SociologyInquiries into the Construction olSocial IormsVolume 1Stuoies in International Institutional Dynamics!"#$%&'Richaro Higgott, ()*$&) ,%& $-) .$/"0 %,12%342#54$#%* 4*" 6)7#%*42#54$#%*8 9*#:)&'#$0 %,;4&Karl Kaiser, ?)**)"0 .=-%%2 %,1%:)&*@)*$8 A4&:4&" 9*#:)&'#$0S. Neil MacIarlane, B)C4&$@)*$ %,D%2#$#=' 4*" E*$)&*4$#%*42 6)24$#%*'8 9*#:)&'#$0 %,FG,%&"John Ooell, .=-%%2 %,E*$)&*4$#%*42 6)24$#%*'8 9*#:)&'#$0 %,.%/$-)&* (42#,%&*#4Louis Fauly, ()*$&) ,%& E*$)&*4$#%*42 .$/"#)'8 9*#:)&'#$0 %,H%&%*$%VOLUME 1SociologyInquiries into the Construction olSocial IormsVolume 1I0Georg SimmelH&4*'24$)" 4*" )"#$)" 30Anthony J. BlasiAnton K. JacobsMathew Kanjirathinkal;#$- 4* #*$&%"/=$#%* 30Horst J. HelleLEIDENBOSTON2009!"#$"%"&$'(*+,'-./01/+&'+23'-4$'5"-6'+4'-7'-&'.'%%.0189,/+&!#$%&'()*+,,&-./0 '(+)+1/--$23#-+04&5+16789+1:&+2;+)#$1< ?)"byGeorgSimmel.D&81'#* &6E&*+.+3#* !3&'&@$9:o1o19.Schnabel,F.-E.197o.GeorgSimmel.InDirkKsler,eo.,J*#""+U)1>)""&A+&*&,+"3/)' G)'U)'". Munchen:C.H.Beck,I,2o7311.Simmel, Georg. 1881. G#" 4)")' >)1 B#.)1+) '#3/ J#'." 9/$"+"3/)1 B&'#>&*&,+). Inaugural-Dissertation zur Erlangung oer Doktorwuroe von oer Fhilosophischen Iakultt oer Irieorich-Wilhelms-UniversittzuBerlingenehmigtunoIreitag,oen2.Iebruar 1881 ollentlich verteioigt.Berlin.. 1882. Fsychologische uno ethnologische Stuoien uber Musik ,Stuoies in psychol-ogy ano cultural anthropology olmusic,. Q)+."3/1+6. 6R1 ST*U)19"$3/&*&,+) 8'> ?91#3/=+":")'"3/#6. 13:2o130..1890.UbersocialeDillerenzierungSociologischeunopsychologischeUnter-suchungen. Leipzig:Dunker8Humblot.. 1893. Moral De!ciencies as Determining Intellectual Iunctions. Short Excerpt lrom Einleitung inoieMoralwissenschalt. C'.)1'#.+&'#*D&81'#* &6!./+3"3:!9007.18"#$%&'()$" $& $*+ $%,#-.,$" /0 *&%-$ 12 *+..+.189!. Das Froblem oer Soziologie. D#/1583/ 6R1 7)").A,)58',] S)1=#*.8', 8'> S&*U:"=+1."3/#6.+@G)8."3/)'()+3/18:27277,130107..189.TheFroblemol Sociology.;''#*"&6 ./);@)1+3#';3#>)@$&6 E&*+.+3#*#'> ?&3+#*?3+)'3)"o,3,:!1223..1907.E/+*&"&9/+)>)"7)*>)".2noeoition,1steoition1900,.Leipzig:Duncker8 Humblot.|ET:0/)E/+*&"&9/$&6 B&')$,3roenlargeoeoition,eo.DavioIrisby,tr. TomBottomoreanoDavio Irisby. Lonoon ano NewYork: Routleoge, 200!|. 1908. ?&A+&*&,+)P b'.)1"83/8',)' R5)1 >+) +)B&1#*=+"")'"3/#6..,IntroouctiontoMoralScience,. Vol. I.Aalen:Scientia.. 1983b |1892|. !+'*)+.8', +' >+) B&1#*=+"")'"3/#6.. ,Introouction to Moral Science,. Vol. II Aalen:Scientia..1989.7)"#@@)*.)?3/1+6.)'A81()*+,+&'""&A+&*&,+)PBerlin:Dunker 8Humblot..1997.!""#$"&'()*+,+&',eo.,tr.HorstJ.HelleanoLuowigNieoer.NewHaven ano Lonoon: Yale University Fress.Tenbruck Irieorich. 198. Georg Simmel 1881918. JT*')1 Q)+."3/1+6. 6R1 ?&A+&*&,+) 8'> ?&A+#*9"$3/&*&,+)10:87o1!.Thomas, William I. 1923. 0/) b'#>d8".)> 7+1*V=+./ 3#")" #'> ".#'>9&+'. 6&1 5)/#F+&1 #'#*$"+". Boston: LittleBrown8Company.CHAFTER ONETHE FROBLEM OISOCIOLOGYIlit is correct that human knowleoge oevelopeo lrom practical necessity ano that knowing how to keep sale is a weapon in the struggle lor exis-tence against nature ano in the competition olpeople with each other, it is no longer tieo up with this origin. Irom being a mere means to a goal olaction it has become an ultimate goal in itsell. Yet knowleoge, even unoer the sell-governing lorm olscience, has not broken ollthe relationship with practical interests altogether, even though it no longer appears entirely as an outcome olthe latter but as interactions olthe two, each with its own autonomous claims. Because scienti!c knowleoge ollers, in technology, not only the realization olextrinsic purposes but isalsooirecteotothetheoreticalneeolorinsightintothepractical purposes, sometimes new oirections olthought turn up that nevertheless touchuponproblematicsanolormsol intellectuality,outol interests in a new sensitivity ano oesire only lor their purely abstract character. Sothesearetheclaimsthatthescienceol sociologyisconcerneoto raise: the theoretical pursuit ano re"ection on the practical power that the masses have acquireo in the nineteenth century against the interests olinoiviouals. However, the import ano concern that the lower classes have causeo the higher is scarcely conveyeo in the concept, society. It isstilltruethatthesocialoistancebetweentheclassesooesnotallow their members to be seen as inoiviouals but as a uni!eo mass, ano that thisoistanceooesnotleavethetwobounotogetherinanyotherlun-oamental way than that together they comprise a society. While the signi!cance olclasses lies not in their ostensive separate importance but in their comprising a society, theoretical consciousnessas a result olthe practical balance olpowerat once took up as true the ioea that everyinoivioualphenomenonismainlyoetermineothroughimmea-surably immense in"uences lrom its social environment. Ano this ioea obtaineo, so to speak, a retrospective power: next to the present society the past appeareo as the substance that shapeo inoivioual existence, like wavesinthesea.Heregrounowasgaineointhatthespeci!clorms olthese lorces alone shaping inoiviouals became explainable to them. Thislineol thoughtlentsupporttomooernrelativism,thetenoency 20"#$%&'( )*'tooissolvetheoistinctanoessentialintointerworkings,theinoivioual became only the location where social threaos link, the personality only theparticularwayinwhichthisoccurs.Sincewehavebeenbrought totheconsciousawarenessthateveryhumanacttakesplaceinsioe society ano nothing can evaoe its in"uence, so everything that was not the science olexternal nature must be the science olsociety. It appears as the all encompassing oomain in which ethics as well as cultural his-tory, political economy as well as religious stuoies, aesthetics as well as oemography, politics as well as ethnology are gathereo together because the objects olthese sciences take lorm in the compass olsociety. So the scienceol humanitywoulobethescienceol society.Contributingto this picture olsociology as the science oleverything human was that it was a !"# science ano consequently going into every possible problem nototherwise!rmly!xeojustasanewlyoeveloping!elotypically becomes the El Doraoo olhomeless ano itinerant beings, the inevitably vagueanoinoelensiblebounoariesatthebeginninggranteveryone the right to accommooations. On closer inspection, throwing together alltheselormerareasol stuoyprooucesnothingnew.Itmeansonly thatthehistorical,psychological,anonormativesciencesarethrown intoalargepotanothelabelsociology`tackeoon.Withthat,onlya newnamewoulohavebeenobtaineo,whileeverythingthatittreats isalreaoy!xeoinitscontentsanorelations,orproouceoinsioethe lormer oomains olresearch. The lact that human thought ano action occurinanoareshapeobysocietymakessociologynomoretheall encompassingscienceol itthanonecanmakechemistry,botanyano astronomythecontentsol psychology,becausetheirtopicsareinthe eno only in human consciousnessano subject toitsrequirements. To be sure a misunoerstooo but in itsellvery signi!cant lact unoerlies that error. The insight that the human being may be oe!neo in all its essenceanomanilestationsaslivingininteractionwithotherhuman beingssimplymustleaotoanewmannerol $%!&'(")*+'%!inalltheso calleo cultural sciences. It is no longer possible to explain historical lacts in the wioest sense olthe woro, the content olculture, the varieties olknowleoge, ano the norms olmorality in terms olthe inoivioual, inoi-vioual intellect, ano inoivioual interest, or where this ooes not work, to seize immeoiately upon metaphysical or magical accounts. With regaro to language, lor example, one no longer stanos belore the alternatives that it was inventeo by an inoivioual genius or given by Goo, no longer neeo one split it up, to use religious images, between the invention olthecleverpriestanooirectrevelationanosolorth.Rather,wenow ' %()+,'- ). /)"0),)1221believe that we unoerstano historical phenomena lrom the interaction anothecooperationol inoiviouals,lromtheaccumulationanosub-limationol countlessinoivioualcontributions,lromtheembooiment ol socialenergiesinstructuresthatstanoanooevelopoutsioeol the inoivioual. Sociology therelore, in its relationship to the oloer sciences, is a new ,"+-%(, an aio in research lor grappling with phenomena lrom allthose!elosinanewway.However,itooesnotoperateessentially oillerently than inouction at present, ano inouction has penetrateo into all possible sciences as a new research principle, acclimatizeo, as it were, ineachoneol them,anointrooucingnewsolutionstolongstanoing problems. At the same time, though, sociology is no more a unique or all-embracing science than inouction. Insolar as it oepenos on having tounoerstanohumansassocialbeingsanosocietyasthevehicleolhistorical events, it embraces no object that is not alreaoy oealt with in one olthe previously existing sciences. Rather it is only a new avenue lorallol them,amethoool sciencethat,ouetoitsapplicabilityto almostallproblems, is not a separate science thatstanosby itsell. But what coulo its unique ano new object be? What inquiry makes sociologyaninoepenoentanooemarcateoscience?Itisobviousthat itsoiscoveryasanewscienceooesnotoepenoloritslegitimacyon objectsunknowntillnow.Everythingthatwesimplycallanobjectis acomplexol oeterminantsanorelationships,eachol whichreveals multiplelacets,anyol whichcanbecomeanobjectol aspecialsci-ence. Every science is baseo on an abstraction lor comprehenoing the entirety olsomething, an entirety we cannot grasp with a science lim-iteo to just one aspect olits perspective or one olits concepts.Every science oevelops through splitting up the totality olthings or its matter ol inquiryintoinoivioualqualitiesanolunctions,alterwhichanioea is louno that allows the latter to bleno in ano as they occur allows the selecteo qualities ano lunctions to be !xeo to real things with methoo-ological coherence. So, lor example, the linguistic lacts, which are now connecteo as the material olcomparative linguistics, hao long existeo amongscienti!callytreateophenomena,however,thatspecialscience originateowiththeoiscoveryol theconceptunoerwhichwhatwere lormerly oisconnecteo as separate speech complexes were groupeo ano subjecteotospeci!claws.Similarlysociologyasaspecializeoscience can !no its unique object, insolar as it simply oraws a new line through lacts which are well known as such but lor which a concept woulo not bereaoyuntilnow.Itmakestheclusterol lactsthatlallonthatline into a common ano cognitively patterneo methooological-scienti!c unit. 22"#$%&'( )*'Over against the most complicateo, oisorganizeo, ano not scienti!cally oroereo lacts olhistorical society, the concepts ol politics, the economy, culture,etc.prooucethatkinool organizeoknowleoge,whetherby linking certain portions olthose lacts, some more valuable than others, to unique historical oevelopments or by ioentilying groups olelements thatnecessarilybringtogetherboththehistoricallyuniqueanothe timeless. Now there shall be a sociology as a oistinctive science whose job it is to subject the concept ol&%$'"+. as suchbeyono the super!cial collectionol lacts,tothesocial-historicalresultsol anewabstraction ano oroering, in such a way that certain oeterminants, lormerly noteo onlyinothervarieoconnections,areseenascoheringanotherelore as objects ol %!" science. This perspective comes to light by way olan analysis olthe concept ol societythatonecanoescribeasoillerentiatingbetweenthelorm anocontentol society,whileemphasizingthatthisisreallyonlyan analogy lor purposes olmaking a contrast between oistinct neighbor-ing elements. This oistinction will have to be unoerstooo in its unique meaningwithoutprejuogingthespeci!cmeaningol thispreliminary label.Istart,then,withthebroaoestimageol societytoavoiothe !ght over oe!nitions: That is, a society exists where several inoiviouals enterintointeraction.Thisinteractionalwaysoriginateslromspeci!c impulseswithinorlorthesakeol speci!cpurposes.Erotic,religious, or purely social impulses, purposes oloelense lrom attack, the play olcommerce, the neeo lor assistance lrom instruction, ano countless other purposes bring it about that human beings enter into lellowshipcor-relating their allairs with one another in activity lor one another, with oneanother,againstoneanother,activitythatbothallectsthemano leels the ellects olthem. These interactions inoicate precisely that the inoiviouals bearing these motivating orives ano purposes become a unity, inoeeoasociety.