Sociology may be argued to be, in a broad sense, about the point of view that you apply to an empirical material. That means that the different theoretical views that could be used to analyze the empirical material will create a Sociology that has different characteristics. Testing this notion I will use classical Sociological theory to take a new look at some empirical material. That material has been produced by me in a master´s thesis (Berggren 2012) where I argue that female consumers of culture tend to put emphasis on the feeling of trust in regard to their peers. This is argued to be the case especially when these female consumers discuss what they have experienced during a visit to an art gallery, a concert or watching a play in the theater (Berggren 2012:34 ff).
The aim of this text is to take a new look at what the women are said to have expressed in the study. This paper will use concepts like Durkheim's social facts, Weber's social interaction and Simmel's social forms to do so. The expected outcome of this review of my thesis is to see if these concepts will help to generate another view on the findings.
1. Presentation of the empirical material
The aim of the study was, using the Swedish expression “kulturtant” (cultured lady) as starting point, to understand how and why women consume the products of the culture industry more eagerly than men (Berggren 2012:5). The study was using the concepts put forward by Pierre Bourdieu; fields, capital and habitus. It is a qualitative study based on discussions in focus groups, interviews (altogether 18 women participated) and material gathered through Google Alerts. In the literature this gap between the sexes with regard to the higher consumption on behalf of women has been referred to as the “puzzle” of women´s cultural consumption.
The empirical results show that the women in the study are well aware of what they want to gain by participating in cultural activities like reading, going to concerts, watching plays or going to the movies. There are three main results: The first result is that the women in the study want to participate in activities with peers that respect them. The second result is that the women are eager that their cultural activities should give them durable experiences. The third result can be described as a wish of the women that taking part in cultural activities will help them to develop as human beings, to become better persons. The women have made what can be called a culture journey that in analogy with a class journey may be argued to be non reversible.
The feeling of trust in regard to peers
The feeling of trust amongst peers is part of the field of cultural consumption for the women participating in Berggren´s study (Berggren 2012:34). This field includes what the women in the study attach importance to when it comes to feeling at ease while they go about their consumption of culture. Their comments in the conversations and interviews indicate that they establish networks of like-minded people and maintain these networks. They speak a lot about how important it is that the people they attend cultural events with are individuals they can be totally honest with. They want to consume culture with like-minded people who respect their tastes and preferences. There is a need that no one thinks the other is better or worse, that they may be sincere in their reviews of books, films or theater performances. They want to be able to argue their views, but, at times and at will, to hide their political affiliation in the same manner “you might not want to reveal your political standpoint at your work”. The women in the study indicate that they may take it easy with new friends until they find the right tone for these cultural activities. The women in the study will make demands on the persons they are willing to spend time with, go to cultural activities with, they will demand more from them than from other people in their lives, such as work colleagues. Although much of the consumption of culture can be performed on your own it is, as women in the study indicate, important to be able to share experiences and ideas with like-minded people. The activities of cultural consumption become a greater experience because the activities give the participants the feeling of participating in social interaction, on an equal basis with people who respect them and that they themselves have respect for. The group makes the activity enjoyable. It appears that the common activity is important, “a small kit of things you can do” and seems to be the glue that holds together groups of friends who come together to make visits to the theater, to museums and /or have a coffee afterwards.
The importance of like-minded
Among the like-minded women, the women in the study find allies in their cultural consumption. In the field of cultural consumption, these allies are interrelated and have the potential to drag or fend off other participant women from certain consumption. By being tolerant and inclusive the women reinforce their presence in cultural consumption. The interviewed women for the most part go to events in the company of like-minded friends. It is because they think it is important to be able to talk to someone they trust about what they experience. This is not meant to be too psychological deep, but I like to refer to the participating women's reasoning about the need to feel free and comfortable with the person or to have the company of any event and talk to afterwards. Scott Sørensen believes that girls during their formative years live in a highly verbalized culture compared to their male peers (1991:51). My thought is that it is important also for adult women to verbalize their experiences and impressions. According to this study of women, it feels liberating to express what they think about a play or a book. However, it seems to be no need for consensus about what they experience in the group that share experiences. What they want is a safe environment where they do not have to play a game. In the workplace, it might be strategic reasons not to reveal their political affiliation. They want the company of people they trust and feel comfortable with.
Maintenance of networks
The networks the women in the study are involved in seem to be maintained by the members jointly participating in cultural consumption. Of course there are members of the women's network that they rarely get together with and others that they have more contact with. The narrower circuit is where the women first turn to in order to ask for company. There also seems to be a smaller group where they gather around activities, not necessarily of a culturalnature.
Some of the women in the study described the informal networks that she is part like “people come and go”. This means that members can be active during some period to disappear from the network for some time. It is thus possible to exploit the social life of other networks. Then they are back one day and continue where they left off.
