The "Fragment" o n S i m m e l [From

Draft C h a p t e r XVIII ( S t r u c t u r e o f
Social Action): Georg Simmel a n d
F e r d i n a n d Toennies:
Social R e l a t i o n s h i p s a n d t h e
E l e m e n t s o f Action]

Tatcorr PARSONS

M u c h less e v e n t h a n in the p r e v i o u s c a s e s d o I w i s h to a t t e m p t in t h e p r e s e n t
c h a p t e r to give a g e n e r a l critical e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e s o c i o l o g i c a l w o r k o f t h e t w o
m e n w h o s e n a m e s are p l a c e d at its h e a d . It h a p p e n s t h a t t h e y a p p r o a c h e d s o m e
o f t h e p r o b l e m s w h i c h are r e l e v a n t to o u r c o n t e x t in w a y s w h i c h are s o m e w h a t
d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h o s e w e h a v e so far c o n s i d e r e d . A b r i e f e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e i r
e x p e r i e n c e w i t h t h e s e p r o b l e m s will, I think, h e l p to i l l u m i n a t e s o m e i m p o r t a n t
t h i n g s o n t h e b o r d e r l i n e o f o u r o w n p r e v i o u s analysis, t o clarify o n e o r t w o o f
the residual categories which we have encountered. 1
S i m m e l is m o s t g e n e r a l l y k n o w n to s o c i o l o g i s t s as t h e a u t h o r o f t h e v i e w t h a t
sociology should be a special science concerned with "forms of social relation-
s h i p " as d i s t i n c t f r o m t h e o t h e r social s c i e n c e s w h i c h are c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e i r
" c o n t e n t . " T h i s t e n e t has b e c o m e t h e b a s i c m e t h o d o l o g i c a l p o s i t i o n o f t h e so-
called " f o r m a l " s c h o o l o f s o c i o l o g y . S i m m e l ' s p r o p o s i t i o n h a s b e e n t h e o b j e c t o f
m u c h c o n t r o v e r s y a n d has o f t e n b e e n h e l d to b e totally u n t e n a b l e , b u t s o m e h o w
r e f u s e s to b e c o m p l e t e l y and p e r m a n e n t l y q u a s h e d . W e are n o t r e a d y to r a i s e
e x p l i c i t l y t h e q u e s t i o n o f the s c o p e o f s o c i o l o g y as s u c h - - t h a t w e h a v e r e s e r v e d
f o r t h e final c h a p t e r . H e r e o u r c o n c e r n is w i t h t h e r e l a t i o n o f S i m m e l ' s c o n c e p -
tion o f social " f o r m " to t h e c o n c e p t u a l s c h e m a s o f o u r p r e v i o u s d i s c u s s i o n .
T h e r e l e v a n c e o f this q u e s t i o n to o u r p r o b l e m s s h o u l d b e e v i d e n t f r o m t h e
f a c t o f t h e b i f u r c a t i o n w e h a v e s h o w n to e x i s t in t h e d i r e c t i o n s o f W e b e r ' s
s y s t e m a t i c a l t h e o r e t i c a l t h i n k i n g s . In d e a l i n g w i t h his " g e n e r a l ideal t y p e s " his
m a i n e x p l i c i t t h e o r i z i n g t o o k , as w e saw, t h e f o r m o f t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n , o u t o f
e l e m e n t a r y units o f social relation, o f a w h o l e s y s t e m o f p o s s i b l e s t r u c t u r a l t y p e s
w h i c h c o u l d b e t h o u g h t o f as " c o m p o s e d " o f t h e s e units. T h i s m o d e o f t h e o r i z -

Parsons 21
ing w e c a r e f u l l y d i s t i n g u i s h e d f r o m t h a t in w h i c h o u r o w n i n t e r e s t p r i m a r i l y lay,
that of a (largely implicit) system of the elements of action. The main purpose
o f t h e p r e s e n t d i s c u s s i o n o f S i m m e l is f u r t h e r to clarify t h e r e l a t i o n s o f t h e t w o
t y p e s o f t h e o r i z i n g to e a c h o t h e r .
In i n t r o d u c i n g t h e s u b j e c t , S i m m e l 2 t a k e s t h e p o s i t i o n t h a t a n e w s c i e n c e is
n o t n o r m a l l y c o n s t i t u t e d b y t h e d i s c o v e r y o f a n e w class o f c o n c r e t e f a c t s w h i c h
h a s n e v e r b e e n t h e o b j e c t o f s c i e n t i f i c analysis b e f o r e , b u t b y " d r a w i n g a n e w
line" t h r o u g h t h e facts, w h i c h b r i n g s t h e m i n t o r e l a t i o n s to e a c h o t h e r w h i c h
h a d h i t h e r t o n o t b e e n a d e q u a t e l y u n d e r s t o o d . 3 It is as s u c h a " n e w line" d r a w n
t h r o u g h t h e f a c t s t h a t h e w i s h e s his c o n c e p t " f o r m o f r e l a t i o n s h i p " o r s o c i a l
" f o r m " to b e u n d e r s t o o d .
As h a s so o f t e n p r o v e d to b e t h e c a s e , in this o n e it s h o u l d p r o v e fruitful to
s t a r t b y i n q u i r i n g w h a t it is t h a t S i m m e l p r i m a r i l y d i s t i n g u i s h e s his " f o r m " f r o m .
It is w h a t h e calls " c o n t e n t . "4 H e is v e r y c a r e f u l to s t a t e t h a t n o t h i n g is to b e
i n f e r r e d f r o m t h e t e r m s " f o r m a n d c o n t e n t " as s u c h . T h e i r m e a n i n g s in l o g i c o r
e p i s t e m o l o g y m u s t a b o v e all b e h e l d to c o n s t i t u t e at b e s t a n a l o g i e s . T h e m e a n -
ing in t h e p r e s e n t c o n t e x t is to b e t a k e n d i r e c t l y f r o m o b s e r v a t i o n o f t h e p a r -
t i c u l a r facts. 5
H u m a n social life h e c o n c e i v e s p r i m a r i l y in t e r m s o f p r o c e s s . M e n h a v e a
variety of different impulses, ends, interests, which constitute motivations of
t h e i r a c t i o n . As s u c h t h e s e m o t i v a t i o n s are n o t "social." T h e y h a v e social impli-
c a t i o n s o n l y in so far as t h e y lead to i n t e r a c t i o n 6 b e t w e e n i n d i v i d u a l s . In so far
as this i n t e r a c t i o n t a k e s p l a c e , " s o c i e t y " (Vergesellschaftung) exists. In so far as
this is t r u e t h e r e will b e r e l a t i v e l y c o n s t a n t a n d d e t e r m i n a n t f o r m s o r m o d e s o f
i n t e r a c t i o n . It is as s u c h m o d e s o f i n t e r a c t i o n t h a t S i m m e l d e f i n e s his c o n c e p t
"social f o r m . "7
S i m m e l is v e r y careful to p o i n t o u t that f o r m in this s e n s e is an a b s t r a c t i o n
w h i c h c a n n o t e v e n b e t h o u g h t o f as c o n c r e t e l y e x i s t e n t b y itself. F o r m a n d c o n -
t e n t t o g e t h e r c o n s t i t u t e a c o n c r e t e unity. In t h e c o n c r e t e f a c t s o f social life t h e y
are a l w a y s b o u n d t o g e t h e r . F o r m c a n n o t b e t h o u g h t o f as e x i s t i n g b y itself at all,
c o n t e n t n o t in so far as t h e r e is " s o c i e t y . " F o r m is t h u s an a s p e c t o f social life.
It is i m p o r t a n t , h o w e v e r , to u n d e r s t a n d just w h a t k i n d o f p r o c e s s o f a b s t r a c -
t i o n S i m m e l is h e r e c a r r y i n g out. His s t a r t i n g p o i n t is a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f concrete
" m o t i v e s . " T h e s e are divisible i n t o classes o f c o n c r e t e i m p u l s e s , i n t e r e s t s , e n d s ,
etc. E a c h o f t h e s e c l a s s e s has p e c u l i a r i t i e s o f its o w n w h i c h m a k e it l e g i t i m a t e
to r e g a r d it as t h e o b j e c t o f a s e p a r a t e s c i e n c e . T h i s is l o o k i n g at t h e s u b j e c t -
m a t t e r o f this g r o u p o f s c i e n c e s f r o m t h e s u b j e c t i v e p o i n t o f v i e w . A c o r r e -
s p o n d i n g c l a s s i f i c a t i o n c a n also b e m a d e f r o m t h e o b j e c t i v e p o i n t o f v i e w , w h i c h
will y i e l d c l a s s e s o f c o n c r e t e acts. T h e t w o c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s c o r r e s p o n d in t h a t o n e
o f t h e c l a s s e s o f i n t e r e s t s or m o t i v e s s e r v e s to a c t i v a t e e a c h o f t h e c l a s s e s o f
c o n c r e t e acts. T h i s p r o c e d u r e yields a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f w h a t S i m m e l calls t h e
"social s c i e n c e s . " A c c o r d i n g b o t h to t h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f m o t i v e s a n d o f t h e
e x t e r n a l l y o b s e r v a b l e c h a r a c t e r s o f t h e acts, t h e i r s u b j e c t - m a t t e r is e c o n o m i c ,
p o l i t i c a l , religious, a e s t h e t i c , etc.
U n f o r t u n a t e l y S i m m e l d o e s n o t a n y w h e r e a t t e m p t to c a r r y t h r o u g h this clas-