`Thenunityinanempiricalsenseisnothingother thantheinteractionol elements,anorganicbooyisaunitybecause itsorgansareinacloserinterchangeol theirenergiesthanwithany outsioe entity. A state is %!", because the corresponoing relationship olmutual interworkings exists among its citizens, inoeeo we coulo not call the worlo one ilevery part oio not somehow in"uence every other, ilanywherethealwaysactivelymeoiatingreciprocityol interworkings weresevereo.Thatunityorsocialinteractioncanhaveveryoillerent oegrees, oepenoing on the kino ano closeness olthe interactionlrom thecasualmeeting,toawalktovisitthelamily,lromallterminateo` associations to membership in a state, lrom the transient society olhotel ' %()+,'- ). /)"0),)1223guests to the intimate bono ola meoieval guilo. I am oescribing now everythingthatexistsininoiviouals,theimmeoiateconcretelocusolevery historical realitysuch as impulse, interest, purpose, preoisposi-tion,psychologicalstate,anoincitementinsuchawayastosaythat on account olthem people allect one another ano are in turn allecteo. I call them the content, the stull, so to speak, olsocial interaction. In ano olitsellthis stull, olwhich lile is lull, the motives that orive it, are notquitesocial.Neitherhungernorlove,neitherworknorreligiosity, neithertechnologynorthelunctionsanoproouctsol intelligenceyet mean social interaction in the simple ano pure sense given to the term, rather they only shape it, in that they structure the isolateo inoiviouals in proximity into oe!nite lorms olassociation ano mutuality that belong unoerthegeneralioeaol interaction.Socialinteractionisalsothe process, materializeo in countless separate lorms, in which inoiviouals lor these reasonssentient or ioeal, momentary or lasting, conscious or unconscious, causally oriven or propelleo teleologicallycome together as a unity in which these interests are realizeo. Ineveryexistingsocialphenomenon,contentanosociallormcon-structauniteoreality,asociallormcannomoreexistoisconnecteo lromcontentascanaspatiallormexistwithoutsomematerial,the lormol whichitis.Rather,theseareinrealityinseparableelements oleach social being ano process: an interest, goal, motive, ano a lorm orkinool interactionamonginoiviouals,throughwhichorinwhich a /"&+*0+ ol the content attains social reality. Now what society,` in every currently valio sense olthe woro, plainly makes into society, are manilestly the above-mentioneo kinos olinterac-tion. Some number olpeople woulo not be a society, simply on account oleach harboring some lactually oetermineo or inoivioually motivating lile content, but ilthe vitality olthis content attains the lorm olmutual in"uence,whenonepersonallectsanotheroirectlyorthroughan intervening thiro partyonly then has the purely spatial proximity or even temporal succession olpeople become a society. Shoulo there thus be a science, whose object is society ano nothing else, it woulo inquire only into these interworkings, these kinos ano lorms olsocial interac-tion.Thusanythingelsethatisalsolounounoersociety,`anything realizeothroughitanoinitscontext,isnotsocietyassuch.Itwoulo onlybesomecontentthataccompaniesthislormorwhichthislorm ol coexistenceengenoersalongwiththatstructurewecallsociety`in thewioeranousualsense.Thatbothol these,inseparableinreality, areseparateoinscienti!cabstraction,thatthelormsolinterchange 2!"#$%&'( )*'orsocialinteraction,conceptuallystrippeool thecontentsbywhich exclusivelytheybecomesocial,arecombineoanosuboroinateotoa methooologically stanoaroizeo scienti!c perspectivethis seems to me the singular ano complete possibility lor justilying a speci!c science olsocietyassuch.Withthisthelactsthatwepointtoasthesocio-his-toricalrealitywoulo!rstbeactuallysketcheooutatthelevelol the purelysocial. Now such abstractions alone might manage to make a science out olthe complexity as well as unity olreality, inoeeo may even be oemanoeo by the internal requirements olcognition. Some legitimation lor it must lie in the structure olobjectivity itsell, because only in some lunctional connection to lactuality can there be protection against unlruitlul ques-tions, against haphazaro scienti!c conceptualization. It is an error lor a nave naturalism to allow mere oata to comprise analytical or synthetic lormations through which they become the content olscience, so that there are analyses it actually has more or less conlormeo to those lor-mations,somethinglikeaportraitlunoamentallyalteringthenatural human appearance ano therelore having a greater chance than another lor an entirely alien image,, whereolthen the better or worse warrant lor those scienti!c problems ano methoos can be gaugeo. So now the rule that will apply an analysis by lorms ano contents to socio- historical phenomena ano bring those phenomena to a synthesis rests upon two stipulations that can only be veri!eo lactually: It must be louno on the one hano that the same lorm olsocial interaction occurs with wholly oillerent contents lor altogether oillerent enos, ano conversely that the samesubstantiveinterestisclotheoinwhollyoillerentlormsol social interaction as its vehicle or types ollul!llmentjust as the same geo-metrical lorms are louno in oillerent materials ano the same material takes on oillerent spatial lorms, or just like the corresponoing !t between thelormsollogic ano the contents ol cognition. Both,however,areunoeniableaslact.Wetherelore!noinsocial groups,withthemostvarieopurposesanosigni!canceconceivable, the same lormal patterns olbehavior among inoiviouals. Domination ano suboroination, competition, imitation, oivision ollabor, lactional-ism,representation,thereciprocalnatureol inclusionanoexclusion, anocountlessothersarelounoinapoliticalorganizationaswellasa religiouscommunity,inaconspiratorialbanoaswellasabusiness,in anartschoolaswellasalamily.Asmultipleasaretheinterestslor whichthesesocialinteractionscomeabout,thelormsbywhichthey are achieveo can still be the same. Ano conversely, substantivelysimilar ' %()+,'- ). /)"0),)122interests can exhibit very oillerently lormeo social interactions, e.g. eco-nomic interests are realizeo as much through competition as through the systematic organization olmanulacturers, as reaoily through agreements against other economic classes as through agreements with them. The contentsol religiouslile,withinvariablyioenticalcontents,requireat one time a lree lorm olcommunity ano at another time a centralizeo one. The interests on which the relationships between the sexes is baseo aresatis!eoinaharolycomprehensiblemultiplicityol lamilylorms. Feoagogical interests leao now to a liberal, now to a oespotic relational lorm between the teacher ano the single stuoent, now to more collec-tivistic ones between the lormer ano the entire population olstuoents. Just as there can be ioentical lorms in which are louno the most oiverse contents,socanthematterpersistwhiletheassociationol inoiviou-als sustaining it moves insioe a oiversity ollorms. Thus while in their reality lacts make matter ano lorm an inoissoluble unity olsocial lile, theystilllenoalegitimationtosociologicalproblemsthatrequirethe ioenti!cation,systematicorganization,psychologicalgrounoing,ano historical oevelopment olpure lorms olsocial interaction. This problem oirectly contraoicts the methoo that the previous inoi-vioualsocialscienceshaocreateobecausetheiroivisionol laborwas oetermineoentirelybytheoiversityol $%!+"!+&.Foliticaleconomy,the typologyol churchorganizations,thehistoryol eoucationalsystems, ethics,politics,theoriesol sexuallileetc.haveoivioeoupthe!eloolsocial phenomena among themselves, so that a sociologythat wanteo to compreheno, with its construct ollorm ano content, the totality olthesephenomenacouloresultinnothingotherthanacombination olthose areas olstuoy. As long as the lines we oraw through historical reality to separate it into oistinct !elos olresearch join only those points thathighlightcontentinterests,noareaisconceoeotoaparticular sociology.Ratheralineisneeoeothatcutsthrougheverythingprevi-ouslyorawnanoconstitutesasaspeci!c!elothepurelactsol social interaction,accoroingtotheirmultiplecon!gurationsanooetaching themlromtheirconnectionwithvariouscontents.Inthatwayitwill havebecomespecializeoscienceinthesamesensethatepistemology became onewith all the obvious oillerences olmethoos ano resultsin thatitabstracteocategoriesorlunctionsol cognitionlromthemul-tipleperceptionsol inoivioualthings.Sociologybelongstothattype ol sciencewhosespecialcharacterisnotthatitsobjectclusterswith othersunoerabroaoerconcept,inthemannerol classicalanoGer-man philology, or optics ano acoustics,, but rather places a whole !elo 2o"#$%&'( )*'olobjects unoer a particular perspective. Not its object but its way ollooking, especially by carrying out its abstraction, oistinguishes it lrom thecustomary historical-socialsciences. The ioea olsociety, lor purposes olscienti!c treatment, covers two strictlyoillerentiateomeanings.Itis!rstthecomplexol interacting inoiviouals,thesociallylormeohuman,*++"),asthatconstitutesthe entire historical reality. Then, however, society` is also the sum olinoi-vioual 1%),& olrelationship by which inoiviouals are able to become a societyinthe!rstsense.Soonemightat!rstcallaoistinctlylormeo materialasphere,`butthepure/"&+*0+orlorminamathematical senseenablessuchmerematerialtobecomeasphereina!rstsense. When one speaks olsocial sciences accoroing to that earlier meaning, their object is everything that occurs in ano with society. Social science inaseconosensehaslorces,relationships,anolormsasitssubject matter,throughwhichpeoplesocialize,thingsthat,vieweoseparately, constitutesociety`inthestrictsensewhichobviouslyisnotaltereo bycircumstance,sothatthecontentol socialinteraction,thespeci!c mooi!cationsol itssubstantivepurposeanointerest,isoistinguisheo olten or always lrom its particular lorm. Here the objection woulo be whollylalsethatalltheselormshierarchies,corporations,competi-tions, lorms olmarriage, lrienoships, social customs, rule by one, ano rulebymanywouloonlybeconstellation-likeincioentsinexisting societies:wereasocietynotalreaoypresent,theprerequisitesanothe opportunitylorallowingsuchlormstocomeaboutwoulobelacking. Thesuggestionthusarisesthatineverysocietyknowntousagreat numberol suchassociationsareatwork'2"2,lormsol socialinter-action.Il thenonelormceasestoexist,society`woulostillbethere so that certainly it can appear in every particular one, the lorm woulo arise in a society alreaoy preparing or prooucing such a phenomenon. However, were one to remove *00 olthem, no society woulo remain. Not untilsuchinterrelationsaregenerateoonaccountol certainmotives ano interests ooes society emerge. So then it remains that the concern ol socialscienceinthewioestsenseisthehistoryanolawsol sucha oevelopingcomprehensivepicture.Becausethisisbrokenupamong theinoivioualsocialsciences,lelttosociologyisthespeci!ctaskolconsioeringtheabstracteolormsthatoonotsomuch3"!")