GLOSSING BY TRANSLATION : AN ETHNOMETHODOLOGICAL
HISTORIOGRAPHY OF ACCOUNTS OF GEORG SIMMEL AND HIS SOCIOLOGY.
Russell Kelly,
Senior Lecturer,
Department of Health Studies,
University of Central Lancashire,
Preston PR1 2HE
UK
[email: R.S.Kelly@UCLAN.AC.UK]
Biographical Note: Russell Kelly has lectured in Sociology at the University of Central Lancashire since 1968.
Sabbatical studies at the Centre for Russian and East European Studies, University of Birmingham, UK, at the Department of
Sociology, University of Lancaster, UK, at the Institut für Medizinische Soziologie, Humboldt University, Berlin, culminated,
most recently, with Wes Sharrock, Rod Watson and John Lee at the Department of Sociology, University of Manchester. From early
publications in Criminology, the focus of his work has moved to an ethnomethodological approach to the Sociology of Being
Ill.
abstract:
English and American scholars have since the 1950s tended
to rely on the translation of Georg Simmels work by Kurt Wolff and Lewis Coser. These translations vary from the earlier translations by Nicholas Spykman and Albion Small. The argument here is that the
later translations and the gloss added to the biographical notes of Spykman by
Wolff and Coser created an epistemological obstacle in the development of sociological theorising. The account produced by
Coser and Wolff is represented here as plays or moves in a game initiated by
Spykman and Small. Their game, a version of Sociology as not the science of society,
called into play a dream team of contemporary sociologists with a different game
plan. The rise of Pitrim Sorokin and Parsons in Harvard Sociology concludes a historiographical account of associated events which played Small and Spykman out of the game. The Coser-Wolff translation glosses Simmel and his work, renders his theorising as structuralist, indexes
Simmels work for the future and wins the game. This is an ethnomethodological account of how members everyday academic practices
accomplish sociological work.
key words: Simmel ¨ ethnomethodology ¨glossing ¨historiography¨gesellschaft
GLOSSING BY TRANSLATION : AN ETHNOMETHODOLOGICAL
HISTORIOGRAPHY OF ACCOUNTS OF GEORG SIMMEL AND HIS SOCIOLOGY
Russell
Kelly
University of Central Lancashire
Paper presented at the American Sociological Association
meetings, August 6-10, 1999, Chicago.
Introduction
This paper is an exercise in ethnomethodological historiography. It is ethnomethodological in so far that Garfinkel and Sacks note:
Ethnomethodological studies
of formal structures are directed to the study of such phenomena, seeking to describe members accounts of formal structures
wherever and by whomever they are done, while abstaining from all judgements of their adequacy, value, importance, necessity,
practicality, success, or consequentiality. We refer to this procedural policy as ethnomethodological
indifference. (Garfinkel and Sacks, 1970: 345).
By trying to
let the text speak, in this case some words and passages from the writings of and about Georg Simmel, it is hoped to open to sociological-talk-as-natural-sociology
(Rose, 1960), other usages of Simmels concepts than those with which his translators
into English have endowed him. The translations and their attendant biographies of Simmel will be treated as members, that
is sociologists, accounts of the man and his work. Accounts of Simmels status as a Founding Father of one sociology or another,
as the originator of theories of formal structures, will be treated as moves
in a game. The success or failure of these moves, it will be argued, can depend
upon the translation of a few key words, on the gloss (Garfinkel and Sacks, 1970: 343) applied to a biographical account.
Translations as gloss, game, index and as an epistemological tackle
Lewis Coser,
with others, has promulgated the translations by Kurt Wolff of Simmels sociological
writings. In doing so, it will be argued here, together these writers have perpetrated a gloss
on Simmels biography and writing which claims ownership to add to their authorship. These moves may be seen as misrepresenting
those ideas and, in doing so, have raised in Sociology an epistemological obstacle.
