GEMEINSCHAFT AND GESELLSCHAFT
Sociologyindex, Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft Abstracts, Sociology Books 2009
Theory of Community (Gemeinschaft), Theory of modern society (Gesellschaft)
GEMEINSCHAFT
Gemeinschaft is a form of social integration based on personal ties; more a community than an association as in Gesellschaft.
Gemeinschaft is a German word, translated as ‘community’, used by sociologist Ferdinand Tonnies (1855-1936) to define an ‘ideal type’, or model, society where social bonds are personal and direct and there are strong shared values and beliefs.
Characteristic of small scale, localized societies, it is in contrast to Gesellschaft which refers to complex, impersonal societies.
American sociologist Talcott Parsons (1902-1979) amplified the contrasts of Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft with his ‘pattern variable’ value alternatives.
GESELLSCHAFT
Gesellschaft is a form of social integration based on impersonal ties; more an association than a community as in Gemeinschaft.
A German word, translated as ‘society-association’, used by Ferdinand Tonnies (1855-1936) to refer to an ‘ideal type’, or model, of a society where social bonds are primarily impersonal, instrumental and narrow.
Characteristic of large scale, complex societies, with a strict division between private and public spheres of life, it contrasts to the community-oriented life of the Gemeinschaft.
American sociologist Talcott Parsons (1902-1979) amplified the contrast of Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft with his ‘pattern variable’ value alternatives.
|
Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft Abstracts
Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft: Testing the Spatial and
Communal Hypotheses
JAMES A. CHRISTENSON, University of Kentucky
Abstract: Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft often have been and still are equated with the
rural-urban continuum and are employed to describe the "way of life" or the
"moral basis" for rural/urban living. By employing common American values that
seem to represent Gemeinschaftliche or Gesellschaftliche attributes, this article (1)
explicates the value basis for the two concepts and (2) tests for the spatial
(rural-urban) hypothesis and the communal (collectivistic-individualistic)
hypothesis.
In 1887 Toennies introduced the terms Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft, which have
"proved to be one of the discipline's most enduring and fruitful concepts for
studying social change" ( Bender, 17). Gemeinschaft describes binding, primary
interactional relationships based on sentiment; while Gesellschaft describes an
interactional system characterized by self-interest, competition, and negotiated
accommodation. Much of rural and urban sociological theory has looked to these concepts as
"ideal types."
Fischer (a) observes that, even in advanced industrial societies like the United States,
different ways of life are ascribed to people in urban and rural areas.
While Toennies' concepts continue to be used to describe different ways of living, little
empirical research has been generated to document this relationship. Kasarda and Janowitz
point out that Toennies' concepts encompass general philosophical ideas and value
conditions that describe more of a "reasoned moral position" than a plan
"for empirical research" (329). - questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=80942205
Finding face between Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft
Marina Terkourafi, University of Illinois
The terms Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft were introduced into sociology by Ferdinand
Tönnies to describe two different types of social organization. A Gemeinschaft (often
‘community’ in English) is characterized by a network of personal relationships,
common values and ideals, and a strong sense of group belonging. Because in a Gemeinschaft
individual existence is possible only within and via the group, self-regulation prevails
and there is little need for external arbitration. By contrast, in a Gesellschaft (often
‘society’ in English), relationships are contracted on the basis of rationality
and a high degree of role differentiation, and rights and obligations are contractual.
Rather than to scrutiny by a group of people, individuals are now subordinated to abstract
authorities and impersonal institutions, whence regulation also proceeds. Tönnies
explicitly associated these two types of social organization with rural and urban
lifestyles, considering the former to have historically preceded the latter (2001 [1887]:
19). Furthermore, he thought of the two as normal types, i.e. theoretical constructs that
cannot be instantiated in pure form but only blended to various degrees in real life. The
usefulness of these theoretical notions for linguistic analysis has been demonstrated in
previous research (e.g., George 1990). In this chapter, I wish to explore the relationship
between Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft and face as this is instantiated in contemporary
Greek society. More specifically, I will be focussing on the role that face—at the
micro-level—can play in implementing changes in the balance between these two types
of social organization—at the macro-level.