*+"social interactionbutrather*)"socialinteraction.Societyinasensethat sociology can use is, then, either the overall abstract concept lor these lorms,thegenusol whichtheyarespecies,ortheactualmomentary summation olthe same. Iurther, it lollows lrom this ioea that a given ' %()+,'- ). /)"0),)1227quantityol inoivioualscanbeasocietyingreaterorlesseroegrees. With every new awakening olemergent lormations, every construction ol lactions,everycoalescenceinamutualworkorshareoleelingano thought,everysharperoivisionol servinganoruling,everyshareo meal time, ano every aoorning oneselllor others, even the same group becomesmoresociety`thanitwasbelore.Thereissimplynevera societyol thetypethatlormsonthebasisol anysingleassociative paraoigmbecausethereisnosuchthingasinteraction4")&".There areonlyspeci!ctypes,withwhoseemergencesocietysimplyis,ano whichareneitherthecausenorconsequenceol it,rathertheythem-selvesareitinstantly.Onlythebounolessprolusionanooiversitythat are operative at every moment have given the general concept society an apparently inoepenoent historical reality. Ferhaps the reason lor the characteristic vagueness ano uncertainty that aohere to the concept ano lormertreatmentsol generalsociologyliesinthishypostasizingol a pureabstractionjustastheconceptol lileoionotprogresswellso long as science regaroeo it as a unitary phenomenon olactual reality. Only inasmuch as the oiscrete processes insioe organisms, whose sum-mation or interweaving lile is, were analyzeo, only inasmuch as it was recognizeothatlileexistsonlyinthesespeci!cactivitiesanobetween organs anocells, oio the lile sciences acquirea !rmlounoation. Itis!rstnecessaryto!nooutinsocietywhatsociety`actuallyis, just as geometry oetermines in spatial things what spatiality actually is. Sociology, as the science olhuman social existence, which can still be the object olscienti!c stuoy in countless other respects, thus stanos in relation to the specializeo oisciplines as geometry stanos in relation to the physical-chemical sciences olmatter. Geometry consioers the lorm through which matter becomes empirical booies at alllorm, which olcourse exists as such only in the abstract, just as oo the lorms olsocial interaction. Both geometry anosociology leave to other oisciplines the stuoyol thecontentsthatarepresentintheirlorms,eventhestuoy ol thetotalityol phenomena,whosepurelormaretheirconcern,is lelttotheothers.Itisharolynecessarytomentionthatthisanalogy withgeometryooesnotapplymorebroaolythanitspurposehereolattempting to clarily the lunoamental problems olsociology. Above all geometry has the aovantage ol!noing in its !elo extremely simple pat-terns to which complicateo !gures can be reouceo, hence it constructs the whole range olpossible lormations lrom a relatively lew postulates. In contrast, even a mere approximate reouction into simple elements is not to be expecteo lor the lorms olsocial interaction in the loreseeable 28"#$%&'( )*'luture. The result is that sociological lorms, even iltolerably accurate, are valio lor only a relatively small range olphenomena. Thus ilone says, lor example, that oomination ano suboroination are a lormation louno in almost every human social interaction, little is gaineo by this generalacknowleogement.Itisnecessary,rather,tolocusinquiryon theinoivioualtypesol superior-suboroinaterelations,onthespeci!c lormsol theirrealization,whichnow,withsomecertainty,losetheir accuracyat the periphery oltheirvalioity. Thesealternativesareproposeoloranyscience:eitheritistoleao totheoiscoveryol timelesslyvaliolawsortotherepresentationano conceptualizationol time-speci!chistoricallyrealoevelopments.In any case, though, one ooes not excluoe the countless cases in empirical scienti!c unoertakings that stano between these two types, so the prob-lematic ioenti!eo here ola necessity to oecioe between them is not oealt with at the outset. The object abstracteo out lrom reality allows these empirical manilestations to be observeo on the one hano in the law-like regularities that, locateo entirely within the lactual structure olelements, applyirrespectiveol theirtemporal-spatialrealization,they *)""11"$+'6" precisely in that they enable historical oevelopments to operate one time or a thousano. On the other hano, however, those same lorms olsocial interaction can be observeo, with their now ano then occurrences as well as with their historical oevelopment in oe!nite groups in mino. In the latter instances their ioenti!cation woulo basically be historical narrative lor its own sake, ano in the lormer instances inouction material lor the oiscovery oltimeless law-like regularities. We learn about competition, lor example, lrom countless instances telling us about it in very oiller-ent oomainspolitics, political economy, history olreligions, art. It is nowamatterol establishinglromtheselactswhatcompetitionasa purelormol humanrelationshipsmeans,unoerwhatcircumstances itarises,howitoevelops,whatmooi!cationsitunoergoeswithoiller-entkinosol objectsol competition,bywhatconcurrentlormalano material regulations ola society it is inspireo or reouceo, how compe-tition between inoiviouals oillers lrom that between groupsin short, what it is as a lorm olinteraction among humankino that can absorb allpossiblecontents,butbytheunilormityol itsappearance,oespite great oillerences in content, shows that it belongs to a well-oroereo ano abstractlyjusti!eo!elolollowingitsownlaws.Theunilormislilteo lromthecomplexmanilestationslikeacross-section,theoissimilarin themhere, that is, the substantive interestsis set in their competitive opposition. It is also suitable to oeal with all the great relationships ano ' %()+,'- ). /)"0),)1229interactionsthatlormsocieties:lactionalism,imitation,thelormation ol classes,circles,anoseconoaryoivisions,theembooimentol social interaction in separate structures ola lactual, personal, ano ioeational kino,thegrowthanoroleol hierarchy,oelegateorepresentation,ano theimportanceol acommonopponentlortheinnercohesionol a group. Then such chielproblems are joineo to the same speci!c lorm ol groupsmanilestingontheonehanoleaturespeculiartothelorm anoontheotherhanocomplicateoleaturesthese,lorexample:the meaning olthe impartial, the poor as organic members olsocieties, thenumericaloeterminationol groupprocesses,the4)',7&'!+")4*)"&, anothe+")+'7&3*7("!&.Tomentionevenmorecomplexprocesses:the intersectionol variouscirclesininoivioualpersonalities,theoistinct importance olthe secret in the lormation olcircles, the mooi!cation ol groupcharacteristics,incorporatingoetacheoinoiviouals,whether throughlocallycoalescinglactorsorlactorsnotattributabletothem, anocountlessothers. Ileaveopen,asinoicateoabove,thequestionol whether*8&%07+"0. ioenticallormswithoiversecontentsappear.Thenearsimilarity thattheymanilestunoermultituoinousmateriallikewisewiththe contrarysul!cestoregarothisaspossible'!4)'!$'40".Thatitisnot entirelyrealizeosimplyshowstheoillerenceol thehistorical-mental event,withitsneverlullyrationalizable"uctuationsanocomplexities, lrom the capacity olgeometry to lree '+& concept olcompliant shapes with absolute clarity lrom their realization in matter. One also keeps in mino that this unilormity in the nature olinteraction, with the arbitrary oistinctionbetweenhumananomaterialthings,is!rstol allonlya meanstocarryoutanolegitimatelorallinoivioualphenomenathe scienti!c oistinction between lorm ano content. Methooologically, this woulo be requireo even ilthe actual constellations oo not leno them-selves to that inouctive practice that allows the same to be crystallizeo outol theoillerence,inthesamewayasthegeometricalabstraction ol thespatiallormol abooyisalsojusti!eo,evenil thisbooywere to be lormeo this way in the worlo only one time. That there is a oil-!cultyinpracticehereisobvious.Thereis,lorexample,thelactthat towaros the eno olthe Mioole Ages certain cralt masters, because oltheexpansionol businessnetworkslorthesupplyol materials,were presseotoabanoonjourneymenanotousenewmeanstoattract customers,allol whichwasinconsistentwiththeolocraltprinciples wherebyeachmasterwassupposeotoreceivethesamenutrition`as the others, ano lor that reason sought to place themselves outsioe earlier 30"#$%&'( )*'narrow associations. Concerning the pure sociological lorm abstracteo lromaspeci!ccontent,itisimportanttoconsioerthatthewioening ol thecircletowhichaninoivioual`sactionbinoshimgoeshanoin hanowithastrongeraccentuationol personaloistinctiveness,greater lreeoom,anothemutualoillerentiationol inoiviouals.Butaslaras Icantell,thereisnosureellectivemethootoextractthissociological meaning lrom that complex content-oetermineo lact. Which sheer socio-logicalcon!guration,whichparticularinterrelationshipol inoiviouals isincluoeointhehistoricaleventwhenabstractinglrominoiviouals with all their interests ano impulses ano lrom the conoitions olpurely lactualbehaviorwell,itispossibletointerpretthehistoricallactsin a variety olways, ano one can reler to the historical lacts that occupy the reality oloe!nite sociological lorms only in their material totality, ano oevoio olthe means, by hook or crook renoer teachable its break-oownlromthematerialanolorm-sociologicalpointol view.Thisis thecasewiththeprool ol ageometricaltheorembytheunavoioably haphazaro ano cruoely sketcheo !gure. The mathematician, however, canstillrecognizethattheconceptol theioealgeometrical!gureis known ano ellective ano is vieweo now wholly internally as essentially the meaning olthe chalk or ink lines. However in sociology the com-parableassumptionshoulonotbemaoe,wecannotlogicallylorcea solution lor the problem olwhat, out olthe whole complex phenom-enon, ispure interaction. Hereonemustaccepttheooiumol speakingol intuitiveprac-ticethough well apart lrom speculative-metaphysical intuitionabout a speci!c angle olvision with which that oistinction is realizeo ano by which we can be guioeo, albeit only by oemonstration with examples, until some later time when we will have conceptualizeo lully expressive ano reliably guioing methoos. Ano that raises the oil!culty that not only is there no inoubitable hanole lor the implementation olthis sociologi-cally lounoational ioea, but also that even where it lunctions tolerably well,inmanyinstancesthealigningol eventsunoeritorunoerthe perceptionol certaintywithregaroto$%!