22 The American Sociologist/Summer 1998

sification o f th e social sciences and t hei r subject-matters to t he p o i n t o f an
e x h a u s t i v e list, any list ends w i t h an "et cetera." And above all he does n o t
a n y w h e r e a t t e m p t to w o r k out w h a t causal explanation o f t he acts in a given
class means, h o w the motives are to be t h o u g h t of as " p r o d u c i n g " the acts.
Particularly he fails to inquire w h e t h e r , h o w far, and in w h a t sense a separat e
i n t e g r ated system o f t h e o r y c o r r e s p o n d s to e a c h o f t hese classes of c o n c r e t e
fact. As is usually t he case t h e list t ends to begi n w i t h " e c o n o m i c " taken b o t h
as a class o f c o n c r e t e facts and as a t h e o r e t i c a l system, w i t h o u t explicit state-
m e n t o f the relations o f the t w o meanings to e a c h ot her. It shoul d be clear f r o m
o u r p r e v i o u s discussion that, had he p u r s u e d t hese inquiries, Simmel w o u l d
certainly have run into very serious difficulties and might well have altered his
views radically.
It is n o t a l t o g e t h e r surprising that he did not, since this "empiricist" v i e w o f
the p r i n c i p l e o f classification of the social s ci ences was largely taken for g r a n t e d
in his time as obvious, indeed still is. But h o w e v e r this may be, having a c c e p t e d
it and laid it d o w n as a postulate, he p r o c e e d e d on his o w n way. What appar-
ently i m p r e s s e d him most was the fact that t h e definitions of t he subject-matters
of t h e s e s cien ces did not, as such, c o n c e p t u a l l y involve social relations b u t onl y
specific c o n c r e t e motives and kinds of acts. All t hese c o u l d be thought of as
existing c o n c r e t e l y apart from social relations. T hen, in t he c o n c r e t e facts w h i c h
actually do involve such relations, t h e r e must be a n o t h e r e l e m e n t . This e l e m e n t
he called "social form." It may most c o n v e n i e n t l y be t h o u g h t of, I think, as an
" e m e r g e n t " p r o p e r t y of the p r o c e s s e s o f action, arising w h e n and in so far as
these p r o c e s s e s involve i nt er a c t i on of t w o or m o r e persons. It is an "abstrac-
tion" in the sense in w h i c h all such e m e r g e n t qualities or p r o p e r t i e s are, it
c a n n o t be isolated as e ve n a h y p o t h e t i c a l l y concrete entity, but may be c o n c e p -
tually distinguished. Thus the t w o elements, form and c o n t e n t , are n o t for Simmel
abstractions in quite the same sense. O ne refers to t y p e parts, t he o t h e r to an
e m e r g e n t p r o p e r t y , w h i c h has m u c h in c o m m o n w i t h an analytical e l e m e n t .
Simmel w e n t on to state that the justification for this a b s t r a c t i o n lay in t he
fact that f o r m and c o n t e n t c oul d be s h o w n to vary i n d e p e n d e n t l y o f e a c h o t h e r .
The same f o r m could be found " e m b o d i e d " in different c o n t e n t s and vice versa.
Thus " c o m p e t i t i o n , " w h i c h he i n t e r p r e t e d as such a form, c o u l d be f o u n d to
exist in the e c o n o m i c fields, in sports, in rivalry for t he favor of a w o m a n , etc.
Similarly the same motives or interests c o u l d be p u r s u e d in d i f f e r e n t forms. T h u s
the maximization of i n c o m e of a c o n c e r n may be a t t e m p t e d by c o m p e t i n g w i t h
its rivals in the same market or by c o m i n g to a g r e e m e n t s w i t h t h e m w h i c h will
result in th e s u p p r e s s i o n of c o m p e t i t i o n .
Simmel himself did not p u r s u e his c o n c e p t i o n m u c h f u r t h e r , e i t h e r in t h e
d i r e c t i o n o f a f u r t h e r and m o r e e x p l i c i t m e t h o d o l o g i c a l f o u n d a t i o n , or of a
systematic d e v e l o p m e n t of t h e o r y on its basis. His rem ai ni ng sociological w o r k
t o o k th e f o r m o f a series of brilliant but d i s c o n n e c t e d essays on w h a t p u r p o r t e d
to be specific social forms. T h e y are full of suggestion and insight, m a n y of t h e m
first-rate c o n t r i b u t i o n s , but t hey are o f relatively little h e l p for o u r p u r p o s e s .
What, then, d o e s it all a m o u n t to for our c o n t e x t ? It seems e v i d e n t in t he first