The Work of Rural Professionals: Doing the
Gemeinschaft-Gesellschaft Gavotte - Mellow Muriel
Abstract: This paper considers how rurality affects the work of professionals.
Sociologists have paid little attention to possible rural-urban differences in work styles
and no study exists which compares the rural experience of those in different professions.
I review the literature describing the work of various rural professionals and examine
interview data from rural clergy to see whether rural professionals differentiate their
work from that of their urban peers. The comparison across occupations reveals several
common concerns, including the need to do similar work with fewer resources, the necessity
of adapting protocols and codes of conduct to rural settings, and the challenge of dealing
with dual relationships. I argue that conventional standards of professional behavior
reflect an urban bias and that rural life problematizes the notion of professionalism.
Those who work in rural places are caught trying to dance between the "tunes" of
gemeinschaft and gesellschaft society. - ingentaconnect.com
'Gemeinschaft' skills versus 'gesellschaft' skills in
social work education and practice. Applying Tönnies' dichotomy for a model of
intercultural communication
Author: KORNBECK Jacob ; Social work education ISSN 0261-5479
Abstract: F. Tönnies's Gemeinschaft'/Gesellschaft' dichotomy is discussed as an
analytical and explanatory framework for identifying individual social work education
modules' relevance to immigrant- and migration-related problems in social work practice.
It is claimed that 'Gemeinschaft' (community) skills are especially needed in these
practice contexts, as opposed to the more scientific, legal or administrative
Gesellschaft'(state, society) skills. Two empirical studies from Germany dealing with the
necessary competencies for social workers advising immigrants are drawn upon. A variety of
other case study material is included to make the point that social workers need
Gemeinschaft' skills more than has traditionally been assumed.
Community
and Society: (GEMEINSCHAFT AND GESELLSCHAFT)
His distinction between social groupings is based on the assumption that there are only two basic forms of an actor's will, to approve of other men. (For Tönnies, such an approval is by no means self-evident, he is quite influenced by Thomas Hobbes' homo homini lupus.) Following his essential will (Wesenwille), an actor will see himself as a means to serve the goals of social grouping; very often it is an underlying, subconscious force. Groupings formed around an essential will are called a Gemeinschaft. The other will is the arbitrary will (Kürwille): An actor sees a social grouping as a means to further his individual goals; so it is purposive and future-oriented. Groupings around the latter are called Gesellschaft. Whereas the membership in a Gemeinschaft is self-fulfilling, a Gesellschaft is instrumental for its members.
Theory of Community (Gemeinschaft) -
a. nature of authority: fatherhood or paternity; authority of
age, authority of force, and authority of wisdom/spirit
b. key social groups/relations: kinship, neighborhood, friendship, ‘relations of kin
and individuals’
c. real foundation of unity and possibility: blood relationships, physical proximity,
intellectual proximity (‘great main laws’)
d. common state of mind (custom and belief) and VOLK: mutual possession and enjoyment
(collective ownership and communal consumption),’common goods - common evils; common
friends—common enemies’
Theory of modern society (Gesellschaft)
a. ens fictivum (artificial being): an artificial construction
of the aggregate of human beings, isolation/separation, common values and fictions
b. exchange, contract, money=power, bourgeois society, speculative Utopia, zero-sum game,
competition and coalition
c. the form of the general will: convention or tradition? System of conventional rules,
dependence on relations with state vs. church
d. Gesellschaft as the final culmination of developed Gemeinschaft: general trade economy,
industry, the world market, capitalists vs. noncapitalists, hierarchy of control.