+"!+&stilloltenremainsarbi-trary.Inasmuch,lorexample,thatthephenomenonol thepoor`isa sociological type, a result olrelational lorms within a group, occasioneo bygeneralcurrentsanomovements,itisnecessarilygenerateowhen people congregate. Or poverty can be vieweo as the material outcome olcertain ioiosyncratic human characteristics, or exclusively lrom the viewpoint olsubstantive economic interests. Opposite opinions about it will be possible. On the whole one can view historical phenomena lrom ' %()+,'- ). /)"0),)1231three principal perspectives: that olinoivioual beings, who are the real carriers olsituations, that olthe technical lorms olinteraction, which are executeo certainly only by inoivioual beings but are not consioereo just lrom the stanopoint olinoiviouals but oltheir togetherness, their with-one-anotheranolor-one-another,anothatol theconceptually oe!nablecontentol situationsanoevents,inwhichcaseoneooes notinquireabouttheirbearersortheirrelationshipsbuttheirpurely lactualmeaning,theeconomyanotechnology,artanoscience,legal normsanoproouctsol theemotionallile.Thesethreeperspectives continuously intertwine with one another. The methooological necessity to keep them apart is always conlronteo by the oil!culty olarranging eachoneinatrackinoepenoentol theothers,anobytheoesirelor asingleviewol realityencompassingallstanopoints.Anohowever oeeplyoneleaosbackintotheother,grounoinganobeinggrounoeo, itwillneverbeabletogeta!xonallcases,anolorthatreason,in spiteol allthemethooologicalclarityanocrispnessol theprincipal lormulation,theambiguityisharolyavoioablethatthetreatmentolaninoivioualproblemseemstobelongnowtoone,nowtotheother categoryanoisitsell neverclearlywithinoneortheotherwayoltreatingit.Intheeno,Ihopethatthemethooologyol thesociology proposeoherewillemergemoreoe!nitelyanoevenperhapsmore clearly through the exposition olits inoivioual problems than through thisabstractoutline.Itiscertainlynotaltogetheruncommoninintel-lectualmattersinoeeo,inthebroaoestanooeepestproblemareas, ratherwioespreaothatanythingwemustrelertowiththeunavoio-ablemetaphor1%7!(*+'%!isnotas!xeoasthesuperstructureerecteo upon it. So the practice olscience, especially in !elos yet unoevelopeo, will not be able to oo without a certain measure olinstinctive activity, themotivesanonormsol whichwillonlylateracquirealullyclear awareness ano conceptual oevelopment. Ano yet so little is it permitteo lor scienti!c practice to ever give itsellover to those vague instinctual methoosol proceoure,intuitivelyapplieoonlyinthesingleinquiry, that it is still in oroer to conoemn them to unlruitlulness ilone shoulo wish to make still early steps into a completely lormulateo methoo lor treatingnewproblems.1 1We are consioering in only a rough way the enoless complexity olsocial lile that givesrisetoioeasanomethooslormasteringitintellectually.Soitwoulobemega-lomaniarightnowtohopeanowanttoreachlorlunoamentalclarityol questions anocertituoeol answers.Itseemstomeworthytoaomitthisrightuplrontsincein 32"#$%&'( )*'Within the problem area that is constructeo by selecting out the lorms olsocial interaction lrom the whole manilestation olsociety, portions olresearch ollereo here yet remain that are, so to speak, quantitatively beyono the tasks that are recognizeo as sociological. That is to say one inquiresat!rstintotheback-ano-lorthin"uencesamonginoiviouals, the sum olwhich proouces society`s cohesion, so that a progression is revealeo at once, inoeeo a worlo, as it were, olsuch lorms olrelationship that were either not incluoeo at all in previous social science or without insightintotheirprimaryanovitalmeaning.Onthewholesociology hasbeenlimiteoinlacttosocialphenomenainwhichtheinteractive lorces are alreaoy crystallizeo out lrom their immeoiate bearers, at least as ioea-units. States, manulacturers` associations, clergy, lorms ollamily, economic conoitions, military allairs, corporations, brotherhooos, oepic-tions olclass, ano oivision olinoustrial laborthese ano similar large agencies ano systems appear to comprise society ano !ll in the sphere ol itsscience.Itisobviousthatthelarger,moreimportant,anomore oominant a province olsocial interest with its course olaction is, the soonerwillanobjectiveexpression,anabstractexistencebeyonothe inoivioual ano primary process, emerge lrom immeoiate inter-inoivioual lile-ano-work.Butnowonetotwolurtherimportantpointsneeoto beaooeo.Inaooitiontoitscomprehensiveanooutwarolyimportant imposing phenomena, visible at a oistance, it is maoe up olinnumer-ableapparentlysmalllormsol relationshipanotypesol interaction amongpeople,negligibleinthesinglecase,,butwhicharepresenteo to an inestimable oegree by these single cases, ano insolar as they are thiswayatleastaresolutebeginningcanbemaoeinsteaool makingaclaimtoa !nality,themeaningol whichwoulobeooubtlulinanycaseinthissortol venture. Sothechaptersol thisbookarethoughtol asexampleswithregarotomethoo,as lragments with regaro to contents, which I must consioer lor the science olsociety. In bothrespectsitseemeoinoroertochoosethemostheterogeneousthemespossible, mixingthegeneralanospecializeo.Thelessthepresentolleringhereisrounoeoollto a systematic coherence, the lurther will the parts lie lrom one another arouno such anapparentlyall-encompassingcircle,inwhichalutureperlectionol sociologywill uniteitsisolateoanounanchoreopoints.SinceIammysell thusemphasizingthe whollylragmentaryanoincompletecharacterol thisbook,Iwillnotoelenomysellagainst criticisms olthat with a preventative *4%0%3'*. So illor certain the selection ola single problem ano exempli!cation will appear to lall short olthe ioeal olan objective thoroughness,thiswouloonlyshowthatIhavenotmaoethebasicioeasunoerstooo clearly enough. Such clarity will only be possible alter setting out ano turning oown a very long roao, ano every systematically concluoeo completeness woulo be minimally a sell-oeception. Integrity can be attaineo here by someone only in the subjective sense thatoneshareseverythingonemanagesto see. ' %()+,'- ). /)"0),)1233inmotionamongthecomprehensiveano,sotospeak,ol!cialsocial lorms, they bring about inoeeo nothing less than society as we know it. Limiting sociology to the ol!cial social lormations resembles the earlier science olthe interior olhuman booies, which !xeo upon oescribing the large organsheart, liver, lung, stomach, etc., but misseo ano neglecteo the uncounteo, the not popularly known, or those whose purposes were unknown. Without them, the more obvious organs woulo never proouce a living booy.The actually experienceo existing lile olsociety cannot bepieceotogetherlromthestructuresol thealorementioneotype, those that make up the conventional objects olsocial science. Without the ellects olthe countless interworkings in inoivioual small wioespreao syntheses, to which these inquires shoulo be lor the most part oevoteo, itwoulobelragmenteointoamultiplicityol oiscontinuoussystems. What the scienti!c establishment olsuch unapparent social lorms also makes oil!cult is that which makes it in!nitely important lor the oeeper unoerstanoingol society:thattheyhavegenerallynotyetharoeneo into!xeosupra-inoivioualimages,rathersocietyappearstobeina state,asitwere,ol beingbornol coursenotactuallyinitsprimal historicallyinscrutablebeginningbutineverythingthattakesplace everyoayeveryhour,socialinteractionamongpeoplecontinuously makingconnectionsanobreakingthemoll anomakingthemagain, aperpetual"owinganopulsingthatunitesinoiviouals,evenwhenit ooes not amount to actual organization. Here it is, so to speak, a mat-ter olthe microscopic-molecular processes insioe human material that are, however, the actual *$+'6'+. that links together or hypostasizes those macroscopic !xeo entities ano systems. That humans look at one other anothattheyarejealousol eachother,thattheyexchangelettersor eat lunch together, that beyono all tangible interests they elicit sympathy inoneanother,thatthegratituoeol altruisticserviceconsistentlyhas anunbreakablebonoingellect,thatoneasksoirectionslromanother, anothattheyoressanoaoornthemselvesloroneanotherallthe thousanos olperson-to-person perlormances, momentary or enouring, conscious or not, "eeting or momentous relationships, lrom which these examplesareselecteoentirelyarbitrarily,continuouslytieustogether. Suchthreaosarewovenateverymoment,alloweotolall,aretaken upagain,substituteolorothers,anointerwovenwithothers.Here owell the interworkings among the atoms olsociety, accessible only to thepsychologicalmicroscope,theinterworkingsthatsustainthethor-oughgoing tenacity ano elasticity, the entire variety ano unilormity olthissomeaninglulanosoenigmaticlileol society.Itisamatterol3!"#$%&'( )*'applyingtheprincipleol in!nitelymanyanoin!nitelysmallellects, juxtaposeoonsociety,asinthesciencesol juxtapositionol geology, olthe tenets olbiological evolution, history as ellectively proven. The immeasurablysmallstepsprooucethecoherenceol historicalunity, likewise the not-so-apparent person-to-person interactions proouce the coherenceol historicalunity.Whatgoesonperpetuallyinphysical ano mental contact, in reciprocal excitation oloesire ano sullering, in conversations ano silences, in common ano antagonistic intereststhat isreallywhatoeterminesthewonoerluluntearablenessol society,the "uctuationol itslile,withwhichitselementsconstantlyachieve,lose, anoshilttheirequilibrium.Ferhapswhattheaoventol microscopic research meant lor the science olorganic lile will be what the aovent ol thisknowleogewillachievelorsocialscience.Inquirytillthenwas limiteotothelarge,separate,oistinctbooilyorgans,thelormano lunctionalvarietyol whichwereamatterol course,nowthenlile process appeareo in relation to its smallest carriers, the cells, ano in its ioentitywiththecountlessanocontinuousinteractionsamongthem. As they attach to or oestroy one another, assimilate or chemically in"u-enceoneanotherthis!nallyallowsustounoerstanograouallyhow booy generates its lorm, maintains it, or changes it. The large organs, in which these lunoamental bearers ollile ano their interactions have combineoinvisiblemacroscopicspecializeostructuresanoactivities, wouloneverhavemaoethenetworkol lilecomprehensibleil those countlessactivitiestakingplaceamongthesmallestelements,nowas it were tieo together by the macroscopic, hao not revealeo themselves as basic ano lunoamental to lile. Wholly apart lrom any sociological or metaphysical analogy between the realities olsociety ano organisms, it is now a matter here olthe analogy olmethooological oeliberation ano itsoevelopment,ol theexposureol theoelicatethreaos,theirreouc-iblerelationsamonghumanbeings,bywhosecontinualperlormance alltheselargestructures,nowobjectiveanopossessinganactualhis-tory,arelounoeoanoborne.Theseentirelyprimaryprocesses,which constructsocietyoutol theimmeoiate,inoivioualmaterial,arethus, alongsioethehigheranomorecomplicateoactivitiesanostructures, tounoergolormalexamination.Thespeci!cinteractionsthatlroma theoreticalviewoonotlenothemselvestothisunoertakingtoquite theusualextent,aretobeexamineoassociety-constructinglorms,as partsol socialinteractioningeneral.Inoeeo,themoreanexhaustive examinationispurposelullyoevoteototheseapparentlyinsigni!cant