According to Gutting (1989: 16), Bachelards argument was that a concept or method acts as a barrier or obstacle to wider epistemological
discussion. The translation of Simmels work and the uses made of these translations have and are sustaining such an obstacle.
The account is historiographic in that one historical narrative
is presented as becoming the story by which a future narrative can be written. It is the story which helps create the epistemological obstacle. It is possible that this obstacle, had
it not been constituted in immediate post-war Sociology, might have led much earlier to an epistemological break. But the
task here is not to speculate on what might have been, it is to describe what can be derived by reading the text-as-talk in
the translation and in the biography, to forewarn about future readings.
I want to extend Garfinkels commentary (Garfinkel, 1967:10)
on suicide inquiries and patient coding, to a classification of a sociological theorist, namely Georg Simmel. The treatment
of Simmels work through translation and interpretation can be seen as having the properties of indexical expressions and indexical
actions, as in :
The properties of indexical
expressions and indexical actions are ordered properties. These consist of organizationally demonstrable sense, or facticity,
or methodic use, or agreement among cultural colleagues. . . . Those ordered properties are ongoing achievements of the concerted
commonplace activities of investigators. The demonstrable rationality of indexical expressions and indexical actions retains
over the course of its managed production by members the character of ordinary, familiar, routinized practical circumstances.
As process and attainment the produced rationality of indexical expressions consists of
practical tasks subject to every exigency of organizationally situated conduct. (Garfinkel, 1967:11)
The ongoing achievements, in this case, are texts and associated
narratives produced in the commonplace activities of translation, biography and indexing the content of the translated text.
The story occurs in three narrative processes. The writing
of Narrative One involves the first translations and interpretations by Albion
Small and Nicholas Spykman of Simmels sociological writing. The second involves the translation, compilation and interpretation
of the same texts, a second coding by Kurt Wolff and Lewis Coser. The third involves the accomplishment, the available-for-further-use
narrative, which encloses as indexical expression(s), the encoded concepts in
the works of Georg Simmel. The future of the narrative is being seen in current versions being produced in the everyday achievements
of ordinary members (scholars and students) as they accomplish the practical tasks of everyday academic life. Simmels ideas
have become embroiled in a sociological language game (Anderson, Hughes and Sharrock, 1985: 10ff) where the different use
of one or more basic terms-in-translation results in a reading from the narrative of one kind of Sociology (the indexical
expression) thus barring future readers from following the narrative in other directions. By hopping back a few steps in the
game other readings became possible so that the game could move on past the epistemological obstacle to different next steps.
Each of the narratives involves a picturing of Simmel, the mind, as fore-texts to reading the Sociology.
Who is Simmel? - the Spykman move.
The potted biographies-as-stories of Simmel attached to
various translations of his work can be read as narrative accounts which add to the earliest versions offered in English by
Spykman in 1925, barely seven years after Simmels death. Wolff reports that Spykmans source for the biography was Simmels
widow. (Wolff, 1950: xiii, fn. 3&4). A brief example will illustrate.
Spykman
(1964: xxiii): Georg Simmel was born in Berlin. His cradle stood in a house on the corner of the Friedrich and Leipziger Strasse
in the very heart of the city. As a metropolitan he was born, as a world citizen he lived and died. He grew up a man with
great breadth of vision and a consuming interest in all phases of human life......Simmel had great teachers. He studied history
under Droysen, Mommsen, von Sybel, von Treitschke, Grimm, and Jordan, psychology under Lazarus and Bastian, and philosophy
under Harms and Zeller.
This biography begins Spykmans narrative. The book was a
compilation of various translated pieces into an indexing of Simmels social theory. But Spykmans accounts-as-moves-in-the-game cut across another game in 1920s Sociology
which resulted in Spykmans withdrawal, leaving Simmel to be glossed, that is re-represented,
and played into the game in other ways.