"Out of the Gemeinschaft: A Urban Community
Transitions" - Graves, Erin. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Sociological Association, TBA, New York, New York City
Abstract:
Toennies ([1887]1957) distinction between Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft, roughly
translated as ?community? and ?society? respectively, has intrigued urbanists for nearly a
century. Urban sociologists have found Gemeinschaft-like settlements in urban communities
(Whyte, 1945, Gans, 1962, Wellman, 1979). Sociologists have assigned a variety of
characterizations to these forms of social relations. Gemeinschaft, typified by a
distinctive way of life, strong identification with the community, emotionalism and
traditionalism, contrasts with Gesellschaft relations which are rational, individualistic
and emotionally disengaged (Lyon, 1999).
Yet a curious and unsatisfying theoretical gap lies between how a community transforms a
Gemeinschaft community into a Gesellschaft association (Parsons, 1947). Interviews with
residents of a redeveloped public housing development suggest how such a transformation
occurs.
This paper demonstrates how the community Maverick Gardens typified the Gemeinschaft ideal
and how it transformed into the current Maverick Landing which approaches the Gesellschaft
type. Moreover, I will point out that the mechanism governing the transition. I argue this
mechanism was non ecological: it was neither gradual nor involved a significant shift in
the population. Through participant observation and interviews the mechanics of transition
become clear: it is organized, instituted by a formal authority.
From Gemeinschaft to Gesellschaft: A Case Study of
Student Transition from Elementary School to High School.
Ahola-Sidaway, Janice A.
Abstract: This paper examines the key differences between elementary school culture and
high school culture as experienced by a group of Quebec youngsters making the transition
from elementary school to high school. It presents a selective summary of a major research
study that focused on the fundamental differences between elementary school student life
and high school student life as experienced by a group of students in transition, and how
these students adapted to these differences. Two theoretical perspectives provided the
basis for the analysis: symbolic interaction theory and Ferdinand Tonnies' distinction
between "Gemeinschaft" (Community) and "Gesellschaft" (Association).
Participant observation was used to record structural and interactional data related to
student life at and around the time when the children at St. Francis Elementary School
were reaching the end of the elementary school experience and entering high school. Two
sets of questionnaires provided supplementary data. A descriptive account follows, first
of the general characteristics of St. Francis Elementary School and of Royalton High, and
then of the fundamental differences between elementary school life and high school life as
viewed by students in transition. The paper concludes with general reflections on the
findings of the study with respect to the issue of school size, the differing
socialization environments of elementary and high school, attitudes toward work, student
relationships, and staff-student relationships. This is followed by a brief survey of
future considerations for researchers and issues for policymakers, educators, and parents.
- Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association
(New Orleans, LA, April 5-9, 1988).
Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft: Testing the Spatial and
Communal Hypotheses
JAMES A. CHRISTENSON, University of Kentucky
Abstract:
Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft often have been and still are equated with the rural-urban
continuum and are employed to describe the "way of life" or the "moral
basis" for rural/urban living. By employing common American values that seem to
represent Gemeinschaftliche or Gesellschaftliche attributes, this article (1) explicates
the value basis for the two concepts and (2) tests for the spatial (rural-urban)
hypothesis and the communal (collectivistic-individualistic) hypothesis.
In 1887 Toennies introduced the terms Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft, which have
"proved to be one of the discipline's most enduring and fruitful concepts for
studying social change" ( Bender, 17). Gemeinschaft describes binding, primary
interactional relationships based on sentiment; while Gesellschaft describes an
interactional system characterized by self-interest, competition, and negotiated
accommodation. Much of rural and urban sociological theory has looked to these concepts as
"ideal types."
Fischer (a) observes that, even in advanced industrial societies like the United States,
different ways of life are ascribed to people in urban and rural areas.
While Toennies' concepts continue to be used to describe different ways of living, little
empirical research has been generated to document this relationship. Kasarda and Janowitz
point out that Toennies' concepts encompass general philosophical ideas and value
conditions that describe more of a "reasoned moral position" than a plan
"for empirical research".