Parsons 23
 p l a c e t h a t S i m m e l ' s c o n c e n t r a t i o n o n i n t e r a c t i o n b e t w e e n i n d i v i d u a l s as t h a t
w h i c h c h a r a c t e r i z e s "social" p h e n o m e n a f o c u s e s his a t t e n t i o n o n s o c i a l r e l a t i o n -
s h i p s , a m o n g P r o f e s s o r Z n a n i e c k i ' s f o u r s c h e m a s . 8 W h a t t h e n is f o r m ? N o t h i n g ,
I t h i n k , b u t t h e structural a s p e c t o f social r e l a t i o n s h i p s . W e m a y s p e a k m e a n -
ingfully o f t h e " f o r m " o f a n y e m p i r i c a l e n t i t y in this s e n s e . It is a m a t t e r o f
a b s t r a c t i n g s t r u c t u r a l r e l a t i o n s as s u c h f r o m t h e p r o p e r t i e s o f t h e " p a r t s " r e l a t e d
in t h e s t r u c t u r e in so far as t h e p r o p e r t i e s o f t h e l a t t e r are d e f i n a b l e a p a r t f r o m
t h e r e l a t i o n s . In this s e n s e e v e r y e m p i r i c a l e n t i t y h a s " f o r m . " T h e e a r t h has a
s p h e r o i d f o r m , its o r b i t a r o u n d t h e s u n a n e l l i p t i c a l f o r m , etc. Social f o r m differs
f r o m t h e s e e x a m p l e s o n l y in t h a t t h e c a t e g o r i e s f o r d e s c r i b i n g it are d i f f e r e n t ,
a b o v e all d o n o t c o n t a i n a spatial r e f e r e n c e . Social s t r u c t u r e is n o t a s t r u c t u r e
o f e l e m e n t s r e l a t e d in space b u t in a d i f f e r e n t f r a m e o f r e f e r e n c e . 9 S i m m e l d o e s
n o t h i m s e l f g o v e r y far in d e f i n i n g w h a t t h e f r a m e o f r e f e r e n c e is b e y o n d refer-
r i n g to it as social r e l a t i o n s h i p s .
But w h a t a r e t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r e x p l a n a t o r y t h e o r y ? W h a t is m e a n t w h e n
f o r m s o f r e l a t i o n s h i p are s p o k e n o f as an i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e , in t h e s e n s e
s e p a r a b l e f r o m c o n t e n t ? T o a n s w e r this w e m u s t g o b a c k to t h e g e n e r a l q u e s t i o n
o f t h e n a t u r e o f s t r u c t u r e . Let us first t a k e a n e x a m p l e f r o m t h e n a t u r a l s c i e n c e s .
A w a t e r f a l l h a s a " f o r m , " a s t r u c t u r e . But w h a t e v e r m i g h t b e t h e c a s e f r o m
a n o t h e r p o i n t o f v i e w , l~ n o n a t u r a l s c i e n t i s t w o u l d t h i n k o f this f o r m as an
independent element. Given the contours of the river bed and the volume of
f l o w o f w a t e r p e r unit o f t i m e , t h e f o r m o f t h e w a t e r f a l l is a r e s u l t a n t . M o r e o v e r ,
a n y change in its f o r m will b e h e l d to b e a t t r i b u t a b l e to c h a n g e s in e i t h e r o r
b o t h o f t h e s e o t h e r f a c t o r s , s u c h as an i n c r e a s e in t h e r a t e o f f l o w , o r e r o s i o n
o f a p a r t o f t h e b e d . T h u s f o r m in this c a s e is e p i p h e n o m e n a l to d e e p e r - l y i n g
elements of structure on the one hand, and those of process on the other.
O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , it is at least t r u e to say t h a t a m a j o r s c h o o l o f b i o l o g i s t s
f r o m A r i s t o t l e d o w n has h e l d t h a t f o r m in t h e o r g a n i c w o r l d w a s n o t a l t o g e t h e r
e p i p h e n o m e n a l to o t h e r e l e m e n t s , f o r i n s t a n c e t h e p h y s i c o - c h e m i c a l a s p e c t s o f
life p r o c e s s e s . It is p r o b a b l y safe to say t h a t it w o u l d n o t b e so, p r e c i s e l y in so
far as " t e l e o l o g i c a l " e l e m e n t s o f " f u n c t i o n " are a l l o w e d to e n t e r i n t o b i o l o g i c a l
t h e o r y . T h a t is, in so far as o r g a n i s m s are h e l d to p o s s e s s e m e r g e n t p r o p e r t i e s
not manifested by their non-organic constituent parts.
But t h e real t e s t o f a c o n c e p t is n o t a n a l o g y , b u t its r e l a t i o n s to t h e s p e c i f i c
e m p i r i c a l facts it w a s f r a m e d to fit. Y e t o n t h e social level t o o w e g e t this s a m e
d i c h o t o m y o f s t r u c t u r a l a s p e c t s o f social r e l a t i o n s h i p s w h i c h are o n t h e o n e
h a n d e p i p h e n o m e n a l , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d not.
B e y o n d t h e s t a g e o f " C r u s o e e c o n o m i c s " o r d i n a r y e c o n o m i c t h e o r y t h i n k s in
t e r m s w h i c h i n v o l v e social r e l a t i o n s h i p s , a b o v e all t h o s e o f t h e d i v i s i o n o f l a b o r
a n d e x c h a n g e , b u t also c o m p e t i t i o n . O n t h e level o f e c o n o m i c analysis t h e rela-
t i o n s h i p s o f e x c h a n g e for i n s t a n c e w h i c h arise are q u i t e d e f i n i t e l y resultants o f
t h e i n t e r a c t i o n o f t h e e l e m e n t s w i t h w h i c h t h e t h e o r y is c o n c e r n e d , t h e d e m a n d
a n d s u p p l y s c h e d u l e s o f t h e v a r i o u s i n d i v i d u a l s i n v o l v e d in t h e m a r k e t in q u e s -
t i o n . T h e " f o r m " o f t h e s e r e l a t i o n s h i p s is e p i p h e n o m e n a l in e x a c t l y t h e s a m e
s e n s e as that o f the waterfall, a n d will equally c h a n g e as a result o f c h a n g e in t h e