varietiesolrelations, thebetter sociologygetsat seeingthem clearly. ' %()+,'- ). /)"0),)123Justwiththisturn,however,theresearchprojecteohereappearsto becomenothingotherthanachapterol psychology,atbestsocial psychology. Now there is lor sure no ooubt that all social processes ano instinctshavetheirseatinpsyches,thatsocialinteractionisapsycho-logicalphenomenon,anoitislunoamentaltoitsrealitythatamajor-ity olelements becomes a unity. There is no single analogy in the worlo ol physicalbooies,thereaninsurmountablespatialimpenetrability remainsagiven.Whateverexternaleventswemightalsoioentilyas social,itwoulobelikeamarionetteplay,notanymoreconceivable ano meaninglul than the interpenetration olclouos or the interweaving oevelopmentol treebranches,il wewerenottorecognizelullyasa matterol coursepsychologicalmotivations,leelings,thoughts,ano neeos, not only as bearers olthose events but as their essential vitality anousreallyasonlyinteresteoparties.Thecausalunoerstanoingolany social event woulo have thus been attaineo in lact ilpsychological assessments ano their oevelopment accoroing to psychological laws`so problematic a concept lor ushao permitteo the complete oeouction olthese events. There is also no ooubt that the conceptions ol historical-socialexistenceavailabletousarenothingotherthanpsychological chainsthatwereprooucewitheitheranintuitiveormethooologically systematic psychology ano, with internal plausibility, get to the leeling ol apsychologicalnecessityol theoevelopmentsinquestion.Conse-quently each history, each portrayal ola social situation, is an exercise ol psychologicalknowleoge.However,itisol utmostmethooological importanceanooownrightcruciallortheprinciplesol thehuman sciencesgenerallythatthescienti!ctreatmentol psychologicallacts notemploypsychologyinanyway,alsowherewecontinuouslymake useol psychologicallawsanoknowleoge,wheretheexplanationolevery single lact is possible only in psychological termsas is the case insioeol sociologytheaimanointentionol thispracticeneeonot proceeothroughoutbywayol psychology,thatis,notsomelawolmentalprocessesthatcanoealwithaspeci!ccontent,butrather accoroing to the contents ano their con!guration themselves. There is hereabitol acontrasttothesciencesol externalnature,whichas lacts olthe intellectual lile also play out alter all only insioe the mino. Theoiscoveryol eachastronomicalorchemicaltruth,aswellasthe contemplation olevery one olthem, is an occurrence in consciousness thatalullyoevelopeopsychologycoulooeouceentirelylrompurely mentalconoitionsanooevelopments.Butthesesciencesariseinsolar as they turn the $%!+"!+& ano correlates olmental processes into objects, 3o"#$%&'( )*'in the same way as we construe a painting in terms olits aesthetic ano art-historicalmeaninganonotlromthephysicalwavelengthsthatits colorsemitanothatol courseproouceanosustainthewholereal existence olthe painting. It is lorever * reality we cannot grasp scien-ti!callyinitsactualityanototality,butmusttakeuplromaseriesolseparatestanopointsanotherebyorganizethemintoavarietyol sci-enti!c optics that are inoepenoent olone another. This is now neeoeo also lor all mental occurrences, the contents olwhich are not themselves incluoeo in an autonomous realm ano oo not '!+7'+'6"0. resist objectily-ingtheirownmentalreality.Thelormsanorulesol alanguage,lor example,thoughcertainlybuiltuponlylrommentalcapacitieslor mentalpurposes,stillcometobetreateobyalinguisticsciencethat completely avoios any single given rei!cation olits object. It is therelore portrayeo, analyzeo, ano constructeo purely in accoro with its subject matteranothelormationspresentonlyinitscontents.Thesituation isthesamewiththelactsol socialinteraction.Thatpeoplein"uence one another, that the one ooes something or sullers something, manilests beingorbecoming,becauseothersarepresentanotheyexpress,act, oremoteol coursethisisallamatterol mentalphenomena,ano the historical occurrence olevery single case olit is to be unoerstooo only through psychologically pertinent concepts, through the plausibil-ityol psychologicalprogressions,throughtheinterpretationol the outwaroly visible by means olpsychological categories. However, now auniquescienti!cperspectivecanoisregarothesementaleventsas somethingelsealtogetheranoplacetheircontentsinrelationships,as it organizes, tracks, analyzes them lor itsellunoer the concept olsocial interaction. Thus it woulo be establisheo, lor example, that the relation-ship olthe more powerlul to the weaker in the lorm ol4)',7& '!+") 4*)"& typicallygravitatestowarobecominganabsoluteoominationbyone anograouallyrulesoutmomentsol equality.Althoughthisis,inthe realityol history,apsychologicalevent,itinterestsusnowonlylrom the sociological stanopoint: how the various stages here olhigher ano lowerranksstringtogether,towhatextentahigherrankinacertain kinool relationshipiscompatiblewithanoroerol equalityinother relationships, ano at what point the superiority olpower oestroys equal-ityinthem,whethertheissueol association,thepossibilityol coop-eration, is greater in the earlier or in the later stages olsuch processes, ano so on. Or it becomes establisheo that enmities are the most bitter whentheyariseonthebasisol anearlierorstillsomehowleltcom-monalityanounity,inthesamewaythatthemostlerventhatreohas ' %()+,'- ). /)"0),)1237been ioenti!eo as that among blooo relatives. Some will view this ano even be able to characterize it as only psychologically comprehensible. But consioereo as a sociological lormation, it is not olinterest in itsellasconcurrentmentalsequencesineachol twoinoiviouals,ratherolinterest is the synopsis olboth unoer the categories oluni!cation ano oivision:howlullytherelationshipbetweentwoinoivioualsorparties can incluoe opposition ano solioarityallowing the lormer or the lat-tertocolorthewhole,whichtypesol solioarityollerthemeanslor crueler, prolounoly hurtlul oamage, as memory or irrepressible instinct, than is possible at the outset lrom prior unlamiliarity. In short, as that stuoy represents the realization ol)"0*+'%!*0 1%),& olpeople, which also represents them as a speci!c combination olsociological categoriesthat is what matters, even though the singular or typical oescription oltheactivityitsell canalsobepsychological.Takingupanearliersug-gestion, oespite all the oillerences one can compare this with the geo-metricaloeouctionorawnlroma!guresketcheoonablackboaro. What can be presenteo ano seen here are only physically laio out chalk marks,however,whatwe,"*!withthegeometricalconsioerationsis not the chalk marks themselves, but rather their meaning lor the geo-metrical concept, which is altogether oillerent lrom that physical !gure as a storehouse olchalk particleswhile on the other hano it can also belolloweoasthismaterialthingunoerscienti!ccategories,anoits physical materialization or its chemical composition or its optic impres-sion can be, more or less, objects olspeci!c investigations. Sociological oataaresimilarlymentalprocessestheimmeoiaterealityol whichis presenteo in the !rst instance in psychological categories, however these, thoughinoispensablelortheoepictionol lacts,remainoutsioethe 47)4%&" olsociological consioeration, which is in lact borne only by the mental activities ano only able to portray the lactuality olsocial inter-action through themsomewhat like a orama, which lrom beginning toenocontainsonlypsychologicalevents,canonlybeunoerstooo psychologically ano yet has its intention not in psychological knowleoge but in the syntheses that shape the contents olthe mental events unoer thepoint ol view olthe tragic, the art lorm,thesymbolsol lile.2 2Theintroouctionol anewwayol thinkingaboutlactsmustsupportthevari-ousaspectsol itsmethoothroughanalogieswithrecognizeo!elos,butnotuntilthe perhaps enoless process in which the principle speci!es its realizations within concrete researchanoinwhichtheserealizationslegitimatetheprincipleaslruitlul,cansuch analogieswiththemclarilywhereintheoillerenceol materialsat!rstobscuresthe 38"#$%&'( )*'Whilethetheoryol socialinteractionassuch,isolateolromallthe socialsciencesthatareoe!neobysomeothercontentol sociallile, appearsastheonlysciencethatisentitleotothename &%$'*0&$'"!$"in thestrictsense,theoesignationisnotol coursetheimportantthing but the oiscovery olthat new complex olspecializeo problematics. The argumentoverwhat&%$'%0%3.reallymeansseemstomeassomething completely unimportant, so long as it turns only on conlerring this title onanalreaoyexistinganoworkeo-overcircleol activity.Il,however, the title &%$'%0%3. is singleo out lor this set olproblems with the preten-sion olcovering the concept olsociology lully ano solely, this must still be justi!eo over ano against one other problem-group that unoeniably seeksnolesstoattain,beyonothecontentsol thespecializeosocial sciences,propositions about societyas such anoasawhole.As with every exact science intenoeo lor the oirect unoerstanoing ollacts, the social is also oelimiteo lrom two philosophical oomains. One encompasses the conoitions, lounoational concepts, ano presuppositions olspecializeo research, which can !no no completion in it themselves becausetheyratherarealreaoythebasislorit,intheother,thisspe-cializeoresearchisleotocompletionsanocoherenceanoissetup with questions ano concepts relateo to them, that have no place insioe experience ano oirectly objective knowleoge. The lormer is epistemol-ogy, that is, the metaphysics olthe specializeo !elos unoer oiscussion. The latter relers actually to two problems that remain, however, justi!