Playing
blind with the dream team: betting Spykmans Simmel
What followed constitutes
one of the shameful chapters in the history of American universities. The president of the University of Chicago, Henry Pratt
Judson, supported by the trustees, moved immediately to dismiss Thomas. Albion Small, the chairman of his department, offered
no public defense, although he made some private moves to protect Thomas and wept in his office over the loss of his prize student and colleague.(Coser, 1977: 535).
Spykman was the representative from Yale, possibly sponsored
by Albion Small, who had recently reviewed Spykmans book: We hope that Dr. Spykman will prove to have done for Simmel and
for social science what this Journal was unable to do thirty years ago. (Small,
1925: 84)
But Spykmans player
status was probably in question from the beginning for three reasons: his association, because of the Simmel work, with Albion Small who appears to have been ousted by Park and the Young Turks for his failure to defend
W. I. Thomas in the 1918 incident; his foreigner status - Spykman is described in Yale histories as that rolling-gaited, spat-ankled
Dutchman (Pierson, 1955: 155) and having taken his degrees in California (Yale University, 1939: 491); and, most of all by
his heresy :
The myth of a science
of society has been exploded. What remains is a series of social sciences of which sociology is merely one, even if it finds
its subject matter through a different abstraction (Spykman, 1964: 273 and see Small, 1925: 84)
With Small retired from Chicago in 1925, Spykman does not
reappear as a major player in the American sociological narrative, and Simmel fades with him.(House, 1926: 617-633 and Tenbruck,
1969: 61-99). His bid in this game seems to have failed. So Spykman joins a different game to pursue his ambitions and becomes
a key figure in Yales development of political science and international relations having apparently no further interest in
Sociology or Simmel. (Pierson, 1955: 664).
It is Smalls translations and Spykmans coding of Simmels
argument, the heresy of the reduced status of sociology, which is the declaration of the first major strategy in the game
and which Sorokin and the Young
Turks would need to overturn in order to progress their versions of the game: the expansion of a quantitative Sociology as
a major enterprise in American academe. To install his version of Sociology at Harvard, Sorokin launched vitriolic attacks
on Simmel, dismissing Parks defence and Spykmans evaluation (Wolff, 1950: xlvi, fn. 32).
But Simmel, along with Durkheim and Weber, had been a major European in Smalls attempts to prevent the withdrawal of American sociology
into parochialism.
American methodology will remain provincial
unless it maintains vital relations with the two European movements which seem likely to be path-breakers in continental sociology
during its next stage of development. The one tendency we have ventured to call post-Simmelism . . . in Germany. The other
is the reorganization of the Durkheim following in France. (Small, 1925: 86).
It is also worth noting that Small had maintained this pro-European
position from the beginning of his editorship of the American Journal of Sociology when he had Simmel, Weber, Durkheim and
other Europeans appointed to the Editorial Board; by frequently including translations of their work as papers in issues of
the Journal; and by including in the Notes reports of events and developments in the various European sociological societies.
He, however, paid relatively less attention to the Russians, like Sorokin, than to the French and Germans. In the light of
the American intervention in the First World War on the Anglo-Russian side against the Germans and the arrival of the Russian
émigré, Sorokin, after the Communist Revolution, this may have proved, for Albion Small, another wrong move in the game.
The
Wolff-Coser Gambit
Simmel could not be ignored and had to be accounted for,
I propose, by re-coding. (Wolff, 1950: xxiv). He consequently re-enters the narrative in 1950:
Wolff
(1950: xviii): Georg Simmel, the youngest of seven children, was born in Berlin on March 1, 1858. His father, a partner in
a well-known chocolate factory, died when Georg was a boy. A friend of the family, the founder of an international music publishing
house, was appointed his guardian. He left Simmel a considerable fortune which enabled him to lead the life of a scholar.