24 The American Sociologist/Summer 1998

u n d e r l y i n g data. T h e s a m e is true o f the b r o a d e r class o f relationships, w h i c h in-
c l u d e s t h o s e o f e x c h a n g e , w h i c h are g e n e r a l l y called " c o n t r a c t u a l " r e l a t i o n s h i p s .
At t h e s a m e t i m e it is e q u a l l y t r u e t h a t t h e r e are social r e l a t i o n s h i p s t h e f o r m
o f w h i c h c a n n o t b e u n d e r s t o o d as t h e r e s u l t a n t o f t h e i m m e d i a t e a d hoc a c t i o n
e l e m e n t s 11 o f t h e p a r t i e s , as in t h e c a s e o f c o n t r a c t . T h u s in m a r r i a g e t h e r e is
an e x c h a n g e o f s e r v i c e s c l o s e l y a n a l o g o u s to t h e c a s e e c o n o m i c t h e o r y is c o n -
cerned with; earning a money income on the one hand, management of the
h o u s e h o l d o n t h e o t h e r , for i n s t a n c e . Yet it is q u i t e c l e a r t h a t in this c a s e o n e
c a n n o t a c c o u n t f o r t h e " f o r m " t h e e x c h a n g e t a k e s w i t h o u t r e f e r r i n g to t h e f a c t
t h a t t h e p a r t i e s c o n s t i t u t e a m a r r i e d c o u p l e . 12 In t h e m a r k e t c a s e n o s u c h ref-
e r e n c e b e y o n d t h e i m m e d i a t e s i t u a t i o n is n e c e s s a r y . 13
N o w w h i l e t h e c o n c e p t o f a c o n t r a c t u a l r e l a t i o n s h i p as a l i m i t i n g t y p e is
p e r f e c t l y m e a n i n g f u l a n d h i g h l y i m p o r t a n t , D u r k h e i m has, I t h i n k , s h o w n c o n -
c l u s i v e l y ~4 t h a t a t o t a l system c o n s i s t i n g o f s u c h r e l a t i o n s h i p s a l o n e is c o n c r e t e l y
i m p o s s i b l e . H e n c e f o r t h e r e to e x i s t c o n t r a c t u a l e l e m e n t s in t h e r e l a t i o n s o f
i n d i v i d u a l s o n a large scale t h e r e m u s t e x i s t in t h e s a m e s o c i a l s y s t e m o t h e r
e l e m e n t s o f a d i f f e r e n t o r d e r n o t f o r m u l a t e d in t h e c o n c e p t i o n o f c o n t r a c t u a l
r e l a t i o n . T h e s e w e h a v e f o u n d to lie a b o v e all, t h o u g h n o t e x c l u s i v e l y , in t h e
i n s t i t u t i o n a l f r a m e w o r k w i t h i n w h i c h t h e s e r e l a t i o n s are f o r m e d . A n d just in s o
far as this i n s t i t u t i o n a l f r a m e w o r k is i m p o r t a n t to t h e c o n c r e t e s i t u a t i o n , t h e
l a t t e r will n o t b e a c c o u n t e d f o r solely as a r e s u l t a n t o f t h e a d hoc i n t e r e s t s o f
t h e c o n t r a c t i n g parties. But just this e x a m p l e s h o w s c l e a r l y t h a t t h e e l e m e n t
w h i c h is n e c e s s a r y o v e r a n d a b o v e t h e s e a d hoc i n t e r e s t s to a c c o u n t f o r t h e
c o n c r e t e s i t u a t i o n c a n n o t lie in t h e " f o r m o f r e l a t i o n s h i p " as s u c h , f o r this is
c e r t a i n l y e v e n h e r e to a large d e g r e e t h e r e s u l t a n t o f t h e a d hoc i n t e r e s t s , s o m e
mode of differentiation between the resultant aspect of form of relationship and
o t h e r e l e m e n t s o f it m u s t b e f o u n d . T h i s S i m m e l ' s c o n c e p t u a l s c h e m e e n t i r e l y
fails to p r o v i d e .
Thus we may surmise that Simmel's insight was primarily into the importance
o f w h a t w e h a v e c a l l e d t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l a s p e c t o f social s y s t e m s . It w a s c l e a r l y
t h o u g h t o f as s o m e t h i n g a n a l y t i c a l l y s e p a r a b l e f r o m t h e i m m e d i a t e Umotives" o f
individuals. It w a s n o t a " p a r t " o f t h e social s t r u c t u r e in this s e n s e . It w a s
s o m e t h i n g w h i c h c o u l d b e t h o u g h t o f as " c a n a l i z i n g ~ t h e i r a c t i o n s in c e r t a i n
d i r e c t i o n s w h i c h w o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n t a k e n w i t h o u t its e x i s t e n c e . It w a s a
" m o u l d " i n t o w h i c h t h e p l i a b l e m a t e r i a l o f a c t i o n w a s p o u r e d . A n d this is t h e
e m e r g e n t q u a l i t y w h i c h arises t h r o u g h t h e p r o c e s s e s o f i n t e r a c t i o n as s u c h . It is
this a n d this o n l y w h i c h is t h e g r a i n o f t r u t h in t h e " o r g a n i c " t h e o r i e s o f soci-
ety, t5 b u t as a g a i n s t t h e " r e i f i c a t i o n " of " m e c h a n i s t i c " s c h e m e s as t h a t o f e c o -
n o m i c t h e o r y , it is a p r o f o u n d l y i m p o r t a n t t r u t h . Finally, t r u e to t h e p r e d o m i -
n a n t " h i s t o r i c i s m " o f G e r m a n social t h o u g h t , it is in this e l e m e n t o f " f o r m " t h a t
t h e d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n o f d i f f e r e n t social s t r u c t u r e s f r o m e a c h o t h e r is to b e s o u g h t .
T h e " c o n t e n t " o f social life is e v e r t h e s a m e , o n l y its " f o r m " v a r i e s . 16
All this is t r u e a n d t h e e x p r e s s i o n o f a d e e p l y i m p o r t a n t i n s i g h t . But it is v e r y
s e v e r e l y l i m i t e d in its c a p a b i l i t y o f d e v e l o p m e n t i n t o s y s t e m a t i c s c i e n t i f i c
t h e o r y . It is t r u e t h a t ~form o f r e l a t i o n s h i p " is n o t a c o n c r e t e d e s c r i p t i v e cat-