2. Durkheim´s social facts
Durkheim (1938) considers Sociology to be about studying social facts, which are influencing us all the time. These have impact on us in the form of social currents. If I choose to avoid speaking Swedish in Sweden, or ran around naked the surrounding people would react. I would sense their disapproval even if they did not speak out. So, the other human beings in my surroundings are “telling” me how to behavior, it is rather, in more modern terminology, the norms that I have internalized that are guiding me. Since I am a member of this society I am able to perceive their approval or disapproval. The interesting fact here is that Durkheim sees the starting point of what we today call norms, they are emaneting in the silent, and maybe, unreflecting thinking of the people surrounding the individual. The way this works according to Durkheim is that the social currents are the collective soul of the population, but the results all happen within individuals. Durkheim takes the example of how our children are raised, they are educated and made to adhere to the expected behavior, they are made to internalize the norms of the society they live in. The social currents have impact on us whether we are aware of them or not. They are the meaning of the collective and due to that they can be said to be general. Durkheim also asks us to consider the social facts as things, as he argues that they are easier and more clear to study if we do.
Durkheim and the study
In the following I will try to apply Durkheim´s ideas on the material of the security issues of the culture consuming women in Berggren´s thesis (2012). The women in the study speak a lot about how important it is that the people they attend cultural events with are individuals they can be totally honest with. They want to be sure that the friends in their network accept them as they are and respect their opinions. This longing for mutual respect and security would of course restrain the individual from acting in a manner that breaks the bond of security between the individuals in the network. As Durkheim (1938) sees it: “a social fact is every way of acting, fixed or not, capable of exercising on the individual an external constraint; or again, every way of acting which is general throughout a given society, while at the same time existing in its own right independent of its individual manifestations” (1938:13). In Durkheim´s way of arguing the wish of the women in my study to maintain the equilibrium in their network through that each individual acts in the manner they want their peers to act towards them. In this way of looking upon the networks of the women in my study the networks are more os less small societies that influence individuals taking part, or trying to take part, in the activities that each network/society embarks on. If a social fact then is this collective wish for mutual respect and security it also indicates that the social currents are what keep the loosely maintained networks of the women together. The great movements of enthusiasm, indignation, and pity in a crowd do not, according to Durkheim (1938), originate in any one of the particular individual consciousnesses. They come to each individual from external sources and can carry us away in spite of ourselves. We might not even feel the feel the pressure that they exert on us. But it is revealed as soon as we try to resist them. Let an individual attempt to oppose one of these collective manifestations, and the emotions that he denies will turn against him (Durkheim 1938:4). The social currents in this manner describe the pros and cons of group activities. On the positive side we have that engaging in group or network activities may allow us to influence the other participants. On the negative side we have the effects that all the other participants exert on us, as they are trying to do the same. Durkheim has a point in that these influences or social currents do not have to be obvious to have effect on us – they appear as sneaky undercurrents that influence us, whether we are willing to be influenced, or not. I would guess that every adult, at some time during their life, have had the experience of meeting a person who they like, or dislike, instantly upon the person entering the same room. Some would argue that it has to do with pheromones, but a good guess would be social currents.
Durkheim (1938) argues that social phenomena are things and ought to be treated as things. He means that it even is unnecessary to philosophize on their nature and to discuss the analogies they present with the phenomena of lower realms of existence to demonstrate this . Durkheim goes on to state that social phenomena are the unique data of the sociologist. All that is given, all that is subject to observation, has thereby the character of a thing (Durkheim 1938:27). If we treat social phenomena as things, they are just data and as such constitute the starting point of science. As we treat social phenomena as things, or data, we discard them from moral ideals, or even prejudices we might embrace towards social phenomena. Even if we assume that social life really is the development of certain ideas may we take it for granted. The ideas that possibly from social life cannot be observed directly. The only way we may perceive them are through the phenomenal reality that expresses them.
Back to the thesis
Returning to the study of women´s culture consumption we have the social fact that several of the women express the wish that the people they attend cultural events with are individuals they can be totally honest with. As we only have the social fact that the women are expressing this thought might limit our possibility to perceive it. Vocalizing the thought might be argued to be a phenomenological manner of expressing the idea of equality between peers. If we accept that we can treat the expressed thought as a social fact or data. Using the data we may analyze it and weigh it against other data, from the the same study, or even against data taken from other similar studies on the approximate same subject.
