel relies on the ideas of Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche,

Bergson, anticipates the later ideas of the existentialists, adding to this

his own characteristic psychologism and skepticism. Categories that are the most

Spirit, Society, Culture.

Life is the original, deepest concept. She is irrational, self-sufficient,

capable of mobilizing and transforming any natural objects. Only through her

the spirit can be actualized. Life is a continuous flow of being. In her

The rapid pressure differentiates between reality and what should be. Life

strives for the proper, the ideal, for that which is higher and more significant than itself.

At every given moment, the spiritual content of life confronts it like a duty,

ideal, value, meaning. Having achieved them, life throws off material,

ideal and social shells, forms that served as steps on the way to

freedom, and is established in pure spirituality. Society and culture turn out to be

thus the products and instruments of life, and the animal vitality and spirit are

its lower and higher essences. This is the general philosophical picture of existence according to Simmel.

Culture is divided into objective and subjective. The first is the product of labor and

thoughts of many generations who lived and created, not knowing what, in the end,

the total result of their activities will result. Ideas, things, social norms

multiply with each new era, merge with each other due to the incomprehensible

for us the law, striving for something holistic. Objective culture grows

as if by the will of some Absolute Subject, who uses people as

temporary “hired workers” to achieve goals unknown to us. But man

has its own requirements for culture. An individual acquires knowledge, norms,

artistic images in order to express and develop your own “piece”

nature given to him from birth. This is how a subjective culture arises, which

shapes, organizes and harmonizes the personality from the inside, determining the place of all its

inclinations and talents, giving scope to each of them. At the moment of creativity

cultural phenomena correspond to life, but as it becomes enriched and affirmed

become alien to her, even hostile. There are many examples of this: astronomy,

serving the needs of agriculture and navigation, begins to develop as

independent science; social roles, deprived of practical content,

become theatrical characters; political and economic struggle

becomes a game; wars are gradually being replaced by sports competitions; Love

takes the form of coquetry, etc. Cultural form embodies a certain permanence

being. The flow of life demolishes the outdated form and replaces it with a new one. Moreover, the process

this is repeated again and again. Life in itself is formless, but

appropriate. Culture is formalized, but the alternation of its forms has no purpose other than

life itself.

Objective culture is absorbed by life, becoming the culture of the individual. She

is an educational and educational resource for humanity. The richer

The more diverse the objective culture, the more meaningful life. But the growth of freedom and

educational potential of culture is just one of the visible trends that

inferior in strength to others, much less favorable. Among them stands out, according to

at least three: professionalization, individualization and massification.

Culture is being professionalized. The highest levels of science, technology, art,

political governance are becoming less and less accessible to the masses, they require everything

greater training and appropriate abilities. Professionalization alienates

people from each other and makes them deaf and blind to the general movement

The choice of life path is individualized. Traditions, group interests, even the education and upbringing already received constrain the individual less and less in his

life choice. It gives a feeling of hope. But along with it, the conflict intensifies

objective and subjective cultures. Personality, even if it evaluates correctly

its capabilities, realizes the importance of universal human values, yet

turns out to be negligibly small, increasingly becoming a toy, paper

a boat driven by the winds of the objective elements of culture: migrations, wars,

revolutions.

Finally, the mass character of culture is increasing. Culture from the centers of its production,

located mainly in the USA and Europe, spreads spontaneously in the form of

information, books, films, fashion, political stereotypes and deliberately

imposed by the ruling elites in order to make the masses more obedient, less

conscious. Education and upbringing are not protected from mass culture.

Choosing your path correctly, realizing your calling becomes everything because of this

more difficult. A person is less and less able to achieve a coincidence of the “center” of his personality with

the center of objective culture and even that part of it that he has chosen as

their destiny (language, confession, craft, social circle, political party and

The result of all these trends is that the world of spirit, involving man,

reveals many autonomous centers of development: religious, philosophical,

ethical, national. Man cannot live without gathering around himself a single

personal center. However, the components included in it are increasingly

autonomous, fragmented, inconsistent with each other. Personality is made

kaleidoscopic. One can say about a person that he is a “weaver who himself is not

knows what he is weaving."

Thus, Simmel adds his voice to the critics of "alienation", especially Feuerbach and Marx. The essence of alienation is that the products of creativity

separate individuals, being objectified and included in the dynamics of social

elements are no longer controlled either by the individual or by any social institution.