Parsons 25
 e g o r y . Social r e l a t i o n s h i p is the c o n c r e t e entity. T h e " f o r m " is n o t a "part" o f this
b u t an a b s t r a c t i o n f r o m it in a d i f f e r e n t d i r e c t i o n . But it is n o t in o u r s e n s e an
analytical e l e m e n t . It is r a t h e r w h a t m a y b e t e n t a t i v e l y c a l l e d a " d e s c r i p t i v e
a s p e c t . " In s p i t e o f the a b s t r a c t i o n i n v o l v e d it is a m o d e o f a b s t r a c t i o n w h i c h
d i r e c t l y c u t s across t h e line o f analysis into e l e m e n t s o f a c t i o n w h i c h has b e e n
o u r main c o n c e r n .
This b e c o m e s e v i d e n t f r o m f u r t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e c a s e o f c o n t r a c t u a l
relations, to w h i c h w e h a v e a l r e a d y r e f e r r e d . It is t r u e t h a t t h e c o n c r e t e f o r m
o f s u c h r e l a t i o n s h i p s c a n n o t b e u n d e r s t o o d e n t i r e l y in t e r m s o f t h e c o n t r a c t u a l
e l e m e n t s alone, b u t also, in D u r k h e i m ' s terms, i n v o l v e s r e f e r e n c e s to " t h e n o n -
c o n t r a c t u a l e l e m e n t o f c o n t r a c t . " But it is at t h e s a m e t i m e n o t p o s s i b l e to say
t h a t t h e latter e l e m e n t a l o n e a c c o u n t s f o r the f o r m w h i l e t h e " c o n t r a c t u a l ele-
m e n t s " must, w h a t e v e r t h e i r role m a y o t h e r w i s e be, b e a l t o g e t h e r e x c l u d e d
f r o m i n f l u e n c e o n f o r m . On the c o n t r a r y t h e " f o r m " o f a r e l a t i o n s h i p m u s t b e
t h o u g h t o f as, in p r i n c i p l e , c a p a b l e o f b e i n g i n f l u e n c e d b y all the causally i m p o r -
tant e l e m e n t s o r f a c t o r s w h i c h in a n y w a y i n f l u e n c e t h e c o n c r e t e r e l a t i o n s h i p .
This c o n c l u s i o n m a y b e g e n e r a l i z e d w i t h r e f e r e n c e to t h e c a t e g o r y o f struc-
ture. S t r u c t u r e is in t h e first p l a c e a " d e s c r i p t i v e a s p e c t " o f all c o n c r e t e p h e n o m -
ena, o f all "historical individuals." It is, as such, n o t an e x p l a n a t o r y c a t e g o r y at
all b u t a d e s c r i p t i v e c a t e g o r y . It may, h o w e v e r , take o n e x p l a n a t o r y s i g n i f i c a n c e
in so far as it c a n justifiably b e h e l d to d e s c r i b e a "rigid" f r a m e w o r k w i t h i n
w h i c h g i v e n p r o c e s s e s g o on. T h u s in u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e o p e r a t i o n o f a s t e a m
e n g i n e , t h e e l e m e n t o f p r o c e s s is t h e e x p a n d i n g p o w e r o f c o m p r e s s e d s t e a m at
h i g h t e m p e r a t u r e . T h e s t r u c t u r e o f t h e e n g i n e "canalizes" this p r o c e s s so t h a t
o n l y o n e t h i n g can h a p p e n , t h e t h r u s t o f t h e piston.m7 Similarly in t h e b i o l o g i c a l
case t h e r e are c e r t a i n s t r u c t u r a l f e a t u r e s o f t h e o r g a n i s m w h i c h can, f o r t h e
purpose of studying certain processes be assumed to be fixed independently of
t h e d y n a m i c e l e m e n t s o f the p r o c e s s . T h u s the s t r u c t u r e o f t h e h e a r t a n d b l o o d
vessels (literally) canalizes t h e f l o w o f b l o o d .
In t e r m s o f t h e s c h e m e o f analysis u s e d a b o v e , 18 s t r u c t u r e in this s e n s e is a
d e s c r i p t i v e f e a t u r e o f t h e c o n c r e t e historical individual. It is a m o d e o f r e l a t i o n
o f t y p e p a r t s in a w h o l e , 19 n e i t h e r an analytical e l e m e n t n o r a m o d e o f r e l a t i o n
o f t h e m . It c a n h a v e e x p l a n a t o r y s i g n i f i c a n c e in p r e c i s e l y t h e s a m e s e n s e t h a t
type-part concepts and generalizations about them have. The statement that a
g i v e n c o n c r e t e s y s t e m o f r e l a t i o n s h i p has a g i v e n f o r m o r s t r u c t u r e is to b e
t a k e n as a s t a t e m e n t o f fact a b o u t it. Like a n y o t h e r f a c t a b o u t a c o n c r e t e
p h e n o m e n o n it m a y a c q u i r e s i g n i f i c a n c e as a "causal f a c t o r " f o r p u r p o s e s o f
historical i m p u t a t i o n . In m a n y cases it m a y b e q u i t e a d e q u a t e f o r t h e p u r p o s e s
in h a n d to call a t t e n t i o n to t h e fact o f t h e e x i s t e n c e o f this s t r u c t u r e . 2~
M o r e o v e r , t h e s e s t r u c t u r a l f o r m c o n c e p t s are n o t r e s t r i c t e d to d e s c r i p t i o n o f
o n e p a r t i c u l a r h i s t o r i c a l individual. T h e y are c a p a b l e o f g e n e r a l i z a t i o n . T h e s a m e
" f o r m e l e m e n t s " m a y b e f o u n d to b e c o m m o n to a v a r i e t y o f d i f f e r e n t h i s t o r i c a l
individuals. In fact, as Simmel p o i n t e d out, t h e y may, like a n y s t r u c t u r e , b e
a n a l y z e d i n t o s t r u c t u r a l units, and d i f f e r e n t s t r u c t u r e s t h o u g h t o f as " m a d e u p "
o f d i f f e r e n t c o m b i n a t i o n s o f t h e s e units. Finally, t h e d i f f e r e n t " o b j e c t i v e l y pos-