"Between 'American Gesellschaft' and 'Québécois
Gemeinschaft': Constructing the Boundaries of the Canadian Multicultural Nation".
- Winter, Elke. - Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological
Association, Montreal Convention Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Abstract:
The recent years have witnessed serious backlashes against multicultural policies
throughout the Western world. In Canada, by contrast, multiculturalism has not only
survived an international climate characterized by financial recession, fear of terrorism,
and security concerns. It even evolved into social imaginary that deeply impacts
Canada’s self-understanding as a nation. In this paper, I examine how the idea of
Canada as a multicultural nation is (re)produced through the construction of boundaries
with “American Gesellschaft (Society)” on the one hand and “Québécois
Gemeinschaft (Community)” on the other. With the negative elements of these two
social formations projected to the outside of Canadianness, multicultural nationhood is
represented as the incarnation of a “just balance” between individual freedom
and communal solidarity. In sum, Canadian multicultural nation-building is an example of
how some great divides are created with the aim to bridge others.
"In his first book, Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft (originally published in 1887), Tönnies presented his most famous and enduring contribution to social thought. The work is arguably the first systematic sociological account to sketch an evolution from ancient to modern society. Suggesting a transformation from Gemeinschaft to Gesellschaft, Tönnies argues that societies of the earlier form are organized around family, village, and town. The economy is largely agricultural and political life is local. Gesellschaft societies, on the other hand, are organized at the larger levels of metropolis and nation-state, while the economic system is based on trade and modern industry. Extending his sociological perspective to include a social psychology, Tönnies conceived of social formations as expressions of the human will. He argued human volition to be either of the type of essential-will (Wesenwille), dominant in Gemeinschaft, or arbitrary-will (Kürwille), which characterizes Gesellschaft. Essential-will is defined as the human will which readily springs forth from a person’s temper and character. The development of essential-will into arbitrary-will allows actors to choose among various means to fulfill certain ends. The crucial characteristic of arbitrary-will is the capacity to distinguish means from ends and to choose the most efficient means for any given end." - Mathieu Deflem, mathieudeflem.net.
Gemeinschaft
in Gesellschaft
The Urban Experience: Gemeinschaft to Gesellschaft
- Urban Affairs Review - uar.sagepub.com/cgi/pdf_extract/2/4/93
Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft: A sociological view of the decay of modern society.
- home.alphalink.com.au/~radnat/debenoist/alain6.html
From Marcello Truzzi, Sociology: The Classic Statements.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1971.
Types of Real Community Life
The exterior forms of community life as represented by natural will and Gemeinschaft were
distinguished as house, village, and town. These are the lasting types of real and
historical life. In a developed Gesellschaft, as in the earlier and middle stages, people
live together in these different ways. The town is the highest, viz., the most complex,
form of social life. Its local character, in common with that of the village, contrasts
with the family character of the house. Both village and town retain many characteristics
of the family; the village retains more, the town less. Only when the town develops into
the city are these characteristics almost entirely lost. Individuals or families are
separate identities, and their common locale is only an accidental or deliberately chosen
place in which to live. But as the town lives on within the city, elements of life in the
Gemeinschaft, as the only real form of life, persist within the Gesellschaft, although
lingering and decaying. On the other hand, the more general the condition of Gesellschaft
becomes in the nation or a group of nations, the more this entire "country" or
the entire "world" begins to resemble one large city. However, in the city and
therefore where general conditions characteristic of the Gesellschaft prevail, only the
upper strata, the rich and the cultured, are really active and alive. They set up the
standards to which the lower strata have to conform. These lower classes conform partly to
supersede the others, partly in imitation of them in order to attain for themselves social
power and independence. The city consists, for both groups (just as in the case of the
"nation" and the "world"), of free persons who stand in contact with
each other, exchange with each other and cooperate without any Gemeinschaft or will
thereto developing among them except as such might develop sporadically or as a leftover
from former conditions. On the contrary, these numerous external contacts, contracts, and
contractual relations only cover up as many inner hostilities and antagonistic interests.