Adherents of religious and philosophical-political teachings go so far from their

teachers, founders of any doctrine, that its main core is

is forgotten, repressed, and secondary motives begin to dominate. Core -

fragments, secondary ideologies grow from it, which enter into battle with each other

with a friend. Ideologies are fragmenting. A powerful fragmentary layer of objective

culture. In its integrity it becomes more imaginary, “virtual”, like

we would say in the age of the Internet. System constructs that model culture

no matter how verified they are, they turn out to be far from life. Life is not

wants to be formalized into a system, cannot be comprehended as such. This

The situation can be expressed in another way: modern man less and less clear

understands where, as whom and why he lives. Objective culture

enriches itself, and the personality becomes less and less enlightened. Pluralism

the fragmentation of objective culture corresponds to the fragmentation of personality,

relativism of values. The individual seems to be “pulled apart” in different directions

conflicting streams of life. Products of cultural creativity

are becoming more and more advanced - thanks to the development of technology and the fact that

There are many hands and minds working with them. But mastering them is becoming increasingly difficult.

The enrichment of objective culture leads to the fact that the degree of participation in it

each individual decreases. It is becoming increasingly difficult to understand the integrity of culture

and how it can be managed. Even the development of science is not so much

As reassuring as it is alarming. We gain more knowledge, but to anticipate it

we cannot influence society or the course of the historical process. Turns out,

that only in the most primitive forms are science and technology subject to the will and

reasonable control. In developed forms, they subjugate a person. This thought

religion - "these wings of the soul, designed to lift it into the world of spirit" - acquires

own logic of development and instead of awakening a dormant spirit -

binds him.

In Simmel's philosophy one can distinguish at least three aspects: ethical,

philosophical and cultural.

In the ethical aspect, the most popular, usually associated with Nietzscheanism,

philosophy of life looks like a call to identify oneself with life, throwing away everything

artificial, giving complete freedom to her creative flow. healthy life

instinct is aimed at growth, accumulation, realization of forces, increase in creativity

Vegetation, fauna, physiological instincts - this is only the lowest

the foundation of life, which reaches its apogee in man, spiritualized and

enriched with culture. Greatness of goals, power of thought, purity of heart,

the ability to create beauty is where the color of life manifests itself. "Ethics

life" is incompatible neither with complacent hedonism nor with self-denial and

humility. Both sensual pleasures and strict discipline are possible and even

necessary for those who have mastered the art of life and firmly embarked on the path

self-development. But social forms, as well as dogmatically understood values, are not

must suppress life, which is in perpetual motion and on nothing

calms down.

Agreeing with Nietzsche, Simmel protests against alturistic-democratic

requirements with which strong man trying to make him a servant

the weak, “healthy - turn into a nurse at the patient’s bedside.” Main vector

life is aimed at increasing its internal power and wealth. The meaning and purpose of life

Not in building something external, distant, but in what we do “here and

now." The meaning of this historical moment is to overcome the current

of a person - a subsequent, higher type. "Ethics of life" combines

Hellenistic Stoicism, Kant's categorical imperative and the idea of ​​the "eternal"

return" Nietzsche. Its essence is not to build your happiness or

promote the good of the majority. You need to look for your business, duty, calling.

The one who finds them becomes free and finds the meaning of life. Accepting life in all of it

completeness, he surrenders himself to the power of courageous, “victorious” instincts. He

"tramples under foot" the dream of prosperity - the dream of traders, moralists and

Democrats. “Everything great in life was created by the discipline of intense suffering.”

The projection of the philosophy of life onto morality and politics requires the recognition of hierarchy in

society, "the pathos of distance between people." This pathos should inspire those

those who are “down” should strive “up”, and those who are “above” should do their job honestly.

In the philosophical aspect, life turns out to be the most “meaning-intensive” concept,

overcoming old philosophical antitheses. Life is the unity of subjective and

objective, material and spiritual, become and becoming, natural and

cultural, mortal and eternal. Life reaches its climax in man. In him

it becomes maximally spiritualized, becomes supernatural and acquires

cosmic scale. All streams of life and being intersect in a person. In him

life moves “from inside to outside,” that is, it turns into creativity of “subjective

culture." And "from outside to inside", becoming "subjective culture". Culture

is born precisely at the point of intersection of centrifugal and centripetal

streams of life. She is a form of life that allows her to "awaken"

having joined the spirit, manifest what is in a “dormant state.”

