Georg Simmel states that “the stranger” presents the synthesis, or combination, of being detached from every point in space and the attachment to any point, this is a reason as to why spatial interactions are important aspects of relationships among men and that they are considered to be symbolic of those relationships.
Simmel says that the stranger will not be spoken of as the usual meaning of the term, which is speaking of a “wanderer who comes today and is gone tomorrow, but rather the wanderer who comes today and stays tomorrow.” He means that the type of wanderer that will he will be discussing is the one that stays but can never really get over the way that he was able to come and go and he pleased. He is placed in a social circle but his relation to the people also in the circle are affected by the fact that he was not initially belong to the group but brings qualities to the group that are not natively in the group
When he talks about the stranger in human relationships Simmel says that the stranger is remote to people that are near and is close to those that are remote. He means that when it comes to the stranger the people that are remote don’t really seem to exist to us at all, “they are beyond being far and near.” These are the type of people that the stranger doesn’t think about at all.
All through history of economic activity the stranger makes himself a trader, which is only needed when goods are produced outside the group. Meaning a stranger is the only one in a group that communicates with other groups which makes the stranger himself relate to the ones that are farther away and not to the ones that are near. Trade can is only a suitable occupation for a stranger because the stranger is someone who joins a group where all the other economic positions are taken. The stranger is regarded with mobility with is comes to trade and to pure finance. Since he is regarded as mobile he come in contact with every person/position but rarely does he establish any type of bond with them.
Since a stranger has no roots to the place where he might settle he can look at the group objectivity unlike the others that live in the same group. Simmel believes that this can be related to aliens that are immigrating into a country. Objectivity can be seen with the stranger that moves on. It happens here because he then receives the most confidences of things that are kept hidden from everyone with who they are actually close to. Objectivity is seen as a positive type of participation and is seen as a type of freedom. It is seen this way because a man that is object is then not bound by his prejudices. He can look at every experience with clear eyes.
Since the objectivity that a stranger has he is more likely to have the more general qualities in common with the people that he does business with. They wouldn’t have to worry about trying to have more personal qualities in common with the stranger. Relationships are not determined only by the common interests but also the things they don’t have in common. The effect the commonality has on the relationship depends on whether it is because of the individuals in the relationship or because they both belong to the same group. The stranger is as close to the group as they fell because they belong to the same group but far from them because the similarities don’t extend beyond what connects them and a wide range of other people. A stranger is part of the group but at the same time people don’t become as close to him as they do to other members of the group because they don’t become as involved in the group as most people do in the group. Type rest of the post here
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
The Stranger was very interesting. I never thought hard about what it is to be a stranger. Simmel puts it in a way where "the stranger" is an element of social groups and society itself. Simmel says, "an element whose membership within the group involves both being outside it and confronting it." We need strangers to bring different opinions to the whole, and to possibly question the group's "qualities" if need be.
Simmel also states, "He is fixed within a certain spatial circle - or within a group whose boundaries are analogous to spatial boundaries." In this sense that person would be a stranger. It's almost as if we naturally know our "role" in society. If we, not necessarily go against our native group, but sort of become part of another one, we will be strange. This is because you haven't been within the group natively, and so you bring somewhat different "qualities" to the group. This to me, is a good thing because it makes it a more well-rounded social group. America wouldn't be America if we were all the same. Here, we bask in the thought of everyone's an individual and you are your own person, do what you please.
This is why we're the "melting pot." We all bring our own, personal qualities to the social whole.
Since the trader is someone who goes out of his group to other groups to gain necessities and material items, it's obvious that it's "...the most suitable activity for the stranger." As I mentioned earlier strangers are strange because they don't stay in their native groups. This is why trade is the perfect economic solution for the stranger. The stranger already feels compelled to join other groups.
In doing this, the stranger gets a sense of mobility. I disagree with you about the mobility. Simmel is saying that the formal position of the stranger is mobility within a bounded group. "The purely mobile person comes incidentally into contact with every single element..." Key word is incidentally. We've already established that the stranger goes to other groups on purpose, not incidentally. The stranger wants to form bonds with other groups, that is why he's strange. The purely mobile person accidently comes across these bonds. The way I'm taking it is that Simmel is talking about two different people, the stranger and the purely mobile person. I don't think they're the same being/person.
Since the stranger isn't bound by his roots, he gains objectivity. As you and Simmel stated,"It happens here because he then receives the most confidences of things that are kept hidden from everyone with who they are actually close to." This is a freedom, but as Simmel mentions later, "This freedom... contains many dangerous possibilities." It may not be a good thing to tell the stranger important stuff about the group that you don't want other groups knowing. That's usually the cause for many wars. Group A finds out that Group B is planning to wrong them, so a conflict arises. Group A most likely found out from a stranger. It's like the old saying we learn as children, "don't talk to strangers." I think it's okay as adults to converse with strangers, but you wouldn't tell them your deepest, darkest secret, because you don't know if this person is trustworthy. You don't know them well enough, hence he's a stranger.
Simmel is saying that the strangers get told these secrets because they're going to move on anyways. That person most likely won't ever see them again which means his group won't see the stranger again either. In this situation the person might feel safe telling the stranger things, with the hope the stranger will move on and his group won't find out.
