ABSTRACT
Simmel’s sociology of social forms could easily be interpreted as including an almost utopian dimension in claiming that an element or a possibility of aesthetic pleasure is connected to every social form of interaction. In discussing Simmel’s essay on the sociology of the meal, we referred to the fact that Simmel obviously thought that social formations could gradually become more and more independent from the process of ‘real life’ and the satisfaction of instincts and needs which originally they were meant to serve. At the same time, social formations become more complicated and differentiated, like the etiquette of eating, and the aesthetic dimension of social interaction increases. It would, however, obviously be wrong to interpret Simmel as thinking about the history of mankind as a kind of a process of civilization in terms of aestheticization. First, Simmel always thought that there was a danger with such an aestheticization or ‘stylization’: the etiquette is always in danger of becoming an empty formula, a schema, or a mere outer cage, which is far removed from the living forces of ‘real life’. As Davis (1973: 324) pointed out, much of Simmel’s analysis of different social phenomena consisted of his attempt to show that this theme of ‘separation from life’ runs through such diverse social forms (among many others) as ‘faithfulness’, ‘sociability’, and the ‘adventure’. In Simmel’s words, one should not look for the ‘original source of energy’ in social forms, but in the vitality of ‘real individuals’ (see Simmel 1949: 261).