-ably unseparateo in the actual thought process: Dissatislaction with the lragmentary character olspecializeo knowleoge that leaos to premature closure at lact checking ano accumulation olevioence by supplementing the incompleteness with speculation, ano this same practice even serves the parallel neeo to encompass the compatible ano incompatible pieces in an overall uni!eo picture. Next to this metaphysical lunction locuseo on the ("3)"" olknowleoge, another one is oirecteo towaros a oillerent oimensionol existence,whereinliesthemetaphysicalmeaningol its contents:weexpressitasmeaningorpurpose,asabsolutesubstance unoer the relative appearances, also as value or religious meaning. With regaro to society, these spiritual attituoes generate questions as these: Is society the eno olhuman existence or a means lor the inoivioual? Is it perhapsnotevenameanslortheinoivioualbut,onthecontrary,an now-crucialsimilarityinlorm,thisprocesssurelyrisksmisunoerstanoingonlytothe oegreeatwhichitisnolonger necessary. ' %()+,'- ). /)"0),)1239inhibition? Does its value resioe in its lunctional lile or in the genera-tionol anobjectiveminoorintheethicalqualitiesthatitevokesin inoiviouals? Is a cosmic analogy revealeo in the typical oevelopmental stagesol society,sothatthesocialrelationshipsol peoplewoulo!t into a universal lounoation-laying lorm or rhythm, not obvious to them butmanilestinallphenomenaanoalsogoverningtherootlorcesolmaterial reality? Can there at all be a metaphysical-religious meaning olthe whole,or is thisreserveolorinoivioualsouls? These ano numerous similar questions by themselves oo not appear to me to possess the categorical inoepenoence, the unique relationship between object ano methoo that woulo justily establishing sociology as a new science that woulo rank it with the existing ones. Since all these arestrictly4-'0%&%4-'$*0questions,anotheyhavetakensocietyastheir object,itamountstoonlyanextensionol astructureinthemanner ola previously given kino olknowleoge to a wioer !elo. Whether we recognize philosophy as actually a science or not, social philosophy has nolunoamentalreasonwhatsoevertoavoiotheaovantagesoroisao-vantagesol itsconnectiontophilosophygenerallybyitsconstitution asaspecialscience olsociology. Not as in the past,3 nothing else remains olthe kino olphilosophical problemthatsocietyhasasapresupposition,buttoinquireintothe presuppositionsol societyitsellnotinthehistoricalsense,bywhich oneissupposeotooescribetheactualoccurrenceol anyparticular society or the physical ano anthropological conoitions that can arise on thebasisol thatsociety.Itisalsonotamatterhereol theparticular orives that oraw subjects, while encountering other subjects, into social interactions, the types olwhich sociology oescribes. But rather: ilsuch subjectsexistwhatarethepresuppositionslorconsciousbeingsto beasociologicalentity?Itisnotintheseparts,however,inanolor themselves,thatsocietyislouno,itiscertainlyrealinthelormsolinteraction.Whatthenaretheinneranoprincipalconoitions,onthe basis olwhich subjects generally generate society out olthe inoiviou-alsequippeowithsuchorives,the*4)'%)'thattheempiricalstructure olinoiviouals, insolar as they are socially capable, makes possible ano lorms?Howaretheempiricallyemergingparticularlormspossible, 3Simmel`s phraseology that lollows is reminiscent olLuther`s Here I stano, I can oo no othereo.!0"#$%&'( )*'which lall unoer the general ioea olsociety, ano how can society gener-ally be an objective lormol subjective souls? 9:$7)&7& %! +-" ;)%80",$-",*appears inappositionto)"4)"&"!+*+'%!,Kantalsospeaksol >$-",*+*ol theinoivioualcat-egoryeo. ' %()+,'- ). /)"0),)12!3inoivioual consciousness? Which elements are containeo in them that make it possible lor their enactment, which is the proouction ola social unity out olinoiviouals,tosayitabstractly?Thesociological*4)'%)'conoitionswillhave thesameooublemeaningasthethosethatrenoernaturepossible.`They willontheonehanooeterminecompletelyorincompletelytheactualsocial interactionprocessesaslunctionsorlorcesol mentaloevelopments,onthe other hano they are the ioeal logical presuppositions lor the complete society, although society is possibly never perlectly realizeo in this completion. In the same way the law olcausality on the one hano owells ano works in the actual cognitiveprocesses,ontheotherhanoitconstructsthelormol truthasthe ioeal system olcompleteo knowleoge, inoepenoent olthe process, whether or not this is realizeo through that transient relatively ranoom mental oynamic, ano inoepenoently olthe true reality, more or less consciously ano ellectively approximating the ioeal2 Itisanon-issuewhethertheresearchintotheseconoitionsol thesocial process shoulo be epistemologically signi!cant or not, because in lact the pic-ture arising lrom them ano stanoaroizeo by their lorms is not knowleoge but practical processes ano states olbeing. However what I mean here ano what shoulo be examineo as the general ioea olsocial interaction in its conoitions is something knowleoge-like: consciousness olsocializing or being associateo. Ferhapsitwoulobebettertocallitanawarenessratherthanaknowleoge. Since in this case the subject ooes not stano over against an object lrom which it woulo graoually extract a conceptual construct, but the consciousness olsocial interaction is instantly a consciousness olits carriers or its inner meaning. It is a matter olthe processes olinteraction that, lor the inoivioual, mean the reality olbeing associateonot abstractly olcourse, but certainly capable olabstract expression. Which lorms must remain as the basis, or which speci!c categories a person must, as it were, bring along while this consciousness oevelops, ano whicharethusthelormsthatmustcarrytheresultingconsciousnesssociety asarealityol knowleoge,thiswecanunooubteolycalltheepistemologyolsociety.Itryinthelollowingtosketchseveralol these*4)'%)'conoitionsor lorms olsocial interactionlor sure not ioenti!able as, in a woro, the Kantian categoriesas an example olsuchresearch. I2The image olothers that a person acquires lrom personal contact is occasioneo byreal"uctuationsthatarenotsimpleillusionsinincompleteexperience, laulty locus, ano sympathetic or hostile biases, but important alterations in the character olreal objects. Ano inoeeo these principally lollow two oimensions. Weseeothersgeneralizeotosomeextent,perhapsbecauseitisnotgivento us to be able to represent one lully to ourselves with our varying inoiviouality. Every reproouction ola soul is shapeo by the resemblance to it, ano although thisisbynomeanstheonlyconoitionlormentalknowleogesinceonthe one hano a simultaneous oissimilarity seems necessary lor achieving oistance ano objectivity, ano on the other hano there is an intellectual capacity to view onesellbeyono the similarity or oillerence olbeingso complete knowleoge woulo still presuppose a complete similarity. It appears as though each person !!"#$%&'( )*'hasamarkol inoivioualityoeepoownwithin,thatcanbecopieointernally by no one else, lor whom this mark is always qualitatively oillerent. Ano that this contention is still not logically compatible with that oistance ano objective juogmentonwhichmoreovertherepresentationol othersrestsonlyplainly proves that the complete knowleoge olthe inoiviouality olothers is oenieo us, anoallrelationshipsamongpeoplearelimiteobythevaryingoegreeol this 0*$7!*.Whateveritscausemightbe,itsresultisinanycaseageneralization olthe mental picture olothers, a blurring olthe contours that a relationship tootherssuperimposesontheuniquenessol thispicture.Werepresentall people, with a particular consequence lor our practical activity towaro them, asthetypehuman,`towhichtheirinoivioualityallowsthemtobelong,we think olthem, asioe all their singularity, unoer a general category that certainly ooes not encompass them lully ano that they oo not completely matchwith that conoition the relationship between the general ioea ano the inoiviouality propertothemisoiscerneo.Inoroertotakecognizanceol people,weview them not accoroing to their pure inoiviouality but lrameo, highlighteo, or even reouceo by means ola general type by which we recognize them. Even when thisoistortionissoimperceptiblethatwearenotawareol itmorereaoily, even then when all the characterological general ioeas common among people lailmoral or immoral, inoepenoent or oepenoent, master or slave, etc.we still categorize people intrinsically alter a woroless type with which their pure being-lor-itsellooes not coincioe. Anothisleaostoalurtherstep.Welormapictureoirectlylromthetotal uniquenessol apersonalitythatisnotioenticalwithitsreality,butalsostill notageneraltype,ratherthepicturewegetiswhatitwoulooisplayil it were,sotospeak,entirelyitsell,il itweretorealizetheioealpotentialthat is, lor better or lor worse, in every person. We are all lragments, not only olhumanity in general but also olourselves. We are amalgamations not only olthehumantypeingeneral,notonlyol typesol goooanoevilanothelike, but we are also amalgamations olour own inoiviouality ano uniquenessno longeroistinguishableinprinciplewhichenvelopsourvisiblerealityasilorawnwithioeallines.However,theviewol theotherbroaoenstheselrag-ments into what we never actually are purely ano wholly. The lragments that areactuallytherecanscarcelynotbeseenonlyjuxtaposeo,butaswe!llin theblinospotinour!elool vision,completelyunconsciouslyol course,we construct the lullness olits inoiviouality lrom these lragments. The praxis ollile pressures us to shape the picture ola person only lrom the bits olreality empiricallyknown,buteventhatrestsonthesechangesanoampli!cations, onthetranslormationol theactuallragmentsintothegeneralityol atype anointo the completion olthehypotheticalpersonality. This basic proceoure, though seloom actually brought to completion, lunc-tionsinsioethealreaoyexistingsocietyasthe*4)'%)'lorlurtherinteractions arisingamonginoiviouals.Withinanygivencirclebaseo,say,onacommon vocation or mutual interest, every member sees every other member not purely empirically but through an * 4)'%)' that the circle imposes on each participating consciousness.Inthecircleol ol!cers,thechurchlaithlul,civilservants,the ' %()+,'- ). /)"0),)12!learneo,lamilymembers,eachseestheotherunoertheobviousassumption that this is a member olmy circle. Arising lrom the shareo lile-basis are cer-tainsuppositionsthroughwhichpeopleviewoneanotherasthroughaveil. Tobesurethisooesnotsimplycloaktheuniquenessol thepersonalitybut while lusing its quite real inoivioual existence with that ola uni!eo construct, it gives it a new lorm. We see the other not merely as an inoivioual but as a colleague or lellow worker or a lellow member ola political laction, in short as a lellow inhabitant olthe same speci!c worlo, ano this unavoioable presup-position,operatingentirelyautomatically,isoneol themeansbywhichthe other`spersonalityanorealityisbroughttotheproperlevelanolorminthe minos olothers necessary lor sociability. This obviously also holos lor the relationship olmembers olvarious circles to one another. The civilian who meets an ol!cer cannot lree himsellat all lrom the reality that this inoivioual is an ol!cer. Ano, although being an ol!cer may be pertinent to this personality, his image still prejuoices towaro the schematic typecomparabletoitintherepresentationol theother.Thisalsoholoslor the Frotestant in regaro to the Catholic, the shopkeeper in regaro to the civil servant, the layperson in regaro to the priest, etc. The concealment olthe lines olreality is present everywhere through social generalization, which essentially rulesoutitsoiscoveryinsioeasociallyseparateooillerentiateomainsociety. Becausethegeneralizationisalwaysatthesametimemoreorlessthanthe personality,thehumanbeing!nosalterations,oeletions,anoextrapolations lrom all these * 4)'%)' operating categories: lrom one`s type as person, lrom the conceptionol awholeuniqueperson,lromthegeneralpublictowhichone belongs. Hovering above all this as a heuristic principle olknowleoge is the ioea ola person`s real, absolutely inoivioual inoubitability, but while it appears at !rst as though the achievement olthis woulo provioe one with the completely correct lounoational sense olsell, those alterations ano oistortions are in lact whatobstructthisioealknowleogeol thesell evenwhilebeingpreciselythe conoitionsbywhichtherelationshipsthatweknowaloneassocialbecome possiblesomewhatsimilartotheKantiancategoriesol unoerstanoingthat lorm the immeoiately given oata into wholly new objects, while alone making the given worlo knowable. II2Anothercategoryunoerwhichsubjectsseethemselvesanooneanother,so lormeo that they are able to proouce empirical society, may be lormulateo with the seemingly trivial statement that every member ola group is not only a part ol societybutalsosomethingelsebesioes.Totheextentthatthepartol the inoivioual not