Myself being trained in ethnology, which is known to use qualitative methodology, I have no problem seeing the similarities to ethnological methodology in the way Durkheim argues that the phenomenological way of expressing ideas is a way of catching and describing what might be the idea behind the phenomenological expression. The caricature of an ethnologist is a person that in some kind of scientific hubris argues that all that is needed to explain Swedish society is to talk to ONE person. What then can be unfolded in the conversations may be used to explain the basic concepts of living in the Swedish society. Naturally, most ethnologists are more thorough than that and collect more data.
Durkheim (1938) argues that a fact can exist without being at all useful. That may be either because it has never been adjusted to any vital end or because, after having been useful, it has lost all utility while continuing to exist by the inertia of habit alone (Durkheim 1938:91). We may encounter these social facts without any prevailing meaning when we sometimes ask ourselves why we do things in a specific manner, or why we do them at all. This might be the case when parents after all the children have left home, still continue to buy food at the same extent as when the children all were living at home. In my thesis a couple of women never took part in any cultural activities all alone. “I've never, in may entire life, gone to the movies alone.” It seems that they do not want to play alone. They are doing something together with one or more like-minded people (Berggren 2012:39-40). The habit alone is hard to master and change.
Durkheim (1938) stresses that we, when trying to explain a social phenomenon, must look separately for the efficient cause which produces it and the function it fulfills. “We use the word “function,” in preference to “end” or “purpose” precisely because social phenomena do not generally exist for the useful results they produce” (Durkheim 1938 :95). Durkheim seems to point to the possible correspondence between the fact we are studying and the “general needs of the social organism, and in what this correspondence consists, without occupying ourselves with whether it has been intentional” (Durkheim 1938 :95). It is in some respect similar to the way some of the women in my study describe their consumption of culture as a craving, almost like that of a drug (Berggren 2012:30). The women consume culture, but in some manner you might call it unintentional, it is all about habit, or like the consumption “owns” them and create a craving like that you might experience towards a drug.
Consequently, argues Durkheim (1938), when explaining a social fact it is not enough to show what causes it; we must also, at least in most cases, show its function in the establishment of social order (Durkheim 1938:97). The function of the consumption of culture for the women in the thesis (Berggren 2012) may the said to about entertainment for the moment – but – the women in the study want results in the long run too. The women in the study express a wish of that taking part in cultural activities will help them to develop as human beings, to become better persons (Berggren 2012-53-54). Thus the function of cultural consumption is twofold – one function for the moment and another that aims into the future.
The principle about the determining cause of a social fact should be sought among the social facts preceding it and not among the states of the individual consciousness, according to Durkheim (1938). Even when determining the function of a social fact we should look into the facts preceding it. Durkheim argues that the function of a social fact can never be anything but social (1938:110-111). The effect should be useful in a social context. Applied to the thesis (Berggren 2012) I would say the the women in the study taking part in group activities is a social function and even their wish to an experience for the moment can be categorized as a social function as they have their experience in a group. These two could be said to produce socially useful effect in the durkheimian way of thinking. The third thought among the women in the thesis (Berggren 2012) to wish for that taking part in cultural activities will help them to develop as human beings, to become better persons is function that we do not know if it will occur. If it does occur it will also be of a social nature since society never can have enough of good human beings. It too will then become a socially useful effect. This principle will determine that society is not a mere sum of individuals (Durkhiem 1938).
Durkheim (1938) suggests that the system that is formed by the associations of individuals represents a specific reality which has its own characteristics. Durkheim states that nothing collective can be produced if individual consciousnesses are not assumed; but this necessary condition is by itself insufficient (Durkheim 1938:103). If one woman reads a book there is nothing collective about that action. When we learn that she got the idea of reading it from reading an article about the book in a magazine, a friend said it was good or she overheard someone talking about on the bus, she is part of a collective action.
Summary: Durkheim
It must have been revolutionizing of Durkheim to take the stand of regarding social facts as things. Even the idea of social currents – something invisible that has an impact on individuals must have been almost odd at the time. In some way this connects with ideas of materiality put forward by for example Bruno Latour (2005) and Karen Barad (2003). What materiality is about is that things have an impact, an agency, that works on us. A church, a car or a beautiful book has influence on humans, according to these writers.
What did Durkheim´s concepts of social facts and social currents contribute to my understanding of the women in my thesis? I really liked the way Durkheim argues for us to regard social facts as things, I think it may make it easier for us to stay focused on what we see. Our data then become more like the biologist´s biological preparations and we will maybe achieve a distance necessary to really see what we are studying. A sociologist or an ethnologist may study society, but we do it through humans beings. We tend to “understand” more than we really understand, because we are filled with emotions towards our objects of study. The notion of social currents is a nice way of describing what goes on in human interaction. There is little to observe regarding the women in my thesis more than that they express a collective wish for mutual respect and security that also indicates that the social currents are what keep the loosely maintained networks of the women together.