Life is a series of contradictory experiences in which being and

consciousness. Such as love, fear, enmity, debt, guilt, repentance. Culture is

religion, science, philosophy, morality, art. All this is transitory,

materialistic forms of life, thanks to which it asserts itself, acquires

meaning. But life is endless, immortal, incomplete. Culture is finite,

Brenna strives to become complete and perfect.

At some key points, culture and life, form and content, coincide.

Thanks to this, the flow of history takes on the appearance of continuity. Chaos of life

becomes the order of the culture. But as soon as the system of cultural forms ceases

contain new surges of vitality, it becomes dead, cracks,

turns into ruin. Life has a great need for culture. Only in it

she sees the purpose of her movement. But there is a deep and abiding enmity

between the vital-creative, mental process and objective forms of culture.

Life is always moving forward. A talented, insightful person who has mastered

the art of life, constantly changing its strategy. Mastering new forms

culture, he tries to stay in the “center of his personality,” combining

plasticity and stability. But the broad masses behave differently. They are waiting for reforms

revolutions, new philosophical concepts in which the same

truth for everyone and who will bring life into final order. However

A little time passes and the cultural form, which just seemed perfect,

becomes tight and collapses.

Simmel notes that the struggle between life and culture was clear for the first time

demonstrated by Marx using the example of the history of the world economy. Economic

forces create corresponding forms of production relations, ideologies,

outgrow them and replace them with new ones. But economic forces are only part of life's

strength Culture strives to embrace the entire “living space” with a single idea.

The typical features of each great era appear, according to Simmel, in its central

an idea in which the real, the proper and the ideal merge.

For the classical Greek world, the central idea was the One Divine, Substantial Being, embodied in plastic forms, easily felt thanks to man's receptivity to beauty. In its place, the Christian Middle Ages put God, in whom they saw the Truth, Cause and Purpose of everything that exists and who differed from the pagan gods in his intimate connection with

the soul of a person, illuminated his inner world, demanded free obedience and

devotion. Since the Renaissance, the highest place in the spiritual world began to be occupied by

concept of Nature. At first it seemed like the only thing for

aesthetic contemplation, science and philosophy, behavior for the individual,

a source of knowledge necessary for life arrangement. In the 17th century, under

the influence of the reformation, deepening philosophical reflection, the predominant importance

receives the concept of “personal self” as a given and at the same time -

opportunities that require implementation. Personality of a creator, thinker, reformer

finds himself at the center of the world. An individualistic worldview increases chaos in

society and pushes for the creation of bold, comprehensive social projects.

The concept of “society” developed in the 19th century did not become a sign of the era.

The social movements based on it covered only a small part

intellectual and political elite. Socialist demand for "dissolution"

individuals" in society or the opposite liberal principle of "human rights"

they remained mostly fictions. And only on the threshold of the 20th century broad layers

intellectual Europe began to unite on the basis of a philosophy of life. Idea of ​​life

has become a “reference point” for intellectuals, politicians, entrepreneurs and creators

art. Its significance was confirmed by Nietzsche and Schopenhauer, who put

the will to life and power ahead of reason - as the main motivating force.

At the same time, Simmel notes that the philosophy of life outgrows the requirements of any

specific idea, form, social group. And here is his main conclusion: modern

The era is characterized by the struggle of life against all forms. Formless life

loses its expediency, becomes meaningless and chaotic. In that

is the deep cause of the crisis of modern culture. Simmel illustrates it

examples from art, science, philosophy.

Thus, expressionism is popular in art. Its meaning lies in the desire

directly manifest or enhance in a work of art the inner

the artist's excitement and tension. Expressionism avoids the finished,

harmonic forms and even deliberately breaks them to show how they

hamper the creative element of life. In expressionist art the idea of ​​life

perceived not only and not so much by reason, but by intuition and will.

The thought, as it were, merges with the life process, becomes a gesture, a cry,

with a loose brush stroke. Such art, like life itself, destroys all

form. It is indifferent to good and evil, beautiful and ugly. With another

On the other hand, expressionism is form for form's sake, art for art's sake.

