Eros and Culture: Gender Theory in Simmel, Tonnies and Weber

Abstract

Individualism, rationaiism, objectivism, social differentiation and division of labor, modern professionalism and specialization, as weil as the

Convicção e responsabilidade em Max Weber a partir da teoria da irracionalidade da esfera erótica

“…10 No período anterior a Primeira Guerra Mundial o debate sobre a questão de gênero foi tratado com crucial importância entre os principais intelectuais contemporâneos ocidentais, atingindo, na Alemanha, as dimensões de uma verdadeira "revolução cultural", na qual a análise da cultura conduzida por Weber ganha destaque. Ver no artigo Eros and culture: gender theory in Simmel, Tönnies and Weber, de Klaus Lichtblau (1990). 11 "[...] two gender issues in particular were much discussed in both circles: the gender-specific character of all social conditions and all "objective culture," and the significance of eroticism and sexual love in relation to marriage and culture-at-large".…”

The Quality of Manhood: Masculinity and Embodiment in the Sociological Tradition

“…Here he fatefully fractures ‘human being’ into two absolute, incommensurate kinds: being‐a‐man and being‐a‐woman. It is because Simmel cheerfully abdicates the problem of defining woman to the realm of ‘metaphysical presupposition’ (Simmel, 1984b: 128–9) that we can refer to his ‘deep ontology of gender’ (Witz, 2001), which is crafted within his philosophical rather than his sociological imagination (Felski, 1995; Lichtblau, 1989; Oakes, 1984; van Vucht Tijjsen, 1991; Witz, 2000; Witz, 2001). Simmel's deep ontology of difference creates an undertow that is too strong to permit a full instantiation of woman into his ontology of the social as she is perpetually dragged back under into the stagnant waters of the metaphysical (Witz, 2001).…”

“…We see him struggling with the question of whether a ‘female culture’ is possible, given that objective culture is so indelibly shaped by a male principle. But, of course, this is an apothetic or unanswerable question that cannot be pursued without encountering major contradictions and antinomies that must necessarily emerge from his dualistic gender metaphysics (Lichtblau, 1989). Hence ‘the question itself must be considered inappropriate on the basis of Simmel's own presuppositions' (Lichtblau, 1989: 95) as the very concept of a female culture ‘is vitiated by his basic ontological assumptions’ (Oakes, 1984).…”

“…But, of course, this is an apothetic or unanswerable question that cannot be pursued without encountering major contradictions and antinomies that must necessarily emerge from his dualistic gender metaphysics (Lichtblau, 1989). Hence ‘the question itself must be considered inappropriate on the basis of Simmel's own presuppositions' (Lichtblau, 1989: 95) as the very concept of a female culture ‘is vitiated by his basic ontological assumptions’ (Oakes, 1984). Nonetheless, he systematically attends to the problem of women living in male-dominated culture and in this he differs from Durkheim, whose thoughts on women are sporadic and only dealt with in an explicit manner when they threaten to disrupt the central categories of his sociological thought (Lehmann, 1994).…”

Causality or Interaction? Simmel, Weber and Interpretive Sociology

“…Scaff, 1987Scaff, , 1989Whimster, 1987: 268ff. ;Frisby, 1988a, b;Lichtblau, 1988Lichtblau, , 1989. Both Simmel's theory of the divergent development of 'subjective' and 'objective' culture, and Weber's analysis of the objectification and generalization of relations of domination that were originally genuinely personal have come into view as pre-formulations of Lukacs's critique of the reification of consciousness in bourgeois society.…”