3. Weber´s social interaction
Weber can be said to be all about meaning and action, which cover reaction and interaction. The social interaction is what brings about what we call society. Weber (1978) states that sociology concerns itself with the interpretive understanding of social action and thus, with a casual explanation of its course and consequences (1978:4). Weber carefully explains that the “action” is about the subjective meaning of the individual, who while acting takes into account the behavior of others and thus is “social”.
Even if Weber (1946) assumes that there is a subjective meaning he rejects the assumption of any “objective meaning”. In doing so he tries to restrict the understanding and interpretation of meaning to the subjective intentions of the individual actor. “Meaning” states Weber (1978) may be of two kinds. First the term may refer to the actual existing meaning in a concrete case of a particular actor, or to the approximate meaning attributable to a given plurality of actors. Secondly the term may refer to the theoretically conceived pure type of subjective meaning attributed to the hypothetical actor or actors in a given type of action. In no case does it refer to an objectively “correct” meaning or one which is “true” in some metaphysical sense (1978:4).
Weber is in his writing not aware of the paradox that the results of interactions are not always identical with what the actor intended to do. Thus the Puritan wished to serve God, but he helped to bring about modern capitalism (1946:58). Using Weber in trying to understand why individuals do what they do we are left with no correlation between the intentions of the individual and the final result, especially when the result is in some way unforeseen. Weber´s notion of social interaction and the discussion of meaning is the main concepts I will consider in this text.
Weber and the study
In the following I will try to apply Weber´s ideas on the material of the culture consuming women in Berggren´s thesis (2012). The women in the study speak a lot about how important it is that the people they attend cultural events with are individuals they can be totally honest with. They want to be sure that the friends in their network accept them as they are and respect their opinions. This longing for mutual respect and security would of course restrain the individual from acting in a manner that breaks the bond of security between the individuals in the network.
Using Weber´s concept of social interaction on this material does not seem farfetched. The women in the study (Berggren 2012) can be said to aim at producing meaning in their lives. While consuming the products and events of the culture industry they take part in loosely knit networks with other women. Each individual cane be said to have their own objectives in taking part in whatever activities they agree on with other women. This social interaction in Weber´s sense is means to an end. The women in the study expresses that the reason for taking part in joint activities like going to an art galley or going to the movies with a couple of friends is to experience something for the moment, but also aiming towards experiences that may alter their view on themselves or on life (Berggren 2012:41). That means that the women besides the demands on the members of their networks also have the immediate intention of experience something for the moment and even are eager that their experiences in the consumption of culture will give them more lasting effects. You may express it as a wish to become wiser.
The women interact as a means to consume culture. Given that they are human beings we can call this interaction a social interaction in Weber´s sense. The women in the study establish meaning by surrounding themselves with peers that they respect and are receiving respect from. Together they create a “comfort zone” where they thrive. When asked about what they hope to gain through their culture consumption they list experience with quality for the moment and in the long run, betterment. They can be said to have great expectations, their intentions in participating is twofold. In some respect the social interaction between peers in the women´s networks is more important than the experience of, for example, watching a theater performance. It is when the women together discuss the play afterwards that the important qualities of their social interaction surfaces. Now they may talk about what they have gotten out of the play, what it means to them. At the same time they will be trying to understand their peers´ way of grasping the same play. Whatever the results this might be considered to create meaning in their lifes.
Meaning > Even if Weber (1946) assumes that there is a subjective meaning he rejects the assumption of any “objective meaning”. In doing so he tries to restrict the understanding and interpretation of meaning to the subjective intentions of the individual actor (Weber 1946:58). The woman intending to go to the movies may well be the starting point, the creation of meaning of an act consisting of four female friends going to the movies. This women will call her friends on the phone or just send them an email asking if they are up to seeing a movie.
The individual meaning of the first woman is thus transferred to a group of women. According to Weber this will be four individual meanings that take place at the same time, while watching a movie. Watching the movie side by side the women create simultaneous meanings.
It strikes me, when reading my example above, that this reminds me of Weber´s (1978) definition of what power is. Weber here argues that power is the probability that one actor within a social relationship will be in a position to carry out his own will despite resistance, regardless of the basis on which this probability rests (1978:53). We might assume that any woman in the study (Berggren 2012) might “convince” any of the other women to go to the movies with her in spite of that other woman not really wanting to go. She might do it anyway, only to keep up her good relationsship with the woman suggesting the activity. Thus we can argue that the woman initiating the activity has the power within the social relationsship to carry out her own will. The distribution of power is not a one-way force – in order for the first woman to execute her will, the second woman must be willing, and able, to sacrifice hers.