lacing society or not absorbeo in it is not simply oisconnecteo lrom its socially signi!cant part, i.e. entirely external to society, this lunctions as a social * 4)'%)' to accommooate that external part, willingly or unwillingly, however,thelactthattheinoivioualisincertainrespectsnotamemberolsociety creates the positive conoition lor it being just such a member in other respects.Whatkinoaperson`ssocializeobeingis,isoetermineoorco-oeter-mineobythekinool one`sunsocializeobeing.Thelollowinginvestigations willyieloseveralkinoswhosesociologicalsigni!canceisevenestablisheoin !o"#$%&'( )*'theircoreanoessence,preciselybecausetheyaresomehowexcluoeolrom thesocietylorwhichtheirexistenceisimportantaswiththestranger,the enemy, the lelon, even the poor. However this holos not only lor such general characters but, with countless mooi!cations, lor every inoivioual phenomenon. Thateverymoment!nosusenvelopeobyrelationshipswithpeopleanoits contentoirectlyorinoirectlyoetermineobythemooesnotatallsuggestthe contrary, but the socialenvelopeassuch pertainseventobeingsthatare not lully encloseo in it. We know that the civil servant is not only a civil servant, the merchant is not only a merchant, the ol!cer is not only an ol!cer, ano this extra-socialbeingitstemperamentanoitslateooutcome,itsinterestsano themeritol itspersonalitymayalterverylittletheessentialoperationsolthecivilservant,themerchant,thesoloier,anoyetitgivesopposingaspects to every one olthem, always a particular nuance ano a social persona perme-ateo by extra-social imponoerables. All the social intercourse olpeople within social categories woulo be oillerent ilthey conlronteo one another merely as categories,asbearersol thesocialroleslallingtothemjustatthatmoment. Inoeeo inoiviouals oillerentiate one another just as much by occupation as by socialsituation,accoroingtowhateveroegreeol thataooitive`theypossess or permit, given its social content. At one pole olthis continuum the person comes to be perhaps in love or in lrienoship, in this case what the inoivioual keeps in reserve, beyono the oevelopments ano activities oirecteo towaro the other,canapproachathresholool nothing,quantitatively,thereisonlya singlelilethatcanbevieweoorliveolromtwoangles,atonetimelromthe insioe,lromthe+"),'!7&*A7%ol thesubject,thenhowever,whilenothing haschangeo,lromtheperspectiveol thebeloveo,lromthecategoryol the subject`s +"),'!7& *( A7",, which absorbs it completely. In an entirely oillerent oirection, the Catholic priest oemonstrates lormally the same phenomenon, in that his ecclesiastical lunction completely envelopes ano engulls his inoivioual being-lor-himsell.Inthe!rstol theseextremecasestheaooitive`ol social activity vanishes because its content is wholly absorbeo in the turn towaro the other, in the secono, because the corresponoing type is in principle absorbeo by the content. The appearance olthe mooern culture, economically oriven bymoney,nowmanileststheantithesis,whereinthepersonapproximates theioealol absoluteobjectivityasoneprooucing,buyingorselling,gener-ally ooing anything. Leaving out olaccount high positions olleaoership, the inoivioual lile, the tone olthe whole personality, is absorbeo in striving, people become only the bearers olsettlements olperlormance ano non-perlormance asoetermineobyobjectivenorms,anoeverythingthatooesnotpertainto this pure matter-ol-lactness is in lact likewise absorbeo into it. The personal-itywithitsspecialcoloration,itsirrationality,itsinnerlile,hasabsorbeothe aooitive`lullyintoitsell,anoonlyrelinguisheotothosesocialactivitiesthe speci!c energies in pure oetachment. Social inoiviouals always move between these extremes so that the energies ano oeterminations oirecteo towaro the inner center manilest some meaning lor the activities ano convictions that are important to the other. Since, in the boroerline case, even the consciousness olwhat the person is ano signi!esthis socialactivityorpreoispositionsupposeolysetapartlromtheotherperson ' %()+,'- ). /)"0),)12!7anonotevenenteringintoasociologicalrelationshipwiththeotherthis veryconsciousnessexertsacompletelypositivein"uenceontheattituoethat thesubjectassumestowarotheotheranotheothertowarothesubject.The *4)'%)'lorempiricalsociallileisthatlileisnotentirelysocial.Welormour interrelations unoer the negative restraint that a part olour personality is not toenterintothem,anoyetthisparthasanellectonthesocialprocessesin the mino through general psychological connections overall, but lurthermore just the lormal lact that it stanos outsioe the social processes oetermines what kinool in"uence.Inaooition,thatsocietiesareessentiallypatternsexisting simultaneously insioe ano outsioe olsociety unoerlies one olthe most impor-tant sociological lormations: namely that between a society ano its inoiviouals a relationship can exist as between two parties, inoeeo perhaps always exists, actuallyorpotentially.Thussocietyengenoersperhapsthemostconscious, at least the most universal lorm lounoational lor lile itsell: that the inoivioual personcanneverstanowithinaunionwithoutalsostanoingoutsioeit,that one is inserteo into no arrangement without also being louno opposite it. This holos lor the transcenoent ano most comprehensive associations as well as lor themostsingularanoincioental.Thereligiouspersonleelslullyembraceo bytheoivineessence,asthoughonewerenothingmorethanapulsebeat ol oivinelile,one`sownsubstanceisunconoitionallyabanooneotomystical unoillerentiation in that olthe absolute. Ano yet, lor this absorption to have anymeaning,onemustpreservesomesenseol asell,akinool personal counterpart, a oistinct I, lor which this oissolving into the oivine All-Being is an eternal challenge, a process that woulo neither be metaphysically possible norreligiouslysensibleil itoionotoriginatewithabeing-lor-itsell ol the subject:themeaningol oneness-with-Gooisoepenoentontheotherness-ol-Goo. Beyono this culmination in the transcenoent the relationship with nature as a whole that the human spirit claims lor itsellthroughout its entire history manileststhesamelorm.Ontheonehanoweknowourselvesincorporateo innatureasoneol itsproouctsthatstanosnexttotheothers,likeamong likes,apointthroughwhichitssubstanceanoenergiescomeanogojustas theycirclethrough"owingwateranoblooming"owers.Anoyetthesoul, apartlromalltheseinterweavingsanoincorporations,hastheleelingol an inoepenoentbeing-lor-itsell,whichweioentilywiththelogicallyprecarious ioea ollreeoom. All this movement, whose element we ourselves inoeeo are, counteringanoparlaying,culminatesintheraoicalstatementthatnatureis onlyarepresentationinthehumanmino.Howeverasnatureatthispoint withallitsinherentunoeniablelawlulnessano!rmrealityisincluoeointhe I,so,ontheotherhano,thisI,withallitslreeoomanobeing-lor-itsell,its opposition to mere nature, is yeta member olit, it is precisely the overarching coherence olnature opposite it, that it encompasse, this inoepenoent, inoeeo lrequently even hostile essence, so that what, in accoro with its oeepest sense olbeing alive, stanos outsioe olnature must nevertheless be an element olit. Now this lormulation holos no less lor the relationship between the particular circlesol therelationalmilieuanoinoiviouals,or,il onecombinesthiswith theconceptorleelingol beingassociateoingeneral,lortherelationship among inoiviouals absolutely. We know ourselves on the one hano as prooucts !8"#$%&'( )*'ol society:thephysiologicalsuccessionol ancestors,theiraoaptationsano establishments,thetraoitionsol theirwork,theirknowleogeanolaith,the entirespiritol thepastcrystallizeoinobjectivelormstheseoeterminethe arrangements ano content olour lile so that the question coulo arise whether the inoivioual is therelore simply anything other than a receptacle into which previouslyexistingelementsmixinvariousamounts,loril theseelements arealsoultimatelyproouceobyinoiviouals,withthecontributionol each onebeinganincreasinglylaintamountanothelactorsbeingproouceoonly throughtheirspecies-likeanosocialconvergence,inthesynthesisol which thevaunteoinoivioualitywoulothenagainconsist.Ontheotherhanowe know ourselves as a member olsociety, with our lile-process ano its meaning anopurposejustasinteroepenoentlywoveninaproximityinsocietyasina progressioninit.Wehave,asnaturalcharacter,solittlebeing-lor-ourselves because the circulation olnatural elements goes through us as through com-pletely sel"ess creatures, ano the similarity to natural laws renoers our whole existence a pure exemplar oltheir inevitabilityso little oo we owell as social entities arouno an autonomous center, but moment by moment we are pieceo togetherlrominterrelationshipswithothersanoarethuscomparabletothe organicsubstancethatexistslorusasthoughasumol manysenseimpres-sions but not as an existence ola being-lor-itsell. Now, however, we leel that this social oillusion ooes not completely usurp our personality, it is not only a matter olthe reserves alreaoy mentioneo, olunique contents whose meaning ano oevelopment at the outset lie only in the inoivioual psyche ano generally !no no place in the social context, not only a matter olthe lormation olsocial contents, whose unity as an inoivioual psyche, again, is not itsellsocial essence any more than an artistic pattern, composeo olpatches olcolor on a canvass, is oeriveo lrom the chemical constitution olthe colors themselves. But above all, the entire content ollile, as completely as it may be able to be explaineo by social anteceoents ano interrelationships, is still to be regaroeo concurrently unoer the category olinoivioual lile, as the experience olthe inoivioual ano completely orienteo to the inoivioual. Both are only separate categories unoer whichthesamecontentappears,justasplantscanbeconsioereoonetime intermsol theconoitionsol theirbiologicalorigin,anothertimeinterms ol theirpracticaluses,athirotimeintermsol theiraestheticmeaning.The stanopoint lrom which the existence olthe inoivioual is oroereo ano concep-tualizeo can be taken lrom insioe as well as outsioe it, the totality ollile, with all its socially oerivable contents, is to be graspeo as the centripetal tenoency ol itscarrier,justasitcan,withallitspartsreserveolortheinoivioual,still count as a proouct ano element olsociallile. With that, then, the reality olsocial interaction brings the inoivioual into the position olouality with which I began: that the inoivioual is engageo in it ano at the same time stanos over against it, is a member olits organism ano at the same time itsella complete organic whole, a being lor it ano a being lor itsell. Howevertheessentialnatureanothemeaningol thepeculiarsociological* 4)'%)' grounoeo in it, is this: that the interior ano the exterior between inoivioual ano society are not two agents existing sioe by sioealthough they can oevelop incioentally in that way, even to the extent ola hostile antagonismbut that ' %()+,'- ). /)"0),)12!9theyioentilytheentirelyintegralpositionol thelivingsocialbeing.One`s existenceisnotonly,inapartitionol itssubstance,partiallysocialanopar-tially inoivioual, rather, it lalls unoer the basic, lormative, irreoucible category ola unity that we can express only through the synthesis or the simultaneity ol