A similar tendency is evident in the philosophy of American pragmatism. Being

superficial, intellectually untenable teaching, pragmatism, however

less, it correctly grasps the main motive of the modern worldview. Cognition

was previously considered the activity of the mind, striving towards objective truth.

The independence and objectivity of truth is challenged by pragmatism. Pragmatists

claim that practical interests push us towards knowledge, and truth is

what is “profitable”, favorable for life, is justified in practice. Not the truth

the flow of life is directed, and life, on the contrary, creates and shapes the truth in such a way

to give yourself maximum freedom.

The third example is from ethical culture. We are talking about two false unproductive

forms of sexual relations: marriage and prostitution. Many marriages take place according to

reasons that have nothing to do with eroticism and love - for the sake of inheritance,

maintaining status due to emotional underdevelopment and inexperience. It was

Always. Life in such a marriage turns out to be empty and painful. Prostitution -

the oldest of professions has become almost legal. The love in her disappears or

turns into a caricature. Marriage and prostitution are two forms against which

Life is rebelling today, because they are drowning out its most hidden sources. But

instead of traditional marriage and prostitution, no others have been proposed yet

acceptable forms.

All three examples, according to Simmel, are about one thing: history has reached such a point

when the mechanism that was usual in the past for replacing one form of culture with another is no longer

works. Life, wanting to free itself from all forms, strives for the unattainable.

Instead of the utopia of spontaneously flowing free life, Simmel proposes to create

a culture that will always be spiritually meaningful for everyone,

personally significant formative process. "The entire space of life must

be filled with cultural content, thoughts and feelings, actions and destinies,

and they will all be imbued with that peculiar unity of humility and pride,

tension and peaceful rest, activity and contemplation, which can be called

religious. A life with such content will have absolute value, sooner

belonging only to its individual formations." Wanting to illustrate

Having said this, Simmel quotes the verses of Angelus Silesius:

Holy when he drinks

No less pleasing to God,

Than when he sings psalms."

6. Women's culture.

The opposition of “male” and “female” in nature and society is a mystery that has not yet been solved. It is obvious that “pure” men and “pure” women do not exist.

Masculine and feminine qualities are present in different proportions in representatives of both sexes, but what is the meaning of the opposition itself?

A man, according to Simmel, is an extroverted being, becoming, not having

sustainable center. The meaning of male existence is in the creation of things, works of the spirit,

forms of objectified life. Male strategy taken to the limit

would lead to the transformation of man into a tool, to the devastation of personality in the name of

external achievements. The center of the male personality is weakly connected with the periphery. That's why

a man can enthusiastically indulge in activities that do not suit his

nature. It is more difficult for him than for a woman to realize her calling. Expansion outward -

a constant dominant of his reality, which approaches the dominant of life

as such, also striving to break out of all boundaries. Totalitarian system and

the chaotization of the world is an equally probable result of “purely” male activity. Even

the appearance of a man: the angularity of the muscles, the roughness of the outlines of the hand speak of

strength, aggressiveness, characterize a man as eccentric, instrumental

creature.

A woman is by nature introverted, holistic, inert. She has a stable personality core that is easily and directly expressed even in the most

minor actions. A woman is not inclined to think about her calling and

purpose. She finds the meaning of life not in external action or realization

distant goal, and in momentary actions - gesture, facial expressions, speech. A woman is always

“at home,” while the man is “always on the go.” If the women's strategy

taken to the extreme limit, then we will come to an animal existence or pure

spirituality that does not have any external, utilitarian tasks. If male nature

congenial to life, then female nature is congenial to human nature. After all

The peculiarity of man is that he, in principle, is capable of not having

external goal, while every animal is faced with the need to live for

account of something or someone. A woman rises above the passage of time. Man

is satisfied when it “dissolves” in it. Women's activities are aimed

not to reorganize the world, but to strengthen one’s own soul and the nearest

environment, which is for her a continuation of her inner life. The man lives

future and distant. A woman is real and close.