Simmels mother was temperamental and domineering ...Simmel entered the University of Berlin at the age of eighteen to study
history. Despite Mommsens impact on him, he soon changed to philosophy. Later, he named Lazarus and Steinthal, the founders
of Völkerpsychologie, as his most important teachers; but he also studied with
Harms and Zeller (philosophy), with Bastian (psychology), with Droysen, Sybel, Treischke, Grimm, and Jordan (history).
and
then again in 1965:
Coser (1 - 1965:1-2): Georg Simmel was born on March 1, 1858, in the very center of Berlin: on
the corner of Leipzigerstrasse and Friedrichstrasse. This is a curious birthplace; it would correspond to the corner of New
Yorks Broadway and Forty-second Street. It seems most fitting for Simmel: all his life he lived in the intersection of many
conflicting currents, intensely affected by a multiplicity of intellectual and moral tendencies. He was an urban man, without
roots in traditional folk culture, an alien in his native land. .... Simmel was the youngest of seven children. While still
very young, he lost his father, a prosperous Jewish businessman who had been converted to Christianity. A friend of the family,
the owner of a music publishing house, was appointed the boys guardian. Simmels relation to his domineering mother was apparently
rather distant. The youth seems not to have had roots in any secure family environment. A sense of marginality and insecurity
came early to the young Simmel. ... After graduating from Gymnasium, Simmel studied
history and philosophy at the university of Berlin with some of the most important academic figures of the day: the historians,
Mommsen, Treitschke, Sybel, and Droysen, the philosophers Harms and Zeller, the anthropologists Lazarus and Steinthal (who
were the founders of Völkerpsychologie), and the psychologist Bastian.
Simmel returns in 1971:
Levine
(Simmel, 1971: x): Although groups of all persuasions vigorously discussed his
writings in the cafés frequented by German university students, no students chose to follow him as an academic master. On
close terms with a number of cultural luminaries - his friends and correspondents including Stefan George, Rainer Maria Rilke,
Auguste Rodin, Edmund Husserl, Martin Buber, Albert Schweitzer, Ernst Troeltsch, Max and Marianne Weber - he has been described
as the loneliest figure of them all. ... This exclusion from the German academic establishment doubtless reinforced the unscholarly
aspects of Simmels style, as Lewis Coser has skilfully argued.
And
again in 1977:
Coser (1977: 194) - (Coser reproduces
most of the above but rephrases lines 4 - 9)
... but it seems symbolically fitting for a man who throughout his life lived in the intersections of many movements,
intensely affected by the cross-currents of intellectual traffic and by a multiplicity of moral directions. Simmel was a modern
urban man, without roots in traditional folk culture. Upon reading Simmels first book, F. Toennies wrote to a friend: The
book is shrewd but it has the flavor of the metropolis.
The earlier Coser (1965)
version of the biography can be seen to be something accomplished: some method applied in producing his text.(Sacks, undated:
10) We have also the advantage of knowing that the first and second versions of this text, written by others, were reference
material for that text. What was achieved by the additions to the text which
Wolff assured us was the only biographical material available to use? (Wolff, 1950: xiii, fn. 3&4).
