ABSTRACT
Despite the existence of a whole range of 'elective affinities' between aspects of the work of Georg Simmel and Max Weber - at the methodological, substantive and philosophical-historical levels - and despite the frequent personal contact between their two households after the turn of the century, there still exists no systematic examination of the relationship between the two figures either at the personal or intellectual level. 1 And, if we take a broader perspective at the personal level and include common acquaintances and students, then we are confronted with a remarkable 'intersection of social circles' around the two figures. Some of the materials for outlining the networks of personal contact are already to hand in memoirs, correspondence and substantive writings. To take some of the perhaps less obvious examples, it would be fruitful to examine the different and changing responses of Weber and Simmel to Stefan George and his circle. 2 Since both Weber and Simmel are often seen to be located within the neo-Kantian philosophical tradition of the Southwest German School, it is surely time to re-examine that relationship and question whether Simmel, for instance, despite his extensive correspondence with Heinrich Rickert, was not influenced by a much earlier neoKantian tradition. 3 In turn, the influence of Weber and Simmel upon their students could hardly overlook their respective response to the two maverick figures of Ernst Bloch and Georg Lukacs. 4
But, at the same time, an investigation of the interweaving of their social and academic networks could not ignore the very different nature of the two individuals and their responses to the options that lay open to them. Even though, in both instances, at various points in their lives, Weber and Simmel not merely wrote for a variety of audiences but also were faced with a range of seemingly contradictory options as far as their life-interests were concerned, they both contrived to resolve this diversity. In Weber's case, especially though by no means exclusively in his later years, the academy and the political sphere, including political journalism, were spheres into which he was drawn, producing a tension that can hardly be said to have been satisfactorily resolved. In Simmel's case, his full admission into the academy wm achieved, if at all, only with the greatest difficulty, while the political ortion - as society's stranger-was never compelling aside from his brief foray into some socialist circles in the early 1890s. 5 And, to complete the comparison, it was
Georg Simmel 423 seldom political journalism but rather an often aesthetic feuilletonism which either appealed to Simmel or into which he was drawn. In contrast to Weber, Simmel was seldom, if at all, drawn into the politically loaded methodological disputes that so preoccupied Weber. Indeed, Weber's political confidence with regard to the politics of the academy as well as society as a whole can perhaps be contrasted with Simmel's diffidence and even indifference. Thus, if there is little doubt that there existed a fascinating intersection of their social circles, the weight which Weber and Simmel placed upon each one was most often very different.
