<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0">
  <teiHeader>
    <fileDesc>
      <titleStmt>
        <title>The social Theory of Georg Simmel</title>
        <author>
          <persName>
            <forname>Nicholas J.</forname>
            <surname>Spykman</surname>
          </persName>
        </author>
      </titleStmt>
      <publicationStmt />
      <sourceDesc>
        <bibl>
          <msIdentifier>
            <idno>1024612627</idno>
          </msIdentifier>
        </bibl>
      </sourceDesc>
    </fileDesc>
  </teiHeader>
  <text>
    <body>
      <div>MONEY AND THE STYLE OF MODERN LIFE 245 
=. 
V 
TT 
1) 
1. 
AY - 
1e 
d 
al 
1e 
mr 
Vy 
h 
l= 
of 
1e 
fa 
ve 
ve 
ne 
ie 
Je 
ch 
N= 
od 
d- 
st. 
ad 
ig. $4 
n. 
Rhythm, or at least its spatial equivalent, is also pres- 
ent in many aspects of human relations. This spatial 
equivalent is symmetry. Rhythm is symmetry in time, 
just as symmetry is rhythm in space. The development of 
symmetrical systems of relationships has gone hand in 
hand with the development of rationalism. Where man 
organizes relationships on a rational basis, he organizes 
them in symmetrical forms, be it in the business world or in 
his dealing with social and political systems. 
But rhythm and its opposite do not occur only as alter- 
native forms in the life-series of man; they also appear at the 
same time as two fundamentally opposed principles of life, 
which may be indicated as the rhythmic-symmetrical and 
the spontaneous-individualistic. And in their simultane- 
ous existence no reconciliation by alternation can be effect- 
ed. This fundamental opposition is most clearly manifest 
in the relations between the individual and the social total- 
ity, be it an economic, political, religious, or family group. 
It is the fundamental principle of symmetry that each ele- 
ment of a totality obtains its position, its rights and sig- 
nificance, only through its relations to the other elements 
and to the common center. If each element obeys only itself 
and develops according to its own laws and desires, the 
totality must inevitably be asymmetrical. The individual 
desires to be a closed totality himself, a form with a center 
of its own, from which all the elements of his existence and 
activity receive their meaning and significance. But if the 
superindividual totality is to be a closed whole, if it is to 
objectify an idea with self-sufficient significance, it cannot 
allow the full rounding out of its elements. The totality of 
the whole is in eternal conflict with the totality of the in- 
dividual. 
Money seems at first to serve the realization of only 
one of these forms. It is formless itself. It conquers all</div>
    </body>
  </text>
</TEI>