This fore-text can be seen to be a lead-in to later text,
setting a game-play which is framed as the focus of the reading-to-come, (Sacks,
1961: 4) namely the reading of Simmels
childhood and upbringing, his urbanity, his lack of roots in traditional culture
and his having lived at the cross-roads of many intellectual currents. This fore-text already has a fore-text, Cosers 1958
article, Georg Simmels Style of Work: A Contribution to the Sociology of the Sociologist(Coser, 1958: 635-641). Because, for
Coser, this is the key text to be read, the fore-text prepares the ground, it is ready framed for the reading-to-come. And
it duly appears, now re-titled, as The Stranger in the Academy. The fore-text can now be seen as playing its appropriate part
in setting up the play when we read:
Those who attempt to create
ab oro are likely to be considered unreliable, outsiders, and hence to be mistrusted.(Coser,
1965: 31)
Thus we have the decision-to-be-reached for which the fore-text
as frame was set up. (Sacks, 1961: 4)
The fore-text
as a reconstructed biography sets the frame for reading three arguments which make up
The Stranger in the Academy so that we fall in with the consensual construction that Coser is seeking to apply. He prepared the reader to consensually appreciate three features of his reconstruction of Simmel:
· Because Simmel (1908:
685-691) had written a chapter in Soziologie entitled Der Fremde which Wolff, Coser and Levine, translate as The Stranger, Coser seems from his text determined to read that piece
as autobiographical. We might equally accept a translation as the Foreigner, or, using Howard Beckers Hughes-Simmelian translation,
the Outsider (Becker, 1963: 123). Coser presents Simmel as an unhappy Jewish youth who matures into an isolated, academic
exile although there is no warrant for this in the Spykman biographical piece. Levine, then, corroborates this reconstruction
with as Lewis Coser has skilfully argued., although this contradicts his prior listing of
Simmels internationally recognised correspondents, like the artist Auguste Rodin, Albert Schweitzer, Edmund Husserl
and his best friend, Max Weber. (Simmel, 1971: x-xi)
·
Cosers analysis now offers Robert K. Mertons important Social Structure and Anomie
(Merton, 1957: 131-160) paper to explain Simmels role behaviour as a Mode of Adaptation (Innovation) to the status discrepancy of The Stranger.(Coser, 1965: 37).
·
The gloss - by superimposing this Functionalist Analysis over the Personality Profile, Coser seeks to re-incorporate Simmel into the Structural Functionalist fold after he
was dismissed or overlooked in Parsons coded listing of major sociological figures in The
Structure of Social Action. (Parsons: 1949). Parsons had devoted chapters to Durkheim and Weber, and others, where Simmel
only warrants two footnotes and one brief reference (Parsons, 1949: 716, 748 and 772-773). There are rumours that Parsons
had written a chapter on Simmel but dismissed it before publication. In 1957, Coser had tried to rediscover Simmel as one
of the three European theorists. (Coser and Rosenberg, 1964: xii), the gloss appears
a necessary move to advance the game.
Why? The disappointment with Sorokin? Academic imperialism?
Post-war guilt of the ex-patriate European scholars to their Jewish European fellows? The tendency to exaggeration and enlargement
among American academics and literary figures? To speculate is fruitless, it would be, as Coser has done, just a gloss on
Cosers gloss.
The key point, well-known to Coser as his collaborator,
is Wolffs definitive statement that the only biographical sketch was produced by Spykman using Simmels widow as his source.
The only extra evidence, relating directly to Simmel, that is offered is a report quoted at length at the end of The Stranger
from a Dietrich Schaefer addressed to the Kulturministerium on the proposal to appoint Simmel professor in Heidelberg.(Schaefer,
1965: 37-39) Schaefer is clearly anti-Semitic espousing the dangers to the German Christian-classical education of appointing
Simmel and is opposed to the introduction of Sociology/society in the place of state and church as the decisive organ of human
existence. The frame of reference Coser sets up to achieve the possible (desired) outcome in ,first, the introduction and, later, in the text of the article itself is to create a reading of this report -
to focus on the anti-Semitic and Anti-Sociology sentences. It is equally possible to read the main argument of the report
as reporting on Simmel as a light-weight, populist speaker appealing to fashionable Berlin society but hardly worthy of the
higher academic standards at Heidelberg. Coser could equally have taken Schaefers, The ladies constitute a very large proportion
- even for Berlin....an extraordinarily numerous contingent of the oriental world... His whole manner is in tune with their
orientation and taste. One does not come away from his lectures with too much of positive value....I do not imagine that the
University of Heidelberg would be especially advanced by attracting that kind to its lecture halls. (Schaefer, 1965: 38).
This account-as-fore-text would not, of course, have been a successful move in the game Coser was playing.
The Text - Going for Goal
The text is the other area where the game is played through.
The fore-text has prepared the reader to read. The translation must now carry the reader to the reading. Wolffs translation is a major play. The word society is presented here as a demonstration of how
the commonplace, everyday activities of sociologists play-in the indexical expression and we will see the gloss-as-accomplishment.
