.en-
er-
: of
me
the
Na-
of
has
)1SO-
clal
self
had
ex-
the
ism
‘eby
ted.
fter
this
tion
een
his
and
o be
rk is
that
f his
nent
posi-
logi-
ful-
1s a
PREFACE
XY
whole, not from any single chapter. The different social
sciences may develop a special technique, but they must
follow a common method and be conscious of their mutual
relations. An understanding of these relations can only be
obtained by viewing them in their totality, not by merely
inquiring into the method and presuppositions of a single
social science. It is for that reason that the material of this
study, although primarily orientated toward the methodo-
logical problems of sociology, has been so organized as to
afford a bird’s-eye view of these relations and thereby to
throw light on the central problem of all social methodol-
ogy.
This study deals only with a restricted field of Sim-
mel’s work. His publications cover a wide range of sub-
jects, many of which are not immediately related to our
problem. He was primarily a philosopher, not in the sense
of a builder of metaphysical systems, but in the sense of
an interpreter of life. The works of his second period are
an interpretation of Western civilization and modern cul-
ture. In that capacity he also deserves a wider attention
in English-speaking countries than has been accorded him.
But the scope of this study does not permit an attempt at
a comprehensive view of Simmel’s interpretation of our
modern world. It is orientated toward his philosophical
contributions in the more narrow sense of the term, not
toward his metaphysical contributions. Its aim is to give
his fundamental contributions to the methodology of the
different fields of theoretic inquiry regarding socio-his-
torical phenomena.
In his sociological works, as in his other contributions,
Simmel’s analytic tendency has hardly been counter-
balanced by a corresponding synthetic tendency. This
characteristic, together with the fact that most of it was
first published in the form of articles, gives his work a