A woman serves the interests of today, creates a home, a family, protects those

borders and foundations that exist today. "Loyalty" is its existential

characteristic. The idea that a woman is “prone to cheating” is false. It is

only the fruit of hyperbolic male jealousy, which has its root in

to possess a woman as a thing. A man is a born boundary violator, often not

in harmony with the law. There are more criminals, traitors, immoralists among men,

than among women. The appearance of a woman is a floating softness of gait, ease,

natural beauty of body movements speaks of strength and emotional

the richness of her inner world, the unity of internal and external. True

a woman is in herself, and a man must find and create his own truth. Men's

truth is instrumental, corresponds to the tasks of the business in which he is engaged.

Women's truth is ontological and coincides with her being. It is not divided into

“segments” of rational projects that replace each other in the process of life.

A woman easily, without hesitation, realizes her spiritual aspirations, regardless of

often with neither logic nor etiquette. Inconsistency, tactlessness,

excessive frankness is characteristic of a woman, but not because of her inner

"unreliability", but because its essence does not correspond to the impersonal requirements

dominant male culture. Feminine energy flows freely into action

and into speech, while a man doubts and hesitates for a long time before

decide something.

A man is more logical, rational, and impartial than a woman. Abstract philosophy

corresponds to his spiritual needs. But why is he philosophizing? Because

does not feel the immediate meaning of life, sets doubtful goals for himself,

difficult to achieve goals. A woman is less inclined to philosophize, because the meaning of life

she feels directly.

The great creation of a woman is the House. The importance of home for culture is often misunderstood and underestimated. Home life is considered to be of little importance compared to public life. However, it is the house that is the primary “cell” of culture. In the house, the contradiction between the objective and the subjective is removed, and the disturbing fluidity of life is miraculously stabilized within certain boundaries of time and

space. Only a woman can breathe life into a chaotic conglomerate

things, habits, memories that we call home. A man comes to

house, but does not create or support it. Objective male culture is

a “homeless” space, but each time newly organized and filled.

The female profession of housewife does not exclude public spiritual and creative

functions. "Small" spaces of public life - salon, club, theater stage -

They become lively and cozy as soon as a woman makes them like a home.

Today's culture - science, technology, trade, military affairs - masculine

a creation focused on an external, distant goal, and not on personal development

and ennoblement of life. A man feels free in a fragmented world

external, alienated forms.

This gives him an everyday advantage over a woman, but does not elevate him spiritually. There is no certainty that culture will continue to maintain its alienated,

non-domestic character. The feminist movement, as Simmel believes, had

initially, although a vague, but true goal: to end alienation, to create

a world like home is “transparent” for personal relationships. However, under the influence

male attitudes that were assimilated by women who began to engage in

politics and administration, feminists “lost their way” and began to seek

equality of rights "within" specialized areas of male culture, reconciling

with its fundamentals. Success here accompanied only a minority of women who were ready

It is treacherous to identify with the male role. For the female majority

only “gaps”, “backyards” of male culture are accessible, which men themselves either

they don’t want or can’t master it.

However, the successes of women in these “gaps” eloquently testify to their unique abilities, many of which are not disclosed, not identified, specifically

are not cultivated in any way. There are a number of cultural areas in which women act

especially successful.

Firstly, this is medicine. Not only treatment, but also medical examination

often turns out to be ineffective due to the fact that the male doctor is unable to

empathize with the patient's state of mind. He studies and treats "symptoms". A

a female doctor enters into emotional contact with a patient and captures subtle connections

between character orientation and illness. Her sympathetic attitude helps

the patient will recover faster.

The second perspective for a woman is historical science. Nothing significant can be done in history if we limit ourselves to a rational statement of the objective

sequences of facts. A huge number of intersecting

cause-and-effect relationships exclude the possibility of a strictly linear, rational

diagrams of the historical process. A female historian creates an understandable and impressive

picture of events intuitively, since it can easily - as a thinking,

an empathetic personality - to place oneself at the center of the process under study.

Fantasy, feeling, imagination are stronger in a woman than the tendency to factualize and

logical thinking. Therefore, the secret plans of government officials are clearer and closer to her.

figures, the vague goals of popular movements and even the hidden meaning of the ancients

inscriptions on stones.

The third area, especially rich in opportunities for women, is art. Is it true,

due to the significant weight in the artistic creativity of men - linguistic and

logical-ideological canonical forms, many creations of women in the field of poetry and

literature looks pale. But in those genres where the form is unstable or merged with

women's creativity is rich and soulful.