Good experiences of friends throughout the years also means that the requirement for the others in the spheres of women in the study may produce meaning. The entire network is expected to look out for books, exhibitions, films and theater and have an idea of what the others could get out of it. It creates an experience of security in these relationships, as in the quote below about a woman who lives abroad and once a year comes to Sweden where three other women meet up with her.
Elizabeth: When my friend in France comes up and we meet four girls, or ladies, rather, then it is always “have you read some good book”, “have you seen any good movies”, “have you been to the theater?” Yes, then we have to go through this - we take on politics later, we take this first, always.
Uffe: This update of cultural consumption comes before politics?
Elisabeth: In most cases, if not anything special has happened. But, I've thought about it, there is a standing item, not because we have some agenda when we meet (general laughter) but it is so, that's something that always comes up.
Uffe: Is that because you have known each other a long time and know that the others probably have done this since last time?
Elisabeth: Yes.
Lisette: And that you can trust their judgment, if they say that a book is good, it is probably so.
Elisabeth: And the book suits you. They know me so well that they know what I like.
(Berggren 2012:35-36)
Uffe: This update of cultural consumption comes before politics?
Elisabeth: In most cases, if not anything special has happened. But, I've thought about it, there is a standing item, not because we have some agenda when we meet (general laughter) but it is so, that's something that always comes up.
Uffe: Is that because you have known each other a long time and know that the others probably have done this since last time?
Elisabeth: Yes.
Lisette: And that you can trust their judgment, if they say that a book is good, it is probably so.
Elisabeth: And the book suits you. They know me so well that they know what I like.
(Berggren 2012:35-36)
As Elisabeth in the quote above notes, the women's meetings in this context are ritualized so that she refers to compound terms as points on an agenda, albeit with a laugh. The women have known each other for many years and they have created a form of socializing which includes reporting of recent experiences of cultural activities. These reports seem to be more important than discussing the recent political events. Thus this reports can be said to represent a meaning in the relationships between these four women. Whether it is a collective meaning is open to debate, but I assume that for each individual in this relationship the annual meetings and reporting have indvidual meanings in the way Weber argues.
Weber (1946) argues that a quantitative method stands in opposition to a perspective in which all phenomena are seen as qualitatively unique entities. But, Weber is quite sensitive to the qualitative uniqueness of cultural reality and to the qualitative differences resulting from quantitative changes (Weber 1946:59). Thus Weber would work fine on the activities and thoughts of the women in my thesis (Berggren 2012). The women in one group I talked with were upset about the people from the countryside go to get tickets to the theater trough the companies that take them by bus to Stockholm. ”I can talk to my friends in the county of Skåne and they have been here and seen plays I have not had a chance to get tickets for”.
Quantitative changes in the way tickets are sold to people and companies outside Stockholm would here result in qualitative changes for the local women i Stockholm. That is, they will have a hard time ordering tickets, all the time competing, not only with the audiences in Stockholm, but in effect with the potential audiences throughout Sweden.
Summary: Weber
Weber´s concept of social interaction with its emphasis on meaning is not a bad tool when analyzing what individuals and groups are doing. Maybe I like it a lot because my training in ethnology has me almost always asking the questions: what meaning has this and, even broader: why do they do what they do?
What did Weber contribute to my understanding of the culture consuming women? Weber´s concept of social interaction with its emphasis on meaning is not a bad tool when analyzing what individuals and groups are doing. Maybe I like it a lot because my training in ethnology has me almost always asking the questions: what meaning has this and, even broader: why do they do what they do? When Weber assumes that there is a subjective meaning he rejects the assumption of any “objective meaning”. In doing so he tries to restrict the understanding and interpretation of meaning to the subjective intentions of the individual actor. We may all be regarded as constantly trying to produce meaning in our lives and we might be good at it. At least until somebody asks (me): “What is the meaning of reading at the university at your age?” In my case it would maybe be hard to produce any objective meaning. I do it for fun. Maybe the objective meaning in my case would be that I do not spend time at the local bar which, in case I did I would put unnecessary stress my health and perhaps cost society a lot in healthcare costs.
Regarding the women in my thesis they obviously sense a meaning in what they do, but is there any objective meaning to describe from their activities? You may argue that it is good that they keep at it so, for example, the cinemas do not disappear altogether. You may also argue that they create meaning in their lives and as a result of that they lead meaningful lives. That indicates that they are happy. At this level, maybe, you might argue a bit of objective meaning.
4. Simmel´s social forms
A social form exists according to Simmel (1909) only in close contact with its content. Simmel argues that this holds true for all social beings and occurences. They are as likely to detach themselves from their content as an object may exist without the material of which it is formed. It is through the social forms that the content attains social reality (1909:297). What Simmel is arguing is, as I see it, that the social forms are what connects us as indviduals with other indviduals and activities. Individuals interact because of interests, drives, etc. and also because they like to interact with each other; and their interaction leads to a richness of social forms (Swedberg 2012). The fondness for interaction among human beings leads to the notion of sociability.