This is especially true of the antagonism between the rich or the so-called cultured class
and the poor or the servant class, which try to obstruct and destroy each other. It is
this contrast which, according to Plato, gives the "city" its dual character and
makes it divide in itself. This itself, according to our concept, constitutes the city,
but the same contrast is also manifest in every large-scale relationship between capital
and labor. The common town life remains within the Gemeinschaft of family and rural life;
it is devoted to some agricultural pursuits but concerns itself especially with art and
handicraft which evolve from these natural needs and habits. City life, however, is
sharply distinguished from that; these basis activities are used only as means and tools
for the special purposes of the city.
The city is typical of Gesellschaft in general. It is essentially a commercial town and,
in so far as commerce dominates its productive labor, a factory town. Its wealth is
capital wealth which, in the form of trade, usury, or industrial capital, is used and
multiplies. Capital is the means for the appropriation of products of labor or for the
exploitation of workers. The city is also the center of science and culture, which always
go hand in hand with commerce and industry. Here the arts must make a living; they are
exploited in a capitalistic way. Thoughts spread and change with astonishing rapidity.
Speeches and books through mass distribution become stimuli of far-reaching importance.
The city is to be distinguished from the national capital, which, as residence of the
court or center of government, manifests the features of the city in many respects
although its population and other conditions have not yet reached that level. In the
synthesis of city and capital, the highest form of this kind is achieved: the metropolis.
It is the essence not only of a national Gesellschaft, but contains representatives from a
whole group of nations, i.e., of the world. In the metropolis, money and capital are
unlimited and almighty. It is able to produce and supply goods and science for the entire
earth as well as laws and public opinion for all nations. It represents the world market
and world traffic; in it world industries are concentrated. Its newspapers are world
papers, its people come from all corners of the earth, being curious and hungry for money
and pleasure.
Counterpart of Gemeinschaft
Family life is the general basis of life in the Gemeinschaft. It subsists in village and
town life. The village community and the town themselves can be considered as large
families, the various clans and houses representing the elementary organisms of its body;
guilds, corporations, and offices, the tissues and organs of the town. Here original
kinship and inherited status remain an essential, or at least the most important,
condition of participating fully in common property and other rights. Strangers may be
accepted and protected as serving-members or guests either temporarily or permanently.
Thus, they can belong to the Gemeinschaft as objects, but not easily as agents and
representatives of the Gemeinschaft. Children are, during minority, dependent members of
the family, but according to Roman custom they are called free because it is anticipated
that under possible and normal conditions they will certainly be masters, their own heirs.
This is true neither of guests nor of servants, either in the house or in the community.
But honored guests can approach the position of children. If they are adopted or civic
rights are granted to them, they fully acquire this position with the right to inherit.
Servants can be esteemed or treated as guests or even, because of the value of their
functions, take part as members in the activities of the group. It also happens sometimes
that they become natural or appointed heirs. In reality there are many gradations, lower
or higher, which are not exactly met by legal formulas. All these relationships can, under
special circumstances, be transformed into merely interested and dissolvable interchange
between independent contracting parties. In the city such change, at least with regard to
all relations of servitude, is only natural and becomes more and more widespread with its
development. The difference between natives and strangers becomes irrelevant. Everyone is
what he is, through his personal freedom, through his wealth and his contracts. He is a
servant only in so far as he has granted certain services to someone else, master in so
far as he receives such services. Wealth is, indeed, the only effective and original
differentiating characteristic; whereas in Gemeinschaften property it is considered as
participation in the common ownership and as a specific legal concept is entirely the
consequence and result of freedom or ingenuity, either original or acquired. Therefore,
wealth, to the extent that this is possible, corresponds to the degree of freedom
possessed.