An artistic form that seems specially designed for women is the novel. Strictly speaking, a novel has no form at all. There is a love affair

historical, adventure, biographical, production, political,

poetic, etc. An ideal novel is a fragment of life and at the same time something

self-sufficient. This is a house, a world in miniature. Moreover, no novel is ever

happens to be completed.

The female personality, according to Simmel, clearly appears in the early and late stages of development - when the forms of culture have either not yet taken shape or are already “peeling away” from the content and creativity becomes a free play of the mind and imagination.

Examples include folk song on the one hand, and mathematics on the other.

Even philosophy may be richer and more fruitful if it becomes

property of the female mind. Today's European philosophy has a masculine flavor

rudeness, homelessness and provincialism. She is devoid of lightness, spontaneity,

which were characteristic of Greek philosophers who understood the meaning of androgyny,

a harmonious fusion of feminine and masculine qualities in one person. Full

self-realization and creative power are available only to the androgyne.

The lower - material and higher - spiritual forms of culture - seem to be genderless.

Therefore, they are more organic for women. If technology, science, trade, business,

finance, architecture are “average spiritual”, masculine concepts, then embroidery,

kitchen cooking, on the one hand, pure mathematics and philosophy, on the other,

attract women. In handicrafts, body decoration, clothing making,

By cultivating gestures, facial expressions, and gait, a woman is superior to a man.

Evidence of greater physical similarity between men and women among primitive

peoples than among civilized ones and the erasure of gender differences in clothing and manners

behavior among the current cultural elite, among “emancipated” women, also

they talk about the “genderlessness” of the lower and higher levels of objective culture.

The dominance of “average” forms in modern culture makes it masculine,

patriarchal.

Where impulsiveness and spontaneity are more easily manifested, where they are not

fall out of the cultural context, where the feminine essence is more fully expressed.

In the light of what has been said, the actor’s author’s performance on stage looks 100% feminine.

The “center” and “periphery” of the personality must coincide. The ideal actor feels

thinks and acts at the same time, as is typical for a woman. Great actress on

stage, completely dissolves in the role, has no personality of his own. If

a male actor achieves the same thing, this may be the result of being in his

personality of strong female components of what he “does not play”, but invests in

your role, personal. It is no coincidence that it was the Romanesque peoples who have long been

attributed femininity to the character, created a theater and generally more successfully

showed themselves in art than the Germans and the British, to whom

reputation of "courageous", economic and technical nations.

Thus, “objective culture” is adequate to male nature. But you can't

to say that “subjective culture” is female. Rather, in a woman we see

erasing the opposition “objective - subjective” and even erasing

contrasts between natural and cultural elements. This is illustrated

symbolism of the House as a female creation. On the one hand, the house is the whole culture,

the abode of man, a special way to form and organize Life as a whole.

We can say that the House is female rationality. In utopian projects she

strives to reach the entire society. The state is male rationality,

which can organize only the external, peripheral elements of life. In the state

form, law, always prevail over content, while in the house they are combined

Those who study the process of humanization of laws and softening of morals in history,

They are often associated with the growing influence of women. However, neither the abolition of slavery nor

serfdom, nor the humanization of military customs, nor the abolition of torture and assistance

poor on a national scale are not, as far as we know, associated with

the actions of women. The influence of women on male objective culture, on

the men themselves are really great. But it does not consist in direct

in the assimilation by men of women’s feelings and assessments, and in imparting value, cultural

objectivity to what a man already has in latent form. Next to the woman

a man feels his strength and importance. Definition of a woman as "beautiful"

gender" is not a simple banality. If we combine all the signs of "masculinity" and

"femininity" and expressed in two words, then we can say that a man should

to be "significant" and a woman to be "beautiful." Significance is the ability to

purposeful, effective action. Beautiful is self-sufficient,

perfect and harmonious. But the goal is to achieve beauty

a person in general.

Simmel doubts that a male, predominantly objective culture can be reformed into a female one, as well as the feminist dream of a parallel female culture, independent of men. Rather, women should be educated in such a way as to form and cultivate the feminine essence in them.