Simmel´s (1949) notion of sociability as a force, or pattern, of behaviour that links indviduals makes strong demand on interaction. This interaction may occur between individuals or between individuals and objects. Simmel argues that sociability is about a lighthearted free play that forces us to let go of motives and life-goals to be able to connect with others (1949:255). When we let go and simply interact in “good form” the interacting interdependency of individuals will have greater effect.
Art and play > Within society, Simmel (1949) argues, or out of it, there develops a special socio-logical structure corresponding to those of art and play, which draw their form from these realities but nevertheless leave their reality behind them (1949:254). That would indicate that there is only the form of art or play remaining.
Simmel (1949) takes his argument a bit further when he states that you in the same sense may speak of an impulse to sociability in man. Individuals unite in economic associations or blood fraternities, in cult societies or robber bands for the sake of special needs and interests (1949:254). But, argues Simmel, it has to do with the sociability, the impulse to fraternize with other indviduals. Individuals do like to be around other people and doing that, there is contained a common element not affected by their differences of content.
Simmel seems to explain sociability with the lightness of play and art. They might both be without ulterior motive – we play for fun and we with do art for fun. Sociability then is to be around people, chatting with them an laughing with – all just for the fun of it.
Sociability states Simmel (1949) is the play-form of association and is related to the content-determined concreteness of association as art is related to reality. Simmel argues that the great problem of association comes to a solution possible only in sociability. That is possible since sociability, according to Simmel, in its pure form has no ulterior end, no content, and no result outside itself, it is oriented completely about personalities (1949:255). Using this interpretation on the empirical material in my thesis seems at first as a rather hard exercise. But, when thinking of how the women in the study there are some parts that fit into Simmel´s model. The women come together, and we know that they expect to be treated as equal peers, they want to be entertained for the moment and they wish for something to carry on into the future as a result of their activities. The entertainment and the wish for something in the future must be said to be abut ulterior motives and I will cross them out. I look upon the wish to be treated as an equal and fina no ulterior motive in that. On that level the women might be said to deploy sociability. They meet, probably lightheartedly, and hang out with each other. Simmel might have disqualified them for having covert ulterior motives engaging in their activities, I do not.
Simmel´s discussion on play versus art got me thinking of Erving Goffman (1959). Goffman became famous by his writing on face-to-face interaction, and compared our actions in society with the theatrical play on a stage. He was criticized for implicating that we were pretending in our life in daily life.
Simmel (1949) argues that both art and play have a liknes to sociability. From the realities of life play draws its great, essential themes: the chase and cunning; the proving of physical and mental powers, the contest and reliance on chance and the favor of forces which one cannot influence. (Simmel 1949:255)
Play is, states Simmel (1949) freed of substance, through which these activities make up the seriousness of life, it gets its cheerfulness but also that symbolic significance which distinguishes it from pure pastime (Simmel 1949:255) . Simmel describes the way play can be compared to sociability – it has the foundation firmly grounded in the serious relationships among men. Nevertheless play is spared the frictions of real life. Sociability may be looked upon as laziness or idleness, but so can play. Simmel is of the opinion that sociability in its pure form might help us discover something beyond the content.
Simmel (1909) waive the question whether an absolute similarity of forms occurs along with variety of contents. The approximate likeness which the forms exhibit under circumstances which are materially quite dissimilar, as well as the reverse, suffices to make the conception of complete likeness possible in principle (1909:306). What Simmel is talking about is that two social forms may appear to be the same, even though their contents are different. That indicates, or warns, us to look into the content of a social form before we draw conclusions about it.
Simmel and the study
In the following I will try to apply Simmel´s ideas on the material of the security issues of the culture consuming women in Berggren´s thesis (2012). The women in the study speak a lot about how important it is that the people they attend cultural events with are individuals they can be totally honest with. They want to be sure that the friends in their network accept them as they are and respect their opinions. Simmel (1909) argues that a social form can no more attain existence detached from all content, than a spatial form can exist without a material of which it is the form. These are rather the actually inseparable elements of every social being and occurrence – an interest, purpose, motive, and a form or manner of the reciprocity between the individuals through which, or in the shape of which, that content attains social reality (1909:297). Nora (Berggren 2012) tells of a book club she is in, with two other women, that alternates between the women´s homes. “We are three, and it feels good, we've talked about bringing in more people, but now we know each other so well, so we feel that it is enough.” The women got to know each other through their children. Nora sees the book club as a nice way to socialize, “and so we choose a book and talk about it, we choose the best books all the time.” One of the women's daughters said: “But mom, you're not talking so much about the books, really.” Nora means that the book club and the reading are important, and it is a nice way to socialize (Berggren 2012.35). If we regard this book club as a social form in the manner Simmel proposed we may argue that, as a book club the activity might be on the verge of collapsing, but there is still a content in the activity that make the participating women call it a book club.