bothoeterminingpositions,logicallycontrarytooneanother,asmember ano as being-lor-onesellas being proouceo by ano occupieo by society ano aslilelromoutol one`sowncenteranolorthesakeol one`sowncenter. Society ooes not exist as only previously emergeo lrom beings that are in part notsocializeo,butlromsuchbeingsasleelontheonehanolikelullysocial entitiesanoontheother,whileretainingthesamecontent,aslullypersonal ones.Anothesearenottwounrelateojuxtaposeostanopoints,aswhenone examines the same booy at one time in terms olits weight ano at another in termsol itscolor,butbothlormtheunionthatwecallsocialexistence,the synthetic categoryas the concept olcausality is an * 4)'%)' union even though it incluoes both substantively altogether oillerent elements olcause ano ellect. Thatthislormationisavailabletous,thiscapacityol beingseveryoneolwhich can experience the sellas the +"),'!7& * A7% ano the +"),'!7& *( A7", olitsoevelopments,oestinies,anoqualitiestocreatepreciselytheoperational concept olsociety ano to know this then as the +"),'!7& * A7% ano the +"),'!7& *(A7",ol thosevitalitiesanooeterminationsol existencethisisan*4)'%)' olthe empirical society that makesits lorm as we know it possible. III2Society is a construct olunlike parts. Since even where oemocratic or socialist tenoenciesanticipateorpartiallyachieveanequality,`itisalwaysamatter only ola similar evaluation olpersons, achievements, ano positions, whereas the issue olan equality olpersons with regaro to their natures, lile-contents, ano oestinies cannot even be entertaineo. Ano whereas on the other hano an enslaveo population makes up only a mass, as in the great oriental oespotisms, this equality allects everyone always only with respect to certain lacets olexis-tence, perhaps the political or economic, never however the entire selves, whose innate qualities, personal associations, ano liveo oestinies will unavoioably have a kino oluniqueness ano unmistakableness, not only lor the interiority ollile but also lor its social interactions with other beings. Let us imagine society as apurelyobjectiveschema,sothatitappearsasanarrangementol contents ano accomplishmentsall relateo to one another in space, time, concepts, ano valuesanonexttowhichonecaninthisrespectoisregarothepersonality, theI-lorm,thatcarriesitsoynamics.Il thatoissimilarityol elementsnow allowseachaccomplishmentorqualityinsioethisarrangementtoappearas onecharacterizeoinoivioually,unambiguously!xeoinitsplace,societythen lookslikeacosmoswhosemultiplicityinbeinganomovementis,tobesure, incalculable,butinwhicheverypointcanbecomposeoanooevelopeoonly in that given manner ilthe structure olthe whole is not to be changeo. What has been generally saio olthe structure olthe earththat not a grain olsano coulo be shapeo oillerently ano placeo elsewhere than it currently is without thispresupposinganoresultinginachangeol allexistenceisrepeateoin the structure olsociety, vieweo as an interconnection olqualitatively oistinct 0"#$%&'( )*'phenomena. An analogous image olsociety in general, but in miniature, rather simpli!eo in woros, is louno in a snapshot olthe civil service, which as such iscomposeool aoe!niteorganizationol positions`withapreoetermineo set olskill requirements that exist oetacheo lrom their respective ol!ce holo-ers,olleringupanioealizeoassociation.Insioeol suchanorganizationnew entrants !no unambiguously speci!c posts, just as though these positions were waitinglorthemanotowhichtheirenergiesmustharmoniouslyconlorm. Whathereisaconscious,systematicarrangementol workrolesisnaturally atangleoconlusingplayol lunctionsinthewholeol society,thepositions insocietyarenotproouceobyapurposeluloesignbut,unoerstanoably,just bytheactualcreativeactivityanoexperienceol inoiviouals.Anoinspite ol thisenormousoillerence,inspiteol everyirrationalityanoimperlection, howeverreprehensiblelromastanopointol merit,thatthehistoricalsociety oemonstrates,itsphenomenologicalstructurethesumanorelationshipolthekinool existenceanoaccomplishmentsollereoobjectivelysociallyby everyelementremainsanarrangementol elements,ol whicheachperson takesaninoiviouallyoe!neoposition,acooroinationol objectivelyano,in itssocialsigni!cance,meaninglully,althoughnotalwaysvaluable,lunctions ano lunctional centers, in the process olthis the purely personal, the inwaroly proouctive,theimpulsesanore"exesol therealI`remainentirelyoutsioe consioeration.Orexpresseooillerently,thelileol societyproceeosvieweo notpsychologicallybutphenomenologicallypurelyintermsol itssocial contentsasthougheveryelementwerepreoetermineoloritsplaceinthe totality,withallthisoiscrepancylromtheioealclaims,itsimplycontinues asil everyoneol itsmemberswerelullyrelationallyintegrateo,eachone oepenoentonallothersanoallothersontheone,justbecauseeachoneis inoivioually a part olit.At this point conspicuously obvious is the * 4)'%)' which we neeo to oiscuss now ano which ollers the possibility` olbelonging to society. That every inoi-vioual is oirecteo accoroing to one`s own rank in a oe!nite position insioe olone`s social milieu: that this appropriate position is hypothetically available to one, actually throughout the social whole lor that matterthat is the presump-tion unoer which the inoivioual lives out a social lile ano which one can point toastheuniversalvalueol inoiviouality.Whetheritiselaborateointoclear conceptualconsciousnessisinoepenoentol whetheritalso!nositsrealiza-tion in the actual course ollilejust as the * 4)'%)' status olcausal laws as a lormative presupposition olknowleoge is inoepenoent olwhether conscious-nesslormulatesitinseparateconceptsanowhetherornotthepsychological realityalwaysproceeosinaccorowithit.Ourknowleogeol lilerestsonthe presumption ola pre-establisheo harmony between our mental energies, albeit inoivioualones,anoexternalobjectiveexistence,thusthisalwaysremains theexpressionol theimmeoiatephenomenon,whetherornotonewereto attributeitmetaphysicallyorpsychologicallytotheproouctionol existence through the intellect alone. Ilsocial lile as such oepenos on the presupposition ol alunoamentalharmonybetweentheinoivioualanothesocialwhole,it ooeslittletohinoerthesharpclashol theethicalwiththepleasurablelile. ' %()+,'- ). /)"0),)121Hao social reality been shapeo by this principal presumption without restraint ano without lail, we woulo have the perlect societyagain not in the ethical sense or euoaemonistic perlection but conceptually: i.e., not the 4")1"$+ society buttheperlect&%$'"+.2Asthis*4)'%)'ol one`ssocialexistencegoes,sogoes theinoivioual:thethoroughgoingcorrelationol inoivioualbeingswiththeir environingcircles,thenecessitylorthelileol thewholeintegratingthemby way olthe particularity oltheir subjectivityin so lar as the whole ooes not realizethis*4)'%)' or !noitrealizeo,itissimplynotsocializeoanosocietyis not the unbrokeninterconnecteoreality thattheconcept ol it suggests. With the category olvocation, this attituoe is sharply intensi!eo. Certainly antiquity oio not know olthis concept in the sense ola personal oistinctive-ness ano a society structureo by a oivision ollabor. But what is lunoamental toitthatsociallylunctionalactivityisconsistentlytheexpressionol inner capacity, that the wholeness ano ourability olsubjectivity practically objectivizes itsellby way olits lunction in societythat also existeo in antiquity. Insolar as this connection was ellecteo on a more generally unilorm content, its principle appears in the Aristotelian saying, that some people were meant by their nature oouiruriv,toserve,,othersoroaoriv,torule,.Withalurtheroevelopment ol theioeaitinoicatesthepeculiarstructure:thatontheonehanosociety proouces ano provioes a position` in itsellthat is inoeeo oistinct lrom others incontentanooutline,butinprincipleitcanbelul!lleobymanyanoisso tospeaksomewhatanonymous,anothatnow,oespiteitsgeneralcharacter, this position is then taken up by the inoivioual on the basis olan inner call` aquali!cationleltaswhollypersonal.Iortheretobeacalling`atall,there must exist a harmony, however oeriveo, between the structure ano lile process ol societyontheonehanoanotheinoivioualmakeupanopreoispositions on the other. On that harmony as a prevalent assumption ultimately rests the ioeathatthereexistsaposition-ano-perlormanceinsocietyloreachperson, towhich oneis calleo,` ano an imperativeto search lorit untilone !nosit. Empiricalsocietybecomespossible`onlythroughthis*4)'%)',climaxing in the concept olvocation, which is inoeeo to be ioenti!eo not as heretolore with a simple slogan, as the Kantian categories woulo have it. The processes olconsciousness in which socialization takes placethe unity out olmany, the reciprocal recognition olinoiviouals, the changing signi!cance olinoiviouals lor the totality olothers ano olthis totality lor inoivioualsall this proceeos, in principle, completely outsioe abstract conscious but sell-revealing in the reality ol praxis,unoerthisassumption:thattheinoivioualityol theperson!nosa place in the structure olthe collective, inoeeo that this structure is positioneo belorehanotoacertainextent,oespiteitsunpreoictability,lortheinoivioual anoitsactivity.Thecausalconnectionthatinvolveseverysocialelementin the being ano action olevery other one ano thus brings the external network olsociety into existence is translormeo into a teleological one as soon as one consioerslromtheperspectiveol theinoivioualcarriers,lromitscreators, who experience themselves each as an I` ano whose activity oevelops on the basis ola being-lor-itsell, sell-oetermining personality. That this phenomenal totality shoulo align itsellwith that person`s goal, as though personalities came 2"#$%&'( )*'lromoutsioe,anoollersitlromitsinternallyregulateolileprocesstheplace where its unique nature will be that olplaying a necessary part in the lile olthewholethisgives,asalunoamentalcategory,theconsciousnessol the inoivioual the lorm thatcharacterizes itasa socialelement2It is a lairly iole question whether the inquiries into the epistemology olsociety that are supposeo to be exempli!eo in these sketches belong in social philosophy or perhaps sociology alter all. There may be a bouno-ary zone lor both methoosthe sounoness olthe sociological problem, as heretolore oelineateo, ano the oemarcation lrom philosophical issues suller as little lrom it as the clarity olthe ioeas oloay ano night suller onaccountol theexistenceol twilight,ortheioeasol humanano animal because perhaps intermeoiate stages are louno sometimes that unilythecharacteristicsol bothinawaynotconceptuallyseparable lorus.Whilethesociologicalquestionarisesintheabstractionlrom the complex phenomenon that we call social lile, which is actually only society,'2"2socialinteraction,whileiteliminatesinthepurityol the concepteverythingthatwillberealizeoatallonlyhistoricallywithin societybutwhichooesnotconstitutesociety*&&7$-asauniqueano autonomouslormol existenceacompletelyunambiguouscoreoltasks is createo. It may be that the periphery olthe problem area pro-visionallyorpermanentlyaojoinsotherareasthatbecomeoe!nitions ol ooubtlulbounoaries.Thecenterremainsnoless!xeoinitsplace on that account. Imoveontooemonstratethelruitlulnessol thiscentralioeaano probleminspeci!cinquiries.Iarlromclaimingtoollerthen