206 THE SOCIAL THEORY OF GEORG SIMMEL 
a common antithesis to the intermediate circle. This is 
manifest not only in the objective relationships, but also 
in the subjective attachments of the individuals to these 
factors. Personal devotion and attachment usually go to 
the smallest circle or to the largest one, but not to the in- 
termediate circle. The man who sacrifices himself for his 
family may do the same for his country or even for human- 
ity, but he will rarely do so for his province. This drawing 
together of the most individual and the most general struc- 
ture over and across the intermediate one is the actual 
fundamental factor in the observed phenomenon that the 
larger circle favors individual liberty, while the small circle 
restricts it. 
This common antithesis of the individual unit and the 
larger circle to the intermediate circle is manifest in his- 
tory in innumerable instances. The medieval knight com- 
bined an individualistic and particularistic life with cosmo- 
politan tendencies. The individual self-sufficiency found 
its counterpart in a European knighthood which trans- 
gressed all national boundaries. This same antithesis is 
manifest in the destructive forces which destroyed the 
Holy Roman Empire. It declined and finally crumbled 
because of the particularistic tendencies of its parts and 
because of the efforts to bind it in close ties with all other 
parts of Europe. The forces of expansion and contraction 
finally disrupted it as an intermediate national structure. 
This particularism had already been stimulated in an- 
other constellation which had different dimensions. If dif- 
ferentiated elements or elements which are apt to differen- 
tiate are combined in an inclusive social circle, there often 
result increased intolerance and friction and repulsion. 
The large common framework, which requires on the one 
hand a certain amount of differentiation among the ele- 
ments as a condition of its existence, induces on the other