26 The American Sociologist/Summer 1998

sible" c o m b i n a t i o n s may be systematically c o n s t r u c t e d , i n d e e d m ay be built up
into a formally c o m p l e t e system of structural t ype c o n c e p t s .
This last e n t e r p r i s e Simmel n e v e r e v e n a t t e m p t e d to carry out. But it has b e e n
a t t e m p t e d ; i n d e e d w e have already e n c o u n t e r e d w h a t I think is t he m ost n o t a b l e
a t t e m p t 21 w h i c h has b e e n made, W e b e r ' s s c h e m e o f ideal types. For this s c h e m e
is, I think, in all essentials, formal sociology in Simmel's sense. Its starting p o i n t
is essentially th e same, as w e have seen, the c o n c e p t "social relationship." T h e
p r e d o m i n a n t unit out of w h i c h the t ypes are built is that o f " f o r m " m i t is t he
structural a s p e c t of the c o n c r e t e social relationship. W e b e r takes t he t h r e e basic
formal units, conflict, Vergemeinschaftung and Vergesellschaftung as the struc-
tural units o u t o f w h i c h his m o r e c o m p l e x types are built. 22 In almost all cases
t h e s e "forms" admit o f w i de l y differing " c o n t e n t " in Simmel's sense. T hus a
"Verein "23 may involve " e c o n o m i c ends" in t he case of a joint-stock c o m p a n y ,
"religious ends" in the case of a sect, and scientific ends (w e h o p e ) in t he case
o f the Amer ican Sociological Society.
We have already criticized this kind of c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n in t e r m s of its gen-
eral a d e q u a c y f o r scientific theory. It is n o t a d e q u a t e as t he sole m o d e , but for
certain p u r p o s e s and w i t hi n certain limits it is not only valid b u t indispensable.
T h e fate o f Simmel's position is an e x c e l l e n t illustration of t he practical difficul-
ties a creative idea has in making its way. Simmel set up the c o n c e p t "form" as
the basis for a s c i e nc e of sociology. T h e great majority of t he critics have n o t
i n q u i r e d w h a t kind of c o n c e p t it was and of w h a t use c o u l d it be in scientific
w o r k generally. T h e y have rather, after trying to d e t e r m i n e w h a t he "meant" by
it, gone directly to the question w h e t h e r it can be made the sole basis for a science
of sociology. T h e n coming, by w h a t e v e r path, to the conclusion that it could not,
they have p r o c e e d e d to infer that the c o n c e p t cannot be used at all, that Simmel
was "wrong. "24 As w e shall see in the n e x t c h a p t e r I also do not think it a useful
p r o c e d u r e to define sociology as a "science of social forms." But that does not
p r e v e n t r e c o g n i z i n g that Simmel had ver y i m p o r t a n t insights into the facts and
m a d e a v er y g e n u i n e c o n t r i b u t i o n . Any a c q u a i n t a n c e w i t h his specific essays
should c o n v i n c e o n e of that. Let us h o p e that some day w e will get o v e r feeling
the necessity to dub a w r i t e r as e i t h e r "right" or " w r o n g . " It seems to m e
obvious on reading only a f ew o f his pages that Simmel was a highly intelligent
man. T h e n it is a fair p r e s u m p t i o n that he had s o m e t h i n g i m p o r t a n t in mind in
his talk ab o u t "form." T he critic, it seems to me, shoul d first a t t e m p t to find o u t
w h a t it is, especially in relation to the empirical facts Simmel was c o n c e r n e d
with. T h e n he should a t t e m p t to find out h o w the a u t h o r arrived at the p r o p o -
sitions the critic regards as objectionable. Only after having d o n e this and having
restated th e a u t h o r ' s empirical insights in m o r e a c c e p t a b l e t erm s is he ent i t l ed
to "criticize." Th e progress o f s c i e n c e consists in the c o n t i n u a l a m e n d m e n t and
r e s t a t e m e n t o f c o n c e p t u a l schemas, not in deciding t h e y are "right" or " w r o n g . "
But this is a digression. We must r e t u r n to a few f u r t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n s a b o u t
structure. So far w e have c o n s i d e r e d it only on the level of t he s t r u c t u r e o f the
c o n c r e t e historical individual on w h i c h e x p l a n a t o r y i n t e r e s t is c e n t e r e d . As a
descriptive aspect of this, structure is something to be explained, not an explana-

Parsons 27
t i o n . It is h o w e v e r q u i t e p o s s i b l e to e x p l a i n c e r t a i n f e a t u r e s o f t h i s c o n c r e t e
structure on the ground that certain other structures have existed among the
h i s t o r i c a l i n d i v i d u a l s w h i c h c o n s t i t u t e t h e d i r e c t a n t e c e d e n t s o f t h e o n e in
question.
W e h a v e , h o w e v e r , a l r e a d y n o t e d t h a t it is o n l y l e g i t i m a t e to e m p l o y a s t r u c -
t u r e in this s e n s e f o r e x p l a n a t o r y p u r p o s e s w i t h i n t h e limits in w h i c h it m a y
l e g i t i m a t e l y , as a m a t t e r of fact b e a s s u m e d to b e ( r e l a t i v e l y ) u n c h a n g e d . As s o o n
as t h e s e limits, o f c h a n g e in c i r c u m s t a n c e s , are t r a n s c e n d e d o u r s t r u c t u r e dis-
s o l v e s a w a y i n t o p r o c e s s . But w h e n this is d o n e t h e c a t e g o r y o f s t r u c t u r e r e a p -
p e a r s a g a i n o n a n o t h e r level. T a k e o u r p r e v i o u s e x a m p l e o f t h e w a t e r f a l l . T h e
r e l e v a n t s t r u c t u r e f o r e x p l a n a t i o n o f its f o r m w a s t h a t o f t h e r i v e r b e d . O v e r a
s u f f i c i e n t l y l o n g p e r i o d o f t i m e this c a n n o t b e a s s u m e d to b e c o n s t a n t , it will
e r o d e . But to t h e e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e p r o c e s s o f e r o s i o n c e r t a i n o t h e r m o r e
" e l e m e n t a r y " s t r u c t u r a l e l e m e n t s will b e r e l e v a n t , t h a t o f t h e k i n d o f r o c k at t h e
b r i n k o f t h e fall. By this p r o c e s s w e m a y fall b a c k o n m o r e a n d m o r e e l e m e n t a r y
s t r u c t u r e s , r e a c h i n g finally t h a t o f t h e a t o m , o r p e r h a p s e v e n f a r t h e r b a c k .
As S i m m e l v e r y c l e a r l y s a w , s t r u c t u r e is n o t an u l t i m a t e c a t e g o r y . It is a
fixation of relatively constant "forms" or modes of process. What elements are
to b e c a l l e d s t r u c t u r a l a n d w h a t p r o c e s s u a l is n o t " i n h e r e n t " in t h e p h e n o m e n a
b u t a m a t t e r o f t h e s c i e n t i f i c p r o b l e m in h a n d . W e m u s t b r e a k d o w n s t r u c t u r e
i n t o c o m b i n a t i o n s o f p r o c e s s a n d m o r e e l e m e n t a r y s t r u c t u r e s as far as is n e c e s -
sary to a r r i v e at an " a d e q u a t e " j u d g m e n t . A s t r u c t u r a l c a t e g o r y c a n s e r v e ex-
p l a n a t o r y p u r p o s e s o n l y in so far as t h e p r o b l e m in h a n d d o e s n o t i n v o l v e a r a n g e
in v a r i a t i o n o f the c o n c r e t e p h e n o m e n a in q u e s t i o n w h i c h t r a n s c e n d s t h e limits
o f its s t r u c t u r a l c o n s t a n c y . T h e " f o r m " c o n c e p t s S i m m e l h a d in m i n d w e r e p r i m a -
rily t h o s e on the first d e s c r i p t i v e level for c o n c r e t e social p h e n o m e n a so far as t h e y
c o n s t i t u t e i n t e r e s t i n g p r o b l e m s to the social scientist. H e n c e t h e n a r r o w limitations
to t h e i r e x p l a n a t o r y usefulness and the fact that f o r m a l s o c i o l o g y t e n d s to r u n o f f
into relatively sterile c o n s t r u c t i o n and classification o f p o s s i b l e r e l a t i o n s h i p types.
S i m m e l ' s o w n w o r k w a s s a v e d f r o m " f o r m a l i s m " in this d e r o g a t o r y s e n s e b y
his v e r y " d i l e t t a n t i s m . " H e r e f u s e d to c o n s t r u c t a s y s t e m a n d c o n f i n e d h i m s e l f
to e m p i r i c a l e s s a y s o n s u b j e c t s w h e r e his m e t h o d w a s g e n u i n e l y i l l u m i n a t i n g .
W e b e r o n t h e o t h e r h a n d w a s s a v e d p r i m a r i l y b y his d e e p a b s o r p t i o n in e m p i r i -
cal p r o b l e m s o f h i s t o r i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e o n a g r a n d scale. H e r e a g a i n w e c a n s e e
a b a s i s f o r his i n s i s t e n c e o n t h e f i c t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r o f his ideal t y p e c o n c e p t s . T o
h a v e b e e n a s y s t e m a t i c t h e o r i s t o n t h e ideal t y p e l e v e l w o u l d h a v e m a d e h i m a
" f o r m a l i s t " in just this sense. P r o b a b l y at t h e s a m e t i m e h e w a s also s a v e d b y his
e m e r g i n g s y s t e m o f t h e e l e m e n t s o f a c t i o n w h i c h t i e d his s t r u c t u r a l t y p e s in
s e c u r e l y w i t h his e m p i r i c a l r e s e a r c h e s a n d p r e v e n t e d t h e m f r o m r u n n i n g w i l d in
u n c o n t r o l l e d fictional p r o l i f e r a t i o n . E v e r y c o n c e p t W e b e r f o r m u l a t e d h a d s p e -
cific e m p i r i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n s d i r e c t l y in m i n d .
One more remark should be made about these structural concepts of form.
T h e y are i n h e r e n t l y c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e r e l a t i o n s o f " p a r t s " o f c o n c r e t e histori-
cal i n d i v i d u a l s a n d c a n o n l y c o n s t i t u t e " f a c t o r s " in t h e s a m e s e n s e t h a t t h e l a t t e r

