Compare And Contrast Simmel Vs Durkheim
Jessica McLemore
Professor Karageorgis
Soc 368
18 April 2018
DURKHEIM vs. SIMMEL
Durkheim applied the theory of functionalism which was very different from other sociologists such as Marx and Weber who were propagating the theories of conflict of interest. Durkheim explained that harmony was the best form of defining the society as opposed to conflict. Durkheim looked at the functions of the social objects and what the social phenomenon does to facilitate and produce social cohesion. From the perspective of social objects, he was able to study concepts such as the division of labor, religion, and suicide (Durkheim 108).
Simmel wrote insightful essays regarding social and personal interaction which were useful in developing qualitative …show more content…
Durkheim further argued that where there is a little differentiation in the various types of labor that people engage in, there is a likelihood that social integration will be found based on shared beliefs. He further argued that in
societies where the differentiation of labor is high, social integration will come about as a result of mutual dependence (Edles and Scott 23).
On the other hand, Simmel was of a different opinion regarding social integration. His view of the social circle that an individual belongs to depends on where an individual enters into social interaction (Chayko 1420). He argued that where individuals came into social interactions, there was the social integration. Simmel argued that the existence of the social relations or the belonging to one of the social circles was the sum of all the social interactions of the people in the society (Edles and Scott 27). His view towards social integration was that social cohesion would be achieved when there was a form of authority. Simmel argued that the obedience that would have resulted from each person in the society would have summed up to the unity in the community (Edles and Scott …show more content…
Simmel attached value to the distance of the actor. He explained that if a person is too close to an actor, then such a person would not be considered to be a stranger and would be considered to be part of a group that the person will associate himself with (Edles and Scott 43). He also stated that if a person was far from a group, then such an individual was a stranger and would not be part of a social group. Simmel argued that a particular distance from a group allows one to have an objective relationship with the members of a social group, and that distance shows the commitment of a person to the group (Chayko
Professor Karageorgis
Soc 368
18 April 2018
DURKHEIM vs. SIMMEL
Durkheim applied the theory of functionalism which was very different from other sociologists such as Marx and Weber who were propagating the theories of conflict of interest. Durkheim explained that harmony was the best form of defining the society as opposed to conflict. Durkheim looked at the functions of the social objects and what the social phenomenon does to facilitate and produce social cohesion. From the perspective of social objects, he was able to study concepts such as the division of labor, religion, and suicide (Durkheim 108).
Simmel wrote insightful essays regarding social and personal interaction which were useful in developing qualitative …show more content…
Durkheim further argued that where there is a little differentiation in the various types of labor that people engage in, there is a likelihood that social integration will be found based on shared beliefs. He further argued that in
societies where the differentiation of labor is high, social integration will come about as a result of mutual dependence (Edles and Scott 23).
On the other hand, Simmel was of a different opinion regarding social integration. His view of the social circle that an individual belongs to depends on where an individual enters into social interaction (Chayko 1420). He argued that where individuals came into social interactions, there was the social integration. Simmel argued that the existence of the social relations or the belonging to one of the social circles was the sum of all the social interactions of the people in the society (Edles and Scott 27). His view towards social integration was that social cohesion would be achieved when there was a form of authority. Simmel argued that the obedience that would have resulted from each person in the society would have summed up to the unity in the community (Edles and Scott …show more content…
Simmel attached value to the distance of the actor. He explained that if a person is too close to an actor, then such a person would not be considered to be a stranger and would be considered to be part of a group that the person will associate himself with (Edles and Scott 43). He also stated that if a person was far from a group, then such an individual was a stranger and would not be part of a social group. Simmel argued that a particular distance from a group allows one to have an objective relationship with the members of a social group, and that distance shows the commitment of a person to the group (Chayko