The security in relation to the other participants in the network of cultural consumption is a way to socialize. It is not necessary to analyze the deep cultural experience, the participants have done something together, but they require that every individual has the right to take on the experience in their own way. The women in this study have occasionally during conversations stated that they recognize other women that are interested in culture consumption by the way they dress and behave. However, they argue that they have done it without adding values in how they recognize them.
The women in the study express that the reason for taking part in joint activities like going to an art gallery or going to the movies with a couple of friends is to experience something forthe moment, but also aiming towards experiences that may alter their view on themselves or on life (Berggren 2012:41). That means that the women besides the demands on the members of their networks also have the immediate intention of experience something for the moment and even are eager that their experiences in the consumption of culture will give them more lasting effects. You may express it as a wish to become wiser.
The women in the study (Berggren 2012) can be said to express an interest in the events and products of the cultural industry. Their motives for doing so seems to be that their consumption of culture rewards them with experiences for the moment and, if they are lucky, with experiences that are long lasting, with the capacity to influence their minds and their lives. In order to achieve this they interact with other women with similar interests and together with them they take part in, for example, screenings of movies, expositions at museums and music concerts. In addition they express a wish to discuss their experiences with the women they share the experiences with. We can with help of Simmel generalize the form to: women interested in consuming culture do it in a group, discussing their experiences in order to make their experiences long-lasting.
Whether this holds true, or not, may be less interesting than the possibility to use this generalization to think further into the interviews and other empirical data. In several of the studied women's networks there is a fixer, that is, someone who books tickets and check which women want to go (Berggren 2012:44). Tickets are preferably to dance sets, theatrical performances or concerts, more rarely cinema. Some of the women have the experience of the fixing in this manner. The reason they got into, or assumed, the role is that if they see to it that a certain number of visitors purchase tickets through them they get themselves a free ticket. It can also be about the oiling of the wheels when a woman has a unique contact at that theater or concert hall.
The fixers are an example of what Simmel (1909) calls web of group affiliations when many social circles intersect though particular individuals (1909:306). The fixers ticket sales works best for those who are intimately acquainted with the fixer, then it is not difficult to get together outside of the current premises for the exchange of money and tickets. Worse, there seems to work when fixers networks are becoming increasingly impersonal. That is to say that an individual does not really know some of the others in the network when the network actually consists of a list of email addresses. “Then you can be asked to take the ticket to Vanja and meet her outside the premises. But ... who is Vanja?” Such impersonal networks apparently tend to die out (Berggren 2012:44). We have an example of Simmel´s web of group affiliations since the fixers often belong to a network of women that only has one member in the current network. Hence the akward situation in locating this unknown Vanja.
Summary: Simmel
What did Simmel´s concepts of social forms and sociability contribute to my understanding of the women in my study? I came to regard the women´s activities in their networks as inseparable from the content in their activities. If they change content i.e. start building a house together the networks would not be the same because of the changed content. Even if the way they do it, women doing things together with other women, is not unique it will together with its content be very unique. I have looked upon the women in my study as human beings interested in consuming the events and products of the cultural industry. They not very different than other people dong other things in a group setting. I see Simmel´s point in regarding the women´s activities as inseparable from the content they embrace. Simmel´s notion of sociability as a lighthearted free play that forces us to let go of motives and life-goals to be able to connect with others makes me think of mingling at parties rigged by business acquaintances. They are more endurable when peopele do not try to sell so hard and do not force their business cards at you.
5. Final comments
Taking a part of a material you have been working on for a couple of months and make a new effort, with other theories, on it was an interesting experience. At least it is fair to say that I got to an even deeper understanding of what I found writing my first text (Berggren 2012). All three writers that I have tried to use to interpret the material is to different extent trying to explain human interaction and following that, the interaction of humans in group setting, which leads to attempts at understanding human action in society. We should get a clearer picture of what goes on in society using their thinking. In that respect they disclose similar traits in their thinking, or at least traits that are overlapping.
The era when Durkheim, Weber and Simmel were active must have been exciting. They were contemporary; Durkheim (1858-1917), Weber (1864-1920) and Simmel (1858-1918). Europe was undergoing a industrial change that was taking its toll on the workers employed in the emerging industries. With it came social unrest among the industrial workers that were moving into the cities. All the changes taking part in society clearly called for more knowledge on how society worked. These classic sociologist tried to create new methodological tools to apply on the new empiri that was unfolding around them. The emerging, much more complex society was not so easily explained by the current methodological tools of economy and psychology.
