Cmeetun
10-12-2012, 12:18 PM
If you could critique my essay on Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft that would be awesome! Its supposed to be a basic descriptive essay for an SJP class, let me know what you think!
Ferdinand Tönnies was an influential German sociologist who produced several works during the 1880s, one of which was called Society and Change. Society and Change recognized a distinction between two types of societies he saw as Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft. Gemeinschaft, commonly meaning community, embodied the collectivist living of a group of people who strived for the benefit of the community as a whole, whereas Gesellschaft, meaning society, represented the post-industrialized setting in which people lived tightly packed in urban areas and remained isolated from each other and themselves. These prototype societies served as models from which Tönnies could relate the evolution of society, how society started and through industrialization, what society became. The three major differences between Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft were the social ties, transaction methods and people’s perceptions of each other.
The social ties of Gemeinschaft were natural and inherited. The people recognized their common beliefs and felt innately connected to each other. The community way of doing things required that the group always took precedence over the individual and this wasn’t difficult to maintain because people had a shared religion and shared values that they passed on from generation to generation. In contrast, the social ties of Gesellschaft were artificial and based on the assumption that both people were benefiting from the relationship. Self-interest is the basis of social ties and people only interact with other people considered to be their equals.
The transaction methods of Gemeinschaft were based on mutual trust between community members. There was also a keen sense of belonging where everyone felt needed. There was dependency on each person in the community and this in turn made each person feel honoured and valued. In Gesellschaft transactions were done contractually with the interests of both groups outlined and the terms and conditions by which they would be met. Relationships became defined by money and trust gradually disappeared. Relationships themselves became quantified and people partook in relationships with only their self-interest in mind. The sharp contrast here between a society where a transaction is perceived also as a relationship is dramatically different to the one where transactions are defined by what each person can get out of the other.
The way in which people each other people is also very different in Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft. In Gemeinschaft people viewed themselves as a collective whole with similar aims and goals that were focused around family and the community. Everything belonged to the community and sharing was a habit practised by everyone. In Gesellschaft there was a focus of people on themselves, people didn’t see themselves as part of a bigger community and they followed individualist beliefs. We also see the introduction of private property, a capitalist ideal that eventually serves to separate people in terms of wealth and class. Tönnies argued that in Gesellschaft man would ultimately become alienated from himself, from nature and from other people.
Tönnies stresses that neither Gemeinschaft nor Gesellschaft are ideal forms of society and out best hope is to take the good traits from both. In Gemeinschaft people are connected to each other and they can work for the interests of everyone not just themselves but Gesellschaft people are given the freedom to think for themselves and this creates a conscience, which people can use to reflect on the life they are living. This can be beneficial for society and can instil in people the desire to want to enrich the lives of people around the world. Tönnies evaluation of Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft are helpful in providing insight into what kind of society we want to live in and by talking about Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft, we are better equipped to evaluate our modern society.
Ferdinand Tönnies was an influential German sociologist who produced several works during the 1880s, one of which was called Society and Change. Society and Change recognized a distinction between two types of societies he saw as Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft. Gemeinschaft, commonly meaning community, embodied the collectivist living of a group of people who strived for the benefit of the community as a whole, whereas Gesellschaft, meaning society, represented the post-industrialized setting in which people lived tightly packed in urban areas and remained isolated from each other and themselves. These prototype societies served as models from which Tönnies could relate the evolution of society, how society started and through industrialization, what society became. The three major differences between Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft were the social ties, transaction methods and people’s perceptions of each other.
The social ties of Gemeinschaft were natural and inherited. The people recognized their common beliefs and felt innately connected to each other. The community way of doing things required that the group always took precedence over the individual and this wasn’t difficult to maintain because people had a shared religion and shared values that they passed on from generation to generation. In contrast, the social ties of Gesellschaft were artificial and based on the assumption that both people were benefiting from the relationship. Self-interest is the basis of social ties and people only interact with other people considered to be their equals.
The transaction methods of Gemeinschaft were based on mutual trust between community members. There was also a keen sense of belonging where everyone felt needed. There was dependency on each person in the community and this in turn made each person feel honoured and valued. In Gesellschaft transactions were done contractually with the interests of both groups outlined and the terms and conditions by which they would be met. Relationships became defined by money and trust gradually disappeared. Relationships themselves became quantified and people partook in relationships with only their self-interest in mind. The sharp contrast here between a society where a transaction is perceived also as a relationship is dramatically different to the one where transactions are defined by what each person can get out of the other.
The way in which people each other people is also very different in Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft. In Gemeinschaft people viewed themselves as a collective whole with similar aims and goals that were focused around family and the community. Everything belonged to the community and sharing was a habit practised by everyone. In Gesellschaft there was a focus of people on themselves, people didn’t see themselves as part of a bigger community and they followed individualist beliefs. We also see the introduction of private property, a capitalist ideal that eventually serves to separate people in terms of wealth and class. Tönnies argued that in Gesellschaft man would ultimately become alienated from himself, from nature and from other people.
Tönnies stresses that neither Gemeinschaft nor Gesellschaft are ideal forms of society and out best hope is to take the good traits from both. In Gemeinschaft people are connected to each other and they can work for the interests of everyone not just themselves but Gesellschaft people are given the freedom to think for themselves and this creates a conscience, which people can use to reflect on the life they are living. This can be beneficial for society and can instil in people the desire to want to enrich the lives of people around the world. Tönnies evaluation of Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft are helpful in providing insight into what kind of society we want to live in and by talking about Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft, we are better equipped to evaluate our modern society.