7. List of sources used

1. Sokolov E.V., Georg Simmel: philosophy of culture, St. Petersburg, 2003.

2. Internet: http://www.krotov.net

3. Internet: http://www.countries.ru/library/rspersons/index.htm

4. Internet: http://sociology.agava.ru

Georg Simmel (1858-1918) - German philosopher and sociologist who made a great contribution to the development of sociological thought, is considered one of the classics of sociology along with E. Durkheim, M. Weber and K. Marx. In the second half of the 20th century. interest in Simmel's work increased in Western sociology. Some modern authors saw in him a forerunner of postmodern thinking. Simmel significantly influenced the formation of early American sociology, especially the famous Chicago School and symbolic interactionism. Along with major theoretical works, Simmel wrote small sociological sketches or essays devoted to private but important aspects of social life (fashion, the role of women in society, adventurous behavior, and others). Simmel can be considered the founder of microsociology, as he paid much attention to the study of interpersonal interaction and the interaction of people in groups. His descriptions dyad And triads(groups of two and three people) are still given in sociology textbooks. Simmel was interested in a fairly wide range of issues: from the specifics of the modern type of society to the problems of urban lifestyle, economy and the sociology of religion. He is fully characterized by the encyclopedic nature of his knowledge and interests, which is characteristic of all classical sociologists. Many of his works are also devoted to the problems of culture, and Simmel studies culture both as a sociologist and as a philosopher. He considers the essence of culture based on the basic ideas of his philosophy. It is difficult to find a clear definition of culture in Simmel. Nevertheless, it is clear that he connects the essence of this phenomenon with the concept of life, central to his philosophy, meaning a spontaneous, creative principle, striving to generate new forms and go beyond the limits of what has already been created and formed. Culture, according to Simmel, is a special form of life associated with human activity, creative intelligence, spirituality and the pursuit of ideals.

The key characteristics of culture are dynamism and the inherent contradiction between the principles of form and creativity. It is interesting to note that Simmel's concept of cultural dynamics is somewhat influenced by Marx's historical-economic ideas. Let's give the floor to Simmel himself.

Life moves from death to being and from being to death. This nature of the historical cultural process was first recorded based on observations of the history of the world economy. It was noted that the economic forces of each era create forms of production corresponding to them. Slavery and the guild order, serfdom and the free sale of hired labor and any other forms of labor organization at the historical moment of their formation were an adequate expression of what a given era was striving for and what was achievable for it. However, within the narrow framework of existing norms and restrictions, new economic forces grew, which, not fitting within the established limits, overthrew... the growing oppression of frozen forms, trying to replace them with another method of production, more consistent with the nature of these new economic forces 1 .

Culture, as a product of the elements of life, creates forms and itself destroys them in its endless striving for growth and variability. The processes described by Marx in economics manifest themselves even more clearly in the spiritual sphere. Considering modern culture, Simmel notes that it is a mature culture that has a long history and contains an abundance of cultural forms. Mature, high cultures are characterized by a gap between the objective and subjective aspects of culture. Objective aspect of culture - it is all the richness and diversity of cultural forms that a society possesses. Objective culture, as it were, confronts the individual as a reality external to him. Subjective aspect of culture - this is the part of culture that an individual masters. And, naturally, the richer the objective culture, the more difficult it is for a person to master all cultural content. The gap between the objective and subjective aspects of culture is manifested in the gap between “ends” and “means”.

Simmel writes: “The enormous, intensive and extensive growth of our technology, which is not only technology in the material field, draws us into a network of means and the means of these means, which increasingly distances us from our true ultimate goals. This is the enormous internal danger of all highly developed cultures, in which the entire sphere of life is covered with a maximum of means built on top of each other. The elevation of a number of such means to final ends seems to make this position psychologically bearable, but in reality makes it even more meaningless.”

Simmel believes that in a complex, mature culture, an ever-expanding system of cultural means is formed between the individual and his goals (encoded in the culture). The result is, on the one hand, the alienation of the individual from goals, and on the other, a tendency to transform means into ends. This is how art for art’s sake, knowledge for the sake of knowledge, etc. appears. Simmel notes a certain contradiction between the individual and culture that arises as a result of their incommensurability. Cultural forms created by man acquire their own logic of development, which eludes the individual and is incomprehensible to him. Hence the alienation of the individual from culture.

The content and pace of development of industry or science, art and organizations involve subjects who are indifferent or in conflict with the demands that they should set for the sake of their own improvement, i.e. culture. Objects carried by cultural life and carrying it follow, the more refined and in their own way perfect they are, the more immanent logic, which by no means always... corresponds... to the development of subjects... We are confronted by countless objectifications of the spirit, works of art and social norms, institutions and knowledge, like kingdoms governed by their own laws, claim to become the content and norm of our individual existence, which, in essence, does not know what to do with them, and often perceives them as a burden and forces opposing it .

