This manuscript will be part of the forthcoming The Handbook of Classical Sociological Theory, edited by Seth Abrutyn and Omar Lizardo. From Simmel to Relational Sociology Sophie Mützel and Lisa Kressin Abstract Georg Simmel (1858-1918), who is widely regarded as one of the classics and intellectual grandfathers of sociology, has written on a variety of topics from several disciplinary perspectives. Yet despite the breadth and richness of his work, current sociology typically focuses only on individual dimensions. On the one hand, Simmel’s work is seen as foundational to a formal sociology, which is at the core of social network analysis. On the other hand, Simmel’s works on cultural issues yield astute analyses of modernity, which is why they are classics in the sociology of culture. However, such one-dimensional interpretations of Simmel’s work appear limited and in turn do not sufficiently capture his influence on the field of sociology. This chapter claims that the separated readings of the “two Simmels” need to be brought together to make full analytical use of Simmel’s most important heuristic distinction: form and content. Moreover, we will show that relational sociology of the past four decades has moved in that direction by taking the interrelation of structure and meaning seriously. Keywords Simmel, Form, Content, Social Network Analysis, Relational Sociology 1. Introduction Probably unique among his sociological contemporaries, Simmel explored time and time again the world of everyday social interactions and their cultural manifestations. [...] Not only does Simmel claim that sociology should study the 'microscopic-molecular' processes within human interaction and hence justifiably study micro-sociology as well as the study of major social structures and formations, but he also asserts that such an investigation will produce a 'deeper and more accurate' understanding of society and, we might add here, equally of cultural formations. Frisby & Featherstone, 2006, p. 9 Georg Simmel (1858-1918), who is widely regarded as one of the classics and intellectual grandfathers of sociology, has written on a variety of topics from several disciplinary perspectives. Yet despite the breadth and richness of his work, current sociology typically focuses only on individual dimensions. On the one hand, Simmel’s work is seen as foundational to a formal sociology, which is at the core of social network analysis (SNA). On the other hand, Simmel’s works on a wide range of cultural issues, including e.g. his treatise on money (Simmel, 2004) or on the modern city (Simmel, 1950d), yield astute analyses of modernity, which is why they are classics in 1 1a128a98-18c4-461a-9a48-9ae4e72d6a1a This manuscript will be part of the forthcoming The Handbook of Classical Sociological Theory, edited by Seth Abrutyn and Omar Lizardo. the sociology of culture. However, such one-dimensional interpretations of Simmel’s work appear limited and in turn do not sufficiently capture his influence on the field of sociology (e.g. Beer, 2019; Dahme & Rammstedt, 1995; Frisby, 2011; Goetschel & Silver, 2019; Goodstein, 2017; Häußling, 2010; Kaern, Phillips, & Cohen, 1990; Mozetic, 2017; Pyyhtinen, 2018). Building on these insights, this chapter argues that the two-stranded reading of Simmel of contemporary and past sociology leads to a one-dimensional use of his work. Moreover, we claim that the separated readings of the “two Simmels” need to be brought together to make full analytical use of Simmel’s most important heuristic distinction: form and content. This distinction needs to be treated as a duality instead of a contradiction (e.g. Lizardo, 2019). We will show that relational sociology of the past four decades has moved in that direction by taking the interrelation of structure and meaning seriously. We argue that further use of Simmel’s duality of form and content will yield additional analytical depths and insights. Relational sociology, as an analytical approach, offers an alternative to substantialist works of a sociology that understands the social mostly in terms of its “fixed entities with variable attributes” (Abbott, 1988; Emirbayer, 1997, p. 286). It also tries to emancipate itself from its analytic roots in structural analysis. Instead of single interactions, the focus lies on the dynamic relations between social entities that shape social formations. At the same time, relational sociology does not aim for deterministic macro- analysis; from a relational perspective, structure emerges from “unfolding, ongoing processes” (Emirbayer, 1997, p. 289), which result from an individual’s capacity for agency and involvement in the construction of meaning. To be sure, relational sociology unites basic concepts of understanding the social while drawing on different sociological traditions (e.g. Crossley, 2015; Dépelteau, 2015; Emirbayer, 1997; Mische, 2011). In this chapter, we will mainly focus on Simmel’s enduring influence on the school of relational sociology, which combines social network and cultural analysis. The development of this specific field of