As Edward Rose notes:
The English language is treated
here as a body of social facts, as a registry of a vast array of collective representations of sorts of persons, of actions,
and of other social features that are indicated in the common meanings of English words. (Rose, 1960: 193)
The play, the accomplishment, is to invoke one word from
the English language rather than other alternatives, in the translation. As Rose suggests, the use of the word society plays-in
a body of sociological theory, locates Simmel within the Structuralist and quantitative school of American Sociology. This
is achieved in the transformation of the common meaning of a German word, gesellschaft.
Wolff translates it as society. Coser goes further he imposes on Tönnies Gemeinschaft
und Gesellschaft, the translation, Community and Society. (Coser, 1965: 183)
The question can be addressed to the text. Simmel titles what others (Wolff, 1950, Coser, 1965 and Levine in Simmel,
1971) claim to be part of his major sociological work, Exkurs über das Problem: Wie
ist Gesellschaft möglich? (Discourse about the problem: How is Gesellschaft possible? - Simmel, 1908: 1-46). However if
we refer to a different source of the word, Gesellschaft, which is often used in
Sociology written in English, namely its use by Ferdinand Tönnies, we find a different translation. Tönnies, Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft, is nearly always translated as Community and Association.(purposive association
in Coser, 1977: 218) Is this subtle difference in meaning so important? Is this the tackle, the placing of the epistemological
obstacle? Rose suggests that :
New ideas, although perhaps
not as easily proposed in earlier periods, are more readily assimilated into a body of working notions in earlier phases;
and recent ideas, once accepted, have a better chance of persistence than old ideas. (Rose, 1960: 208)
So Wolffs translation can be assimilated, can and does persist.
(Frisby, 1992 : 13-14). The translation of gesellschaft
as society is one possible translation but like many German words carries a variety of meanings in English. The Tönnies version is usually translated, association. Maurer (1926: 485-506) makes various references
to Simmel, using the translation, partnership. He, also attributes G. H. Mead as a Simmelian referring to Meads paper The Genesis of Self and Social Control where Mead uses the term gesellschaftlichen which can be translated as associating. Like gemeinschaft
(community?), with the noun, gemeinde (community), I propose that gesellschaft can mean all these words but that the addition of -schaft adds something to the meaning. Rose instructs us to look in the everyday commonsense use of words and their origins
in everyday speech. In old German, gesellen (Brockhaus, 1989: 414) refers to a
status after apprenticeship but before becoming a master craftsman in the medieval guild. Melding together the idea of associate with the suffix -schaft could suggest the meaning of being an associate, a more active or processual meaning
that the reified society. This is closer to Spykmans translation of:
The individual has once
more become of importance in social theory. he is not, as for many sociologists, merely a social product, or merely a social
factor. He is at the same time social product and social factor, the result of socialization and the producer of socialization;
and it is this double capacity that determines him as a social being. (Spykman, 1964: 264)
But this discussion is about more than the word. The word
indexes a text. The indexical expression represents the sociological game in the translation of Simmels offered definitions
of the word. So in Spykman we have:
In that case it stands
for the sum of all individuals concurring in reciprocal relations, together with all the interests which unite them. In the
more narrow sense, the term designates the process of socialization or association as such, the interaction itself in abstraction
from these interests . These two meanings of the term can be distinguished on the basis of a differentiation between the form
and the content of socialization.(Spykman, 1925: 32 and Simmel, 1908: 6-7)
Note the concurring in reciprocal relations and compare
it with the Wolff version:
Society itself is presently
defined as a number of individuals connected by interaction.(Wolff, 1950: xxx)
The empirical
version offered by Wolff co-ordinates with the society translation of Coser, the one has played-in the other in the everyday
