I think Simmel's sociology is in contrast with Durkheimian sociology. For instance, Durkheim argues the existence of "social facts" which are solid existence independent from each individual. However, Simmel places emphasis on interactions of each individual. In Buddhism, there is no solid existence in the world. Therefore, Buddhism argues against Durkheimian idea of solid social facts. According to Buddhism, even "self" does not exist: Everything in the world is "emptiness." This concept is called "sunyata." You should read this article from wikipedia here . As this article says, "sunyata" is not perfectly equal to the Western concept of "emptiness." Rather, this is the perspective that everything in the world (even self) consists of interactions and/or simultaneous causality. Thus, according to Buddhism, society of Durkheimian perspective does not exist. Rather, Buddhism sees that society is the interactions of each individual. I think this perspective is parallel to Simmel's perspective.
One of the students writes in his or her Simmel's paper that "A room is only as dark as how much light is present or absent, and conversely, the room is only as bright as how little or a lot of darkness is available." I think this is the essence of sunyata - the simultaneous causality.
Some people may think that sunyata is Occult Eastern philosophy, so it is nothing to do with modern social sciences. But I know a Japanese sociologist who explains Weber's Protestant ethics and the spirit of capitalism from this Buddhism perspective. Moreover, the premise of Keynesian economics can be easily understood from sunyata's perspective. In Keynesian economics, the GDP is determined from the national consumption. But various economic data suggest that the national consumption is dependent on the GDP. So, this is more like the egg or chicken argument: Which comes first? But the reality is that GDP and national consumption act each other simultaneously and create the national economy. So, there is simultaneous interaction between the GDP and national consumption, and this is at the essence of sunyata.
Lastly, as I write above, Buddhism does not believe the existence of self. But Buddhism believes in reincarnation. It seems Buddhism is contradicting: If self does not exist, there should be no reincarnation. But actually, there is no contradiction. Self does not reincarnate because it does not exist. Then what does reincarnate? It may be interesting for you to think about it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Great post! Tomorrow we dissect it!
I heard a wise "guru" say recently that he does not believe in reincarnation because he does not believe that we really "incarnate" to begin with. In other words, if the interdependence between realities (chicken, egg) is the nature of "it" and if interdependence rather than independence is the name of the game, our separate individualities or "egos" are a dream-construction. We are all "really" part of ... sunyata (the whole). There is no divisibility.
It is insightful to compare and contrast Simmel and Durkheim this way. If we truly get inside of Durkheim, he says that we do not even exist without society, and in that sense he, too, is speaking of the interdependence of the "outer pressure" with our own integration into it - we come to life as humans because there is meaning, and meaning means "yes" "no" or "inside" "outside" or "sacred" "profane" or "our family" "your family" - we simply impose meanings, and then meanings are enforced. In a very subtle way, there is not this difference Robert sees between Durkheim and Simmel - and, yet, it remains true that Durkheim seems to "stand in it" in a different position and see the external force, whereas Simmel seems to "stand in in it" in a different place and see the construction of the sociation.
Post a Comment