28 The American Sociologist/Summer 1998

 can. T h e y are a m o n g the " el em e nt s " the causal significance of w h i c h is to be
d e m o n s t r a t e d by t hei r "thinking away" or alteration. Simmel's c o n c r e t e use of
t h e m d e m o n s t r a t e s this conclusively. Thus again w e see clearly that "analysis" in
this sense cuts clean across that in terms of analytical elements. In p r i n c i p l e all
the e l e m e n t s o f action are relevant to the u n d e r s t a n d i n g of any part i cul ar "social
form."
Finally, Professor Sorokin has, I think, b e e n the o n e w h o has m ost clearly
p o i n t e d out, 25 w h a t is u n q u e s t i o n a b l y true, that the main t h e o r e t i c a l cont ri bu-
tion o f formal sociology, the formal systematics of social relationships, has b e e n
very t h o r o u g h l y and systematically w o r k e d out in a n o t h e r discipline, jurispru-
d e n c e. It is no s h e e r c o i n c i d e n c e that the most distinguished formal sociologist
in this sense, W eber , had juristic training. Its marks may be seen all t h r o u g h his
systematic s c h e m e of t ype c o n c e p t s . To make t he main t h e o r e t i c a l task of soci-
ology or any o t h e r empirical social s ci ence the d e v e l o p m e n t of formal system-
atics in this sense w o u l d certainly involve it in a serious and, I think, quite
u n n e c e s s a r y jurisdictional dispute w i t h j u r i s p r u d e n c e . It is for the sociologist,
a b o v e all in the institutional field, to make use of t he jurists' s c h e m e s w h e n he
n e e d s them, if n e c e s s a r y himself to fill in gaps for his particular p u r p o s e s , but
n o t to make the d e v e l o p m e n t of such s c h e m e s his main t h e o r e t i c a l task. Form
c o n c e p t s are indispensable tools for sociological research, but n o t the aim o f
systematic sociological theory.
Thus w e see that the principal significance of the c o n c e p t of social f o r m lies
in the d i r e c t i o n of at t ent i on t o w a r d s t r u c t u r e and a b o v e all differentiation o f
structural types. It is thus a p r o d u c t of the s o u n d e s t e l e m e n t s of the idealistic
tradition o f thought. But its main significance lies on the d e s c r i p t i v e level. It is
i m p o r t a n t to the e x p l a n a t o r y p u r p o s e s of s c i e n c e only on the m o r e analytically
e l e m e n t a r y level o f historical imputation. It is quite definitively not a satisfactory
substitute, as a basis for general t h e o r y in any of t he social sciences, for a
systematic s c h e m e of analytical elements.
It does, h o w e v e r , s h o w the i m p o r t a n c e of not c o n f i n i n g a t t e n t i o n to any o n e
o f the d e s c r i p t i v e schemas in w h i c h the facts of h u m a n social life may be stated.
I am quite c o n v i n c e d that the s c h e m a of e l e m e n t s of act i on is quite a d e q u a t e 26
for the e x p l a n a t i o n of the structural as well as any o t h e r aspects of social life.
As w e have seen, particularly in the case of Weber, the c o m m o n ultimate value
e l e m e n t is peculiarly relevant to this p r o b l e m , especially in the relation to non-
scientific "ideas." For e x a m p l e the p r e d o m i n a n t feat ure of Indian social struc-
ture, the caste hierarchy, is m os t intimately rel at ed to this. But t h e s e conse-
q u e n c e s c o m e o ut in relation to the action s c h e m a only w h e n analysis in its
terms has b e e n p u s h e d t h r o u g h to a relatively a d v a n c e d stage. On t he w h o l e t h e
a c t i o n s c h e m a states social facts in a f o r m w h i c h t e n d s to m i ni m i ze t he struc-
tural e l e m e n t s . H e n c e the r e l a t i o n s h i p s c h e m a , w h i c h t h r o w s t h e m d i r e c t l y
into th e c e n t e r o f at t ent i on, is a highly i m p o r t a n t d e s c r i p t i v e c o r r e c t i v e . It is
n o t itself u ltimate b u t it states t h e facts in such a w a y as to t h r o w t he p r o b l e m s
w h i c h analytical t h e o r y has to solve, into a m u c h c l e a r e r rel i ef and w i d e r

Parsons 29
p e r s p e c t i v e . 27 S i m m e l has p e r f o r m e d a signal s e r v i c e in b r i n g i n g t h e s e t h i n g s
s o f o r c i b l y to our attention . . . . [At this p o i n t , P a r s o n s t u r n e d to his d i s c u s s i o n
of T6nnies. ]