relational sociology is driven by empirical studies as well as an elaborated toolkit of methods, which are based in network and often text analysis (e.g. Mische, 2011; Mützel, 2009; Pachucki & Breiger, 2010). In addition to being deeply embedded in the same relational thinking that drives Simmel’s understanding of society and social life, adding elements of meaning to a formerly culture-free, structural network analysis (White, 1992), relational sociology implicitly draws on the main distinction made by Simmel: form and content. An interest in the combination of both form and content has pushed the development of a relational sociology rooted in network analysis since the 1990s. In that sense, Simmel is not only a classic of relational 2 1a128a98-18c4-461a-9a48-9ae4e72d6a1a This manuscript will be part of the forthcoming The Handbook of Classical Sociological Theory, edited by Seth Abrutyn and Omar Lizardo. thinking in his works on form but also in his work on the relations of content, that is meaning. This chapter offers a genealogy of concepts, which have moved from Simmel to formal to relational sociology via a path of social network analysis as well as a path of cultural analysis. The focus is in particular on U.S. and European sociology. Thus, this chapter contributes to ongoing discussions on the interrelation of structure and meaning in relational sociology and underscores Simmel’s foundational thinking on the duality of form and content. 2. Simmel’s Sociology [S]ociety is for Simmel only a result of the relations among individuals and groups, something that has to be produced and connected rather than always being there (Pyyhtinen, 2018, p. 24). Georg Simmel, born in 1858 in Berlin, is known as one of the founders of sociology: He fundamentally contributed to the definition of sociology’s jurisdiction as a discipline and was one of the founders and board members of the German Sociological Association in 1909.1 Yet despite his ideational and institutional importance for German sociology, he was never granted a full and permanent professorship in sociology. Instead, he died as full professor in philosophy in Strasbourg in 1918 (Wolff, 1950, xviii). In academic circles, Simmel was well known as a Berlin intellectual and lecturer. At the same time, he was seen as an eclectic academic, prolifically writing on a variety of issues from different backgrounds, including sociology, philosophy, psychology, and history. This, in turn, made it difficult for Simmel to obtain a full professorship in one discipline. Additionally, Simmel was facing the anti-Semitic resentments of his time (Jung, 2016). Simmel understood science as empirical and non-normative. Scientific knowledge was not to be discovered with a practical or normative goal in mind, but as an end in itself (Dahme, 1995). Defining sociology as a science in that sense, while also writing on “personal ‘attitudes towards the world in the language of a view of life’” (Dahme, 1995, p. 225, own translation) however meant a constant crossing of disciplinary boundaries for Simmel. By his own definitions, he was a sociologist and philosopher.2 1 After only three years of membership, Simmel and colleagues, such as Max Weber and Werner Sombart, left the association again due to opposing opinions on the question of Werturteilsfreiheit (Nedelmann, 2007, p. 75). 2 Dahme elaborates on Simmel’s differentiation between science and philosophy, and the blurring of this boundary over the years of his writing. While Simmel’s definition of formal sociology followed a rather positivistic notion of science, he 3 1a128a98-18c4-461a-9a48-9ae4e72d6a1a This manuscript will be part of the forthcoming The Handbook of Classical Sociological Theory, edited by Seth Abrutyn and Omar Lizardo. Contrary to his standing in German academia, in the U.S. Simmel was “in the unusual position of being the only European scholar who has had a palpable influence on sociology […] throughout the course of the 20th century” (Levine, Carter, & Miller Gorman, 1976, p. 813). Translated from German and published as early as 1893 in journals such as The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science and The American Journal of Sociology, Simmel’s works on “The Problem of Sociology” (Simmel, 1909), “The Persistence of Social Groups” (Simmel, 1898), “The Chapter of the Philosophy of Value” (Simmel, 1900), “The Number of Members as Determining the Sociological Form of the Group” (Simmel, 1902a, 1902b), or “The Sociology of Conflict” (Simmel, 1904a, 1904b, 1904c) were accessible in English. Thus, Simmel was very visible and influential in early U.S. Sociology (Small, 1902). He also had a “prominent position” (Wolff, 1950, xxiv) in Park’s and Burgess’ (1922) textbook with several contributions, including “The Sociological Significance of the ‘Stranger’”, “Sociology of the Senses: Visual Interaction”, and “The Metropolis and Mental Life”. In the 1950s, Simmel was re-translated and re- discovered in U.S. Sociology by the second generation of Chicago School members, structural sociologists and their intellectual kin.