practice of translation. Simmel is suitability quantified and now sits in accord with the text of The Stranger... and is available for integration in the game
plan of the Structuralists. Wolff and Coser can now shoot for goal in translating Simmels Conflict
(Simmel, 1964) and can join Parsons, Merton and others with the status of investing sociology with a new game, Conflict
Theory. (Coser, 1956). At the conclusion of the 1977 book, Coser was able to
claim the prize. Simmels conflict has
been taken out of social interaction and
into structure:
My own work on the functions
of social conflict (1956, 1967) while highlighting the central importance of conflict in human societies, eschewed the temptation
to see in conflict the preeminent form of social interaction. I argued instead for a view that stressed the need to investigate
the roots of consensus as well as the roots of conflicts between individuals and classes of individuals. A critical discussion
of my contributions to conflict theory ... (Coser, 1977: 581)
Conclusion
And should there win be applauded or should we follow Roses
warning and beware leaving a distorted usage in the vocabulary of Sociology?:
Possibly all professions
become committed in time to orders of ideas that are older than the natural semantic developments with which they have become
historically involved: the sciences, for instance, because they are committed to subject-matter, may not replace ideas as
rapidly as does slang.(Rose, 1960: 207)
Fortunately, there were other players still in the game
and the Spykman version which I suggest opened up the root through George Herbert Mead and Everett C. Hughes, (1965: 117-118)
and their many students, to another game, Symbolic Interactionism. because they were to focus on Spykmans translation: individuals
concurring in reciprocal relations.
Hughes says:
Simmel played his games
of analysis of interaction on a great variety of substantive situations and problems, large and small; but it is always a
game.
And the game goes on.¹
Notes
1. There are other possible
games with Simmel worthy of investigation. The German academic version of Simmel
involves different game plays. The hand-written Catalogue of the Humboldt University, Berlin, contains entries for both Max
Weber and Georg Simmel. An instructive exercise is to see the pencilled comments beside various catalogue entries, War lost
referring to Simmel works that were removed by order of the National Socialists or destroyed by war damage. After the Soviet
occupation of East Germany, the pencilled notes from 1949 changed to Removed.
Many of those lost items have been retrieved or replaced since the reunification of Germany. Similarly, in the HU academic
book shop, sociologists commentaries on Simmel are shelved under Soziologie whereas Simmels works are classified under Philosophie. There is a rich vein of Foucauldian
archaeology to be uncovered. For myself, I hope to pursue the Philosophie/Soziologie in a further examination of Simmels Formen
and his Kantian influences in relation to Alfred Schutz and thus by a different game plan to Talcott Parsons and Harold Garfinkel.
References
Gary Gutting (1989) Michel Foucaults Archaeology of Scientific Reason, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Floyd N. House (1926) Social Relations
and Social Interaction American Journal of Sociology, XXXI (5) March: 617-633.
Everett C. Hughes (1965) A Note on Georg
Simmel Social Problems, 13 (2) Fall: 117-118.
Heinrich Herman Maurer (1926) Studies
in the Sociology of Religion VI American Journal of Sociology XXXI (4) January
: 485-506.
Albion W. Small (1925) Review: The Social
Theory of Georg Simmel, by Nicholas J. Spykman, American Journal of Sociology XXXI (1) July: 84-87.
Nicholas J. Spykman (1964) The Social Theory of Georg Simmel, New York: Russell and Russell (first published 1925).
E. H. Sutherland and Donald R. Cressey
(1966) Principles of Criminology, 7th ed., Philadelphia: Lippincott.
F. H. Tenbruck (1969) Formal Sociology in Kurt H. Wolff (ed.), Georg Simmel, 1858-1918:
A Collection of Essays, Columbus: Ohio State University Press: 61-99.
William I. Thomas and Florian Znaniecki
(1918-1920) The Polish Peasant in Europe and America, (5 vol. ed.) Boston: Richard
Badger.
Kurt H. Wolff (1950) The Sociology of Georg Simmel, New York: The Free Press.
Yale University (1939) Historical Register of Yale University, 1701-1937, New Haven: Yale
University Press.