We must regard Durkheim, Weber and Simmel as products of their time, but I gather that they are worth returning to, if only to see what roots today´s methodology has. Every professional will try to improve on the methodology they use, regardless in what era they live. Nevertheless, it is still possible to conduct research using Durkheim´s, Weber´s or Simmel´s theories. You may still use “old” methodology to gain fresh insights. It might not be regarded as top notch sociology, we always tend to think that the latest is the best. You may argue that all the “turns” that have appeared during the last part of the 20th century would have changed everything in that respect. I am thinking of the linguistic turn, the visual turn and the material turn. The clever scientist will use whatever methodological tolls he thinks will work well with his empirical material.
Weber´s concept of social interaction with its emphasis on meaning is not a bad tool when analyzing what individuals and groups are doing. Maybe I like it a lot because my training in ethnology has me almost always asking the questions: what meaning has this and, even broader: why do they do what they do?
I was really taken by Weber´s “The Protestant Ethic and The Spirit of Capitalism” when I studied sociology in the late 1960ies, mostly because Weber argued that Lutherans and Calvinist helped create capitalism through their work ethics. Gerth & Mills (Weber 1946) comment on Weber not taking into consideration that, even if an action is regarded as meaningful, it may lead to unforeseen consequences (Weber 1946:58). When you think about it it is the presentism of us living today that guides us into looking upon the past as some kind of evolution, leading up to the present. People living in Sweden in the middle of the 1900th century did not really plan it all so that I, at 65 years of age, could be studying at the university just because I think it is fun. They were happy to create a rudimentary elementary school trying to learn the Swedes how to read and write in order to get more competent workers in the emerging industries. 150 years later my being at the university really is to be regarded as an unforeseen consequence.
It must have been revolutionizing of Durkheim to take the stand of regarding social facts as things. Even the idea of social currents – something invisible that has an impact on individuals must have been almost odd at the time coming from a scholar outside of psychology. In some way this connects with ideas of materiality put forward by for example Bruno Latour and Karen Barad. What materiality is about is that things have an impact on us. A church, a car or a beautiful book has influence on humans, according to these writers. I was amazed at how much of Durkheim´s thinking I recognized from my studies 40 years ago. That might not be only my doing, Durkheim have had a great impact on the thinking in sociology and the field I have studied most, ethnology. So, I reckon that Durkheim´s thinking is very much alive even today.
Durkheim criticizes Spencer, Comte and Mill. He is really saying that they do not know what to study in society. As he is saying that we understand that Durkheim assumes that he knows what to study.
I liked the concepts of social facts, social currents and the notion to regard social facts as things. Simmel was a nice new acquaintance. I guess I have only seen quotations of his work in my younger days. Simmel´s view on the differences between art and play are ideas to carry on thinking on. Simmel argues that a social form can no more attain existence detached from its content. Simmel´s notion of sociability as a lighthearted free play that forces us to let go of motives and life-goals to be able to connect with others makes me think of mingling at parties rigged by business acquaintances. They are more endurable when peopele do not try to sell so hard and do not force their business cards at you.
--------
References
Barad, Karen. 2003. Posthumanist Performativity: Toward an Understanding of How Matter Comes
to Matter, In: Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, vol. 28, no. 3.
Berggren, Uffe. 2012. Kulturtanter – en studie i kvinnlig kulturkonsumtion. (Cultured Ladies: A
Study in Female Consumption of Culture). Master´s thesis, Stockholm University.
Durkheim, Emile. 1938. The Rules of Sociological Method. The Free Press.
Goffman, Erving. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday Anchor
Books.
Latour, Bruno. 2005. Reassembling the Social. An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. New York:
Oxford University Press Inc.
Scott Sørensen, Anne, 1991. Könskulturer och könets kultur. In: Ganetz, Hillevi & Lövgren, Karin
(red.). Om unga kvinnor: identitet, kultur och livsvillkor. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Simmel, Georg. 1909. The problem of Sociology. In: American Journal of Sociology, Vol. XV, No. 3
(Nov., 1949), pp. 289-320
Simmel, Georg. 1949. The Sociology of Sociability. In: American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 55, No. 3
(Nov., 1949), pp. 254-261
Simmel, Georg (ed. Donald Levine).1971. The Stranger. In: On Individuality and Social Forms.
University of Chicago Press.
Weber,
Max (eds. Hans Gerth and C. Wright Mills). 1946. From
Max Weber.
New York:
Oxford
University Press.
Weber,
Max. 1978. Economy
and Society. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London:
University of California Press.
Others sources
Swedberg, Richard in seminar on Simmel, 2012-06-12