Notes

T h i s m a t e r i a l o n G e o r g S i m m e l is f r o m P a r s o n ' s d r a f t c h a p t e r XVIII o f a b o o k m a n u s c r i p t w i t h t h e w o r k i n g
title o f Sociology and the Elements of Human Action. W h i l e t h e c h a p t e r itself w a s u l t i m a t e l y e x c l u d e d
f r o m w h a t b e c a m e The Structure of Social Action, a s o m e w h a t r e v i s e d s e g m e n t o f t h e c h a p t e r t h a t d e a l t
w i t h T 6 n n i e s w a s r e t a i n e d as an e x t e n d e d n o t e o n " G e m e i n s c h a f t a n d G e s e l l s c h a f t . " T h e " f r a g m e n t " o n
Simmel p u b l i s h e d h e r e h a s b e e n t a k e n d i r e c t l y f r o m t h e o r i g i n a l d r a f t c h a p t e r l o c a t e d in t h e T a l c o t t P a r s o n s
P a p e r s [HUG (FP) 4 2 . 4 1 , B o x 2] at t h e H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y A r c h i v e s . T h e c h a p t e r h a s p r e v i o u s l y b e e n
p u b l i s h e d in its e n t i r e t y in Teoria Soctologtca ( P a r s o n s 1 9 9 3 ) a n d in t h e Simmel Newsletter ( P a r s o n s
1994). Full r e f e r e n c e s h a v e b e e n a d d e d , a n d t h e original f o o t n o t e s h a v e b e e n c o n v e r t e d to e n d n o t e s . F o r
a d i s c u s s i o n o f w h e n t h e c h a p t e r w a s likely w r i t t e n , see n o t e 17 o n p a g e 70 o f W i l l i a m J. B u x t o n ' s a r t i c l e
in this issue o f The American Sociologist.
1. F o r t h e l i m i t e d p u r p o s e s o f t h e p r e s e n t d i s c u s s i o n I shall n o t a t t e m p t a n i n t e n s i v e t e x t u a l c r i t i c i s m e v e n
in t h e r e s p e c t s r e l e v a n t h e r e , b u t shall c o n f i n e m y s e l f to t h e m o s t g e n e r a l r e f e r e n c e s .
2. Most o f t h e m a t e r i a l r e l e v a n t to the p r e s e n t d i s c u s s i o n is to b e f o u n d in t h e e s s a y "Das P r o b l e m d e r
S o z i o l o g i e " p r i n t e d as c h a p t e r I o f his Soztologte.
3. Soziologte, p p . 3 - 4 .
4. Inhalt.
5. " D i e s e r G e g e n s a t z w i r d in s e i n e m e i n z i g a r t i g e n Sinn u n m i t t e l b a r e r k a n t w e t ' d e n m i i s s e n . " (Soziologie, p.
4). This s t a t e m e n t has o f t e n , q u i t e unjustly, b e e n t a k e n to m e a n t h a t Simmei r e l i e d o n s o m e s o r t o f
m y s t e r i o u s " i n t u i t i o n . " H e is s i m p l y stating t h a t h e w i s h e s his d i s t i n c t i o n to b e c l a r i f i e d in r e l a t i o n t o t h e
p a r t i c u l a r e m p i r i c a l f a c t s o f h u m a n social life, n o t a n y o t h e r s .
6. IlVechselwtrkung.
7. Soztologie, p. 5.
8. M e n t i o n e d in c h a p t e r I.
9. It is l e g i t i m a t e to talk o f "social s p a c e " b u t o n l y w h e n it is k e p t c l e a r l y in m i n d t h a t t h e t e r m is u s e d b y
a n a l o g y only.
10. Aesthetic, for instance.
11. T h a t is, t h e i r i m m e d i a t e c o n c r e t e e n d s , a n d t h e m e a n s a n d c o n d i t i o n s d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to t h e m .
12. W e shall s p e a k o f this t y p e o f r e l a t i o n s h i p b e l o w .
13. It s e e m s to m e t h a t this difficulty lies at t h e basis o f t h e c r i t i c i s m s o m e t i m e s m a d e o f S i m m e l ( f o r i n s t a n c e
b y P r o f e s s o r Sorokin, Contemporary Sociological Theories, p p . 5 0 0 - 1 ) t h a t t h e c o n c e p t o f f o r m shifts f r o m
b e i n g m e r e l y t h e g e n e r a l e l e m e n t c o m m o n to a p l u r a l i t y o f p a r t i c u l a r cases, to b e i n g a n i n d e p e n d e n t f a c t o r .
14. In t h e Division du travail. See a b o v e , C h a p t e r VIII.
15. O n this b a s i s Simmel m a y q u i t e l e g i t i m a t e l y b e p l a c e d in t h e " s o c i o l o g i s t i c " s c h o o l .
16. T h i s c a n to b e s u r e b e m a i n t a i n e d o n l y in t e r m s o f c e r t a i n c l a s s e s o f m o t i v e s o r e n d s , n o t , as w e h a v e s e e n ,
f o r t h e c o n c r e t e " c o n t e n t " o f u l t i m a t e values. This p o i n t s to t h e l i m i t a t i o n o n S i m m e l ' s s c h e m e j u s t n o t e d .
17. T h e b e s t a c c o u n t o f t h e l o g i c o f this s i t u a t i o n w h i c h I k n o w is t h a t o f W. K 6 h l e r , Gestalt Psychology,
C h a p t e r IV, ~ D y n a m i c s a n d M a c h i n e T h e o r y . "
18. C h a p t e r XVl.
19. A n d b e c o m e s i n d e p e n d e n t l y i m p o r t a n t p r e c i s e l y in so f a r as t h e w h o l e is " o r g a n i c . "
20. So l o n g as t h e " a l t e r a t i o n " o f t h e h i s t o r i c a l i m p u t a t i o n r e q u i r e d d o e s n o t t r a n s c e n d t h e limits w i t h i n w h i c h
t h e c o n s t a n c y o f t h e s t r u c t u r e m a y l e g i t i m a t e l y b e a s s u m e d to h o l d .
21. T h e o t h e r m o s t n o t a b l e is, I think, t h a t o f L e o p o l d y o n W i e s e in his Beztehungslehre. See, tn English,
W i e s e - B e c k e r , Systematic Sociology. I p e r s o n a l l y find W e b e r ' s d i s t i n c t l y m o r e s a t i s f a c t o r y .
22. T h e u s e o f t h e a r e l a t i o n a l " u n i t is n o t t h e o n l y w a y in w h i c h "social s t r u c t u r e " m a y b e d e s c r i b e d . It is a l s o
p o s s i b l e in t e r m s o f t h e " g r o u p s c h e m a " to t h i n k o f social s t r u c t u r e as " c o m p o s e d " o f " i n d i v i d u a l s " a n d
g r o u p s as d i s t i n g u i s h e d f r o m f o r m s o f r e l a t i o n s h i p . T h e t w o a r e not t h e s a m e t h o u g h o f t e n c o n f u s e d . T h e y
are, o f c o u r s e , " t r a n s l a t a b l e " into t e r m s o f e a c h o t h e r .
23. "Voluntary association," roughly.
24. T h i s s e e m s to m e a n o t u n f a i r r e n d e r i n g o f t h e a t t i t u d e P r o f e s s o r A b e l t a k e s t o w a r d Simmel. See Systematic
Sociology in Germany, c h a p t e r I.
25. Contemporary Sociological Theories, p p . 4 9 6 - 7 .
26. As far as it h a s itself b e e n a d e q u a t e l y d e v e l o p e d .
27. Marshall, f o r i n s t a n c e , w o u l d h a v e p r o f i t e d g r e a t l y b y its use.

30 The American Sociologist/Snmmer 1998