Still talking about the stranger and his freedom of objectivity, I think Simmel sums it up best and is the easiest way to understand it. "...It represents the exaggeration of the specific role of the stranger: he is the freer man, practically and theoretically; he examines conditions with less prejudice; he assesses them against standards that are more general and more objective; and his actions are not confined to custom, piety, or precedent."
When reading Simmel and "The Stranger", I seemed to get the gist of his interpretation of the person whom is a stranger. But what got me a little confused was how he interpreted the stranger in relation to others when "he has gone no further." Here is in part what I mean: "In the case of the stranger, the union of closeness and remoteness involved in every human relationship is patterned in a way that may be succinctly formulated as follows: the distance within this relation indicates that one who is close by is remote, but his strangeness indicates that one who is remote is near." I guess i don't understand his difference between being close by and near. I see it as both being one in the same. Other than that, I pretty much understand portrayal of the stranger and their relationship to others, and what it means to be a stranger.
I was really excited to have read this and underline pretty simple,key points he makes which in the end of the read you get a firm grasp of the theoretical point (in this case of the stranger). A few examples:
"The position of the stranger stands out more sharply if, instead of leaving the place of his activity, he settles down there." Here he simply refers back to initial point of viewing this certain kind of stranger. "...trade alone makes possible unlimited combinations, and through it intelligence is constantly extended and applied in new areas, something that is much harder for the primary producer with his more limited mobility and his dependence on a circle of customers that can be expanded only very slowly." Here he makes the comparison of how what the stranger does makes him different from what the more immobile others do. Lastly, and what I think really hits the nail on the head in describing the stranger and his differential relationship to others is, "...with the stranger one has only certain 'more general' qualities in common, whereas the relation with organically connected persons is based on the similarity of just those specific traits which differentiate them from the merely universal."
I never thought of a “stranger” as being defined as a “wanderer who comes today and is gone tomorrow, but rather the wanderer who comes today and stays tomorrow.” I just had never thought of a “stranger” as that kind of person or society. Although through out the review you really do a great job in giving examples of what Simmel meant.
It makes sense that “the stranger” would be good at having a job that is mobile, especially because he is not situated in one place. Being mobile like the stranger is, and by choice, he meets many people and groups. When he does not have one a “certain group” the stranger is not subjective towards how his “people” may feel. This makes him very objective towards the situations of different groups and the community he “settles” in.
Since he is so mobile, this makes him being a trader as an occupation very successful. At the same time you don’t really want to tell your secrets to him because he just may go and tell other communities. Since he does not have that connection or loyalty to one community he may not be fully trusted, which makes since on why “we” call him a “stranger”.
I did think that the reading in the book was very confusing and hard to understand at times. But the way you wrote the review was very helpful in understanding the overall concepts.
Simmel explains “The Stranger” very uniquely. He says that the stranger doesn’t come and go like a wonderer, but rather, he comes and stays. This person is a member of a group, but is always outside of the group. He is the middleman, and is only needed when the group can’t perform some function or produce something themselves.
Simmel says the stranger is always a “positive relation” (295). He has an objective, unbiased attitude toward its members, which offers him the rewards of secrets. He also expands the intelligence of the group much faster than the primary producer could because he brings in outside knowledge.
The stranger is never able to become a full member of any group. However, it is hard to understand this: “this position of the stranger stands out more sharply if, instead of leaving the place of his activity, he settles down there” (296). It seems that if a person settled down within the group, he would at some point lose his strangeness and his objective view of the group would become bias. Perhaps this is because, like Simmel and the responder said, the stranger has no “roots,” or no history or loyalty to the people.
Simmel also addresses the idea that the stranger cannot always be trusted, and strangers have often been the agitator that started many wars in history. “His actions are not confined to custom, piety, or precedent” (297). His objective view may cause him to appear as a good confidant; but one can never be sure where his loyalties lie.
I’m also interested by Simmel’s definition of the word “stranger”, being that he has decided to concentrate on the term as a person who is constantly inside and outside of their “community”. A lot of people may just assume that being a stranger only applies to someone’s connection to people. He also has a very in-depth quote where he states, “In the case of the stranger, the union of closeness and remoteness involved in every human relationship is patterned in a way that may be succinctly formulated as follows: the distance within this relation indicates that one who is close by is remote, but his strangeness indicates that one who is remote is near” (1).
With that said, one could argue that a stranger is labeled strictly by differences, which could be set by general similarities that most people have. Therefore, all of this could have came from social interaction over time. It’s also interesting to read the commentary information claiming that a stranger makes himself a trader through economic activity. My take on that information is that if a stranger is going to be measured by wealth, it seems fair to measure them by mobility as well, seeing that social interaction would be more likely to happen through mobility than with wealth.
I’m intrigued by the comment about strangers who have no roots to a particular place: He can look at group objectivity unlike others. Smith went on to say that, “A man that is object is not bound by his prejudices. He can look at every experience with clear eyes.” This would then make the stranger feel more unique and the stranger would not have to worry about others ideas, seeing that other people come from different walks of life.
Post a Comment