In the city as well as in the capital, and especially in the metropolis family life is
decaying. The more and the longer their influence prevails the more the residuals of
family life acquire a purely accidental character. For there are only few who will confine
their energies within such a narrow circle; all are attracted outside by business,
interests, and pleasures, and thus separated from one another. The great and mighty,
feeling free and independent, have always felt a strong inclination to break through the
barriers of the folkways and mores. They know that they can do as they please. They have
the power to bring about changes in their favor, and this is positive proof of individual
arbitrary power. The mechanism of money, under usual conditions and if working under high
pressure, is means to overcome all resistance, to obtain everything wanted and desired, to
eliminate all dangers and to cure all evil. This does not hold always. Even if all
controls of the Gemeinschaft are eliminated, there are nevertheless controls in the
Gesellschaft to which the free and independent individuals are subject. For Gesellschaft
(in the narrower sense), convention takes to a large degree the place of the folkways,
mores, and religion. It forbids much as detrimental to the common interest which the
folkways, mores, and religion had condemned as evil in and of itself.
The will of the state plays the same role through law courts and police, although within
narrower limits. The laws of the state apply equally to everyone; only children and
lunatics are not held responsible to them. Convention maintains at least the appearance of
morality; it is still related to the folkways, mores, and religious and aesthetic feeling,
although this feeling tends to become arbitrary and formal. The state is hardly directly
concerned with morality. It has only to suppress and punish hostile actions which are
detrimental to the common weal or seemingly dangerous for itself and society. For as the
state has to administer the common weal, it must be able to define this as it pleases. In
the end it will probably realize that no increase in knowledge and culture alone will make
people kinder, less egotistic, and more content and that dead folkways, mores, and
religions cannot be revived by coercion and teaching. The state will then arrive at the
conclusion that in order to create moral forces and moral beings it must prepare the
ground and fulfill the necessary conditions, or at least it must eliminate counteracting
forces. The state, as the reason of Gesellschaft, should decide to destroy Gesellschaft or
at least to reform or renew it. The success of such attempts is highly improbable.
The Real State
Public opinion, which brings the morality of Gesellschaft into rules and formulas and can
rise above the state, has nevertheless decided tendencies to urge the state to use its
irresistible power to force everyone to do what is useful and to leave undone what is
damaging. Extension of the penal code and the police power seems the right means to curb
the evil impulses of the masses. Public opinion passes easily from the demand for freedom
(for the upper classes) to that of despotism (against the lower classes). The makeshift,
convention, has but little influence over the masses. In their striving for pleasure and
entertainment they are limited only by the scarcity of the means which the capitalists
furnish them as price for their labor, which condition is as general as it is natural in a
world where the interests of the capitalists and merchants anticipated all possible needs
and in mutual competition incite to the most varied expenditures of money. Only through
fear of discovery and punishments that is, through fear of the state, is a special and
large group, which encompasses far more people than the professional criminals, restrained
in its desire to obtain the key to all necessary and unnecessary pleasures. The state is
their enemy. The state, to them, is an alien and unfriendly power; although seemingly
authorized by them and embodying their own will, it is nevertheless opposed to all their
needs and desires, protecting property which they do not possess, forcing them into
military service for a country which offers them hearth and altar only in the form of a
heated room on the upper floor or gives them, for native soil, city streets where they may
stare at the glitter and luxury in lighted windows forever beyond their reach! Their own
life is nothing but a constant alternative between work and leisure, which are both
distorted into factory routine and the low pleasure of the saloons. City life and
Gesellschaft down the common people to decay and death; in vain they struggle to attain
power through their own multitude, and it seems to them that they can use their power only
for a revolution if they want to free themselves from their fate. The masses become
conscious of this social position through the education in schools and through newspapers.
They proceed from class consciousness to class struggle. This class struggle may destroy
society and the state which is its purpose to reform. The entire culture has been
transformed into a civilization of state and Gesellschaft, and this transformation means
the doom of culture itself if none of its scattered seeds remain alive and again bring
forth the essence and idea of Gemeinschaft, thus secretly fostering a new culture amidst
the decaying one.