CONCLUSION

265

and the society which molds him comes to be viewed in a
half-mystical light. The eighteenth century—mechanistic,
rationalistic, and individualistic—has tended mainly toward
 the first view; the nineteenth century—biological,
idealistic, and collectivistic—toward the latter.
The eighteenth-century view found expression in the
different social-contract theories. The individual reigned
supreme. Political society was his creation, the result of
his conscious voluntary activity. It was a means to his end,
be it liberty, justice, or the protection of property. The
fact that the individual was the actual bearer and positive
factor of the social structure was fully realized and led the
social theorists to devote considerable attention to individual
 psychology. The approach was from the individual
toward the group, and the social or political structure was
valued in terms of its significance for the individual life.
The nineteenth-century view found expression in the
organic theories of society on the one hand, and in the idealistic
 conceptions of the state on the other hand. The
realization of the importance of environment in the biological
 studies reinforced this tendency to place the emphasis
on society, the state, the group; in a word, on the social environment
 rather than on the individual. He was merely
a product of the social environment, a cell in the social organism.
 The state was not a means to his ends; it was an
end in itself. The approach was from the group toward the
individual, and the individual was valued in terms of his
significance for the social or political structure.
Simmel’s conception may be regarded as a conciliation
between the two. It leads to a viewpoint which brings the
immediate realization of the necessity for reciprocity or at
least constant alternation between the two modes of approach.
 Viewed in the light of the tendencies of the nineteenth
 century, his approach seems a return to the con-