Modern Western culture is characterized not only by the trends described above, which are characteristic not only of it, but of all mature cultures. The specificity of modern culture is that it seeks to destroy the principle of form in general, and not just existing forms or cultural objectifications. And this means a fight against culture as such. The struggle against the principle of form is manifested, in particular, in the desire to uphold the principle of originality and uniqueness (especially in artistic creativity). The artist fights for the right of free self-expression, denies the limiting influence of any established norms, tastes, and ideas about beauty. Freedom of creativity becomes an intrinsic value. The element of creativity conquers the form that limits it. In the field of thinking, including philosophical thinking, the denial of the principle of form is expressed in a fundamental doubt about the absoluteness of truth. Truth is understood as something relative, depending on interpretation, on social context. These recorded by Simmel at the beginning of the 20th century. trends became even more pronounced in the second half of the century and were voiced by postmodernists. The fact that we live in relative peace today is commonplace. But Simmel (like a number of other thinkers) noted a relativizing tendency in culture when the world still seemed relatively stable. What is the reason for modern culture’s hostility to the principle of form in any of its manifestations? From Simmel's point of view, the reason for this is the absence of a common idea organizing cultural life.

Any stable cultural form is based on a certain unconditionally recognized idea of ​​reality, which it expresses. But modern culture is devoid of such an organizing idea.

Over the past decades, we have been living outside of any unification by any idea, even moreover, outside of any dominance of the idea, in contrast to the Middle Ages, which had its own church-Christian idea, and the Renaissance, which saw in the conquest of earthly nature a value that does not need any what recognition from transcendental forces, or the Age of Enlightenment of the 18th century, which lived with the idea of ​​universal human happiness... A peculiar feature of our time in relation to certain areas of our culture is that life in its pure spontaneity seeks to embody itself in phenomena and... . reveals, due to their imperfection, the main motive, the struggle against any form. Thus, not only is the material missing for the organic idea of ​​culture, but even the very phenomena that it should embrace are too diverse and heterogeneous to allow the possibility of such an ideological unification 4 .

Simmel also paid a lot of attention to the study of more private aspects of the cultural life of his contemporary society. Of great interest, for example, is his analysis of “women's culture,” especially in the context of the ever-growing popularity of gender studies today. Simmel witnessed the growing struggle of women for equality and could not ignore such a significant event. Sharing the beliefs of his time about the presence of special feminine and masculine qualities, he did not doubt, however, that women are capable of performing in society those functions that are considered masculine. But he was interested in something else - could women create something of their own?

Simmel rightly noted that the objective culture of Western (and not only Western) societies is a male culture, a culture created primarily by men and a special - specifically male - attitude towards the world. Women, seeking equality, are forced to become like men. But what's the point? Simmel speaks with caution about the potential possibility of creating a specifically female objective culture, the creation of new cultural forms growing out of specifically female qualities and characteristics. This problem has not yet been solved by women. And the question remains open: is this possible?

Summarizing brief overview Simmel's ideas, it should be noted that his influence on the subsequent development of sociological thought was significant, although not always clearly recognized. Analyzing Simmel’s legacy, J. Habermas noted: “Simmel’s influence was caused not only by easily perceived formulas, such as, for example, the lag of personal culture in comparison with the growth of external culture. It was also influenced phenomenologically exact description modern style life: “The process of objectification of the contents of culture, which... creates an ever-growing alienation between the subject and his creations, ultimately penetrates into the inner experience Everyday life" In the forms of communication that have developed in big cities, Simmel discovers, as in nature, structural shifts similar to advertising or marital relations. To the extent that the relations of social life are reified, subjectivism liberates mental energies. With such a fragmented, formless internal life of subjects, cultural and social objects turn into alienated and at the same time autonomous forces” 5 .

Thus, Simmel very accurately described the worldview of the modern era and the prerequisites contributing to the formation of this worldview. It should be noted that the trends in the development of objective and subjective culture identified by Simmel at the end of the 20th century. just got deeper.

• Right there. P. 490.
• Right there.