In my last post, I discussed the symbolic interactionist and functionalist perspectives on the flag issue, this week I will continue with Simmel’s perspective.
Biểu tình chống Trung Quốc tại Landkreis Harburg, Germany hôm 18/1
Simmel was a German sociologist who is best known for his writings about culture and modern life. He was especially interested in the micro level of social interactions, that is to say, he gives weight to the relationship between the individual and the group/society. The picture above shows there is a group comprising of individuals carrying different flags, underlying some relationship or we can say, they are involved in a social interaction. The fact that this is one such rare occasion where the two flags flying together suggests the absence of the forces that inhibit this phenomenon from taking place more often. Just imagine a little child carrying a yellow flag on the street in Hanoi, or waving a red flag in Westminster, CA and what surely would happen next will put us face to face with such forces. The problem here is one of conflict, and it could be understood in terms of how the meanings of the flag is discussed, i,e, the binary opposites of unity/discord, harmony/conflict, love/hate, etc.. Simmel’s work is relevant to our understanding of the problem because he often focuses on the issue of conflict and the various functions that it serves.
The word “function” here does not imply that Simmel was a functionalist in the same sense that Emile Durkheim was. Durkheim’s functionalist approach, in fact often focuses on the effort to “avoid” conflict, since he believes it to be negative and destructive to the fabric of society. On the contrary Simmel rejects the idea that society is “held together” by harmony, consensus, and so-called “shared” values. This may be true at times, but for Simmel, interaction (or “sociation” as he called it) is characterized by both harmony and conflict, attraction and repulsion, love and hate. The hallmark of human relations is thus a profound ambivalence, on both the individual and social levels. The need to work through such ambivalence is necessary to achieve what Simmel referred to as “sociability”, the sense of pleasure and joy that comes from interacting with one another.
This attitude distinguishes Simmel quite sharply from functionalists who tend to see conflict as destructive, but as Simmel points out, an entirely harmonious group could never exist in reality. For one thing, it would never change, and would therefore never exhibit any kind of life process. Imagine for example, if you never argue or even disagree with anyone close to you. This might sound like an agreeable situation, but according to Simmel, we would soon be overcome by a sense of boredom and futility. If everything is always in equilibrium, there is no motivation to try anything new, to question, or to critique. Every generation would then remain identical to the one before it.
Any kind of relationship is better than none at all
Reality and appearance are not always the same – a relationship which appears on the surface to be wholly negative, could actually be shown to have latent or hidden positive functions and vice versa. In fact, for Simmel, any kind of relationship is better than none at all – even the conflict-ridden ones. They “sew together” the thread of the social fabric in their own particular way. The only thing which would be completely negative is total withdraw from a relationship. Even if it seems too painful to continue, it is important to try because conflict might serve as a “safety-valve” for negative thoughts and feelings, which participants may not be able to express in any other way. In addition, conflict may ultimately serve to strengthen the positions or confidence of one or both parties.
To better illustrate this point, let us recall last week’s men’s semifinal hockey game between Canada and the U.S at the Winter Olympics in Sochi. Canada won this game 1-0, and later went on to win the gold medal. What would Simmel say about this? He would argue that conflict with an outside group tends to cement bonds within the group. If your group is on the winning side of the equation, then both collective and individual self-esteem would be enhanced. Thus we would expect the Canadians to take pleasure in their victory, but what was unexpected was the way players on both teams embraced and congratulated each other when the game ended. They did this with real conviction and sincerity. Some of this might be explained by the fact that many of the players were teammates in the National Hockey League, but it seems to me that this game not only solidified social bonds between the Canadians, but between Canadians and Americans as well. This example reminds us that we can never truly distinguish an entity in conflict from one in a state of harmony. They are not distinct realities – as if we can or must choose between one or the other – they are simply different aspects of the same reality.
Sociation
We can see the reflection of this dynamic in the flag issue. When the demonstrators display both flags, they are in a sense recognizing not only the existence of conflict, but also the generative nature of conflict in reality because what appears to be conflictual may also be a unifying force. The decision to choose one flag over the other might not be all that straightforward, and can be a difficult one to make stemming from group membership and its inherent constraints. Social life is not always in a state of equilibrium, as are the social actors who constitute it. It is therefore important to recognize this impermanent nature of any phenomenon and to allow for change to take place. Whether one flies the red flag or the yellow flag, all the demonstrators are Vietnamese, and their insistence on displaying both flags concretizes this shared experience. Simmel calls this notion “sociation”. The meaning of the picture above is an excellent example of Simmel’s concept of “sociation” because it shows that members of two seemingly opposing sides are able to overcome the constraints and limitations impose on them by the group that they associate with so as to form a “higher unity”. This higher state of association allows group member to freely fly the red or yellow flag together, setting aside the differences and to interact independently as individuals. If anything, Simmel’s perspective demonstrates that in order to understand social life, it may be necessary to be counter-intuitive and delve a bit more deeply into the meaning of a phenomenon or an interaction; and that there is also the inner conflict that an individual may experience and needs to resolve in order to be in union with others in the group or society at large.
Next week, I will revisit the issue with perspectives drawn from the works of another giant, Max Weber.
A Sociological Perspective -- Góc Nhìn Xã Hội Học 