Georg Simmel and the Tragedy of Culture

Human beings are unique and distinct from all other living things on earth in that we are able to understand and manipulate our environment. We can also see in to the future and make assessments on the basis of actions and consequences. It is within these dynamics that Georg Simmel built his theory. He was interested in culture and the individual, and how they interact.

Simmel theorized that there are two phenomenon, objective culture and individual culture, which interact in ways that a sociologist can study. Objective culture is a term for all the social substance that exists outside the individual; these include art, science, literature, and fashion. These things exert influences upon us and shape our attitudes, beliefs, and behavior, and set the rules for inclusion in society. Individual culture is the term for a single person’s ability to create culture and to control and absorb various aspects of objective culture. This refers to an ability to be an individual, truly understand and effectively deal with the culture outside of each of us. Individual culture is what allows us to decide what we would prefer, choose what we consider correct, act on these choices, and shape our own future.

Objective culture and individual culture act upon each other and the increase without any growth in the other leads to a type of imbalance. Through humanity’s journey to advancement and progress, objective culture has experienced a rapid escalation while individual culture has barely increased. This has caused a situation in which those things outside of us have overshadowed any sense of individual decision and free choice. Simmel termed this dynamic the tragedy of culture; a situation in which objective culture has grown exponentially while individual culture has grown only a tiny amount or not at all. With the comparison overgrowth of objective culture we see an increase in outside pressure to conform to social leaders and influential people, if we wish to be included into society. Those unwilling or unable to mold themselves to the expectations of society would be considered outcasts and thus find it difficult to live within a society that is at odds with their individual choice.

In a situation in which objective culture overshadows the individual, people are less able to understand their surroundings and their choices become a product of the society they live in. Our preferences are shaped by our environment to the extent that what we like is not our real choice. When we choose, we regularly take into consideration how others would view our choices. When we declare that we are being an individual, we are simply mirroring the individualistic culture we live in. Many of those who rebel against the dominant culture give rise to smaller groups of people who share the same preferences, but allow for some individual choice. Individual culture is greater proportionally than in the large society; it is not as overridden by objective culture as compared to the large society. These sub-cultures start small as a group that is largely homogenic. However, many of these sub-cultures swell to large enough members that they begin to appear similar to the overarching culture. The largest sub-cultures demonstrate a swell in objective culture along with members who are increasingly varied from each other. These individuals begin to feel pressure to conform, and as a result may break off and form smaller spin-off cultures, and so on.

Georg Simmel’s theory on the tragedy of culture seems to fit with society and transferable to modern life. Now more than ever we live in a world that we do not understand and we are increasingly less able to control our environment. We routinely use products that we have little or no understanding of how it works. We routinely act in ways that we could not explain, except to say that is how we prefer to act. Our environment seems to control us. When we say that we like what we like and that we are unique in our preferences, we are simply reiterating what we were taught since childhood. The international traveler may know the power of objective culture when visiting other countries. There are many other cultures that do not value being an individual and teach that conforming is the best way to live. The Japanese culture stresses that groups are much more efficient than singles and that being a part of a team is much better than doing things by oneself. The attitudes of the Japanese people reflect this culture. These people may declare that they prefer to be part of a group, and that they choose this preference. However, it is difficult to see where the individual and objective culture meet, how they interact to form this opinion that is so individually formulated.

Georg Simmel appears to suggest that the fact that objective culture increases while individual culture does not is a negative situation. While this may or may not be entirely true, I believe further study would benefit from research of various cultures, though I assume there are such studies already done. How do some cultures’ model of conformity and group-think compare to others that stress individuality and “doing your own thing.” Are these individualistic cultures truly individual, or is this just conformity in disguise? If they are, then conformist cultures may only differ in that they are more honest in their teachings and social rules. Along the way we may wonder in which type of culture do people seem better able to adapt to a changing society and in what type of society are they more likely to be more content?