Simmel transformation by Tony May

George Simmel’s Theory of Forms and its meaning for Transformation

! !

[This is a copy of an essay written by Tony May in 1993 for the Organisational Development course at Bath University.]

“Do not conform any longer to  the pattern of this world, but be transformed  by the renewing of your mind.”

Romans 12:2, Holy Bible.

This thesis looks at the work of George Simmel as reviewed by Oakes (1980) in “Essays on Interpretation in Social Science”. It suggests that his theory of forms and more specifically his work on forms and the concept of culture offer an important understanding of change and the notion of transformation. In addition, the thesis will also demonstrate how this is significant to our understanding of the way we approach change. As a result, it will enable ourselves and the organisations we create to survive in a world that is characterised by conflict between, what Simmel calls, the energies of life, which appear to be in a greater period of flux, and the structures created through our minds in which they are expressed. According to Simmel this phenomenon creates the forces for cultural change and the emergence of alternative paradigms which can disposes the reigning paradigm from its pre-eminence.

Additionally, as we look at the phenomenon of change and transformation through the perspective of Simmel’s theory of forms, it will be demonstrated that we will need to think in a way that is characterised by the insight contained within the Pauline instruction to the church in Rome quoted above. This view it will be shown implies that our ability to continuously succeed and survive in business depends on a radical kind of conversion in the way we think and manage organisations. It is a way of thinking that initiates an organisations transformation, at the necessary time in order to revitalise it, so that it can effectively meet the realities it is facing by renewing the way its’ people think, which in turn renews the organisation’s collective mind so to speak. In other words, this approach will ensure that an organisation will no longer conform to its reigning tradition of rationality, when found to be inadequate, but will allow itself to be transformed so that it sees things in a new and radically different way. By doing this an organisation guarantees its’ survival by continuing to correspond more closely with the so called ‘energies of life’. An organisation’s survival and success, therefore, depends upon its capacity to meet the realities that the energies of life throw up. The problem, as noted above, is that these energies are dynamic, meaning that the realties are constantly changing. Thus a successful business culture under one pattern of realties can be rendered inadequate as the continuous change becomes too much for its’ reigning tradition of rationality to handle. To prevent extinction and maintain continued success, as this thesis will demonstrate, a company must renew its thinking and maintain this new form until it to becomes inadequate in the light of the new realities it is facing, setting off the process all over again. In other words this approach suggests that we should adopt a more morphogentic orientation towards managing organisational change, Smith (1984) and Wilkins & Dryer (1988).

Put another way, the above viewpoint depicts a process, which is characterised by a shift from one culture or ‘kingdom’ to another - causing a change in an organisation’s cultural identity, Gagliardi (1986). This process enables a firm to avoid the declining path of a vicious circle, Gagliardi (1986), and pursue the path of transformation to another virtuous circle of thinking and activity, continuing its’ prosperity. This !1

phenomenon suggests that change is characterised by abrupt transformations followed by periods of incremental change rather than gradual evolution or incrementalism per-se, Bate (1990).

The above represents a radical and provocative view of seeing organisational change. A viewpoint, which if we are to understand such change more comprehensively requires us, as it is now intended, to look at the theory of forms put forward by Simmel and the way he perceives the world. Through the course of this thesis we shall also consider and draw upon the ideas of other relevant scholars, who will be identified where appropriate, as a means of throwing further light upon the basis of the perspective put forward by this thesis.

To begin to understand Simmel’s theory of forms one needs to know to some degree his concept of ‘life’. According to Simmel the fundamental reality of life in its raw sense can be considered as a manifold of indistinguishable phenomena. It can also be characterised as a continuous and homogeneous process. This manifold of life is in a state of perpetual flux, for it is constantly creating, increasing and intensifying its own potentialities and energies, Oakes: Simmel (1980). For example, as life is perpetually renewing itself, life creates a new generation of human beings. Therefore, in Simmelian terminology humans are considered as being life.

Joseph Campbell in describing such characteristics of life, within his book “The power of Myth”, explains the phenomenon metaphorically by proposing that one can conceive life as being like ‘protoplasm’. Campbell notes that scientist have described protoplasm as having the following nature. “It is in movement all the time, flowing. Sometimes it seems to be flowing this way and that [perpetual flux], and then it shapes things. It has the potentiality for bringing things in to shape [is formative]”, Campbell (1989)i. However, to make this metaphor more comprehensive, one will have to add another dimension, which suggests that ‘protoplasm’ like life, therefore, has the disposition to renew or reproduce itself by creating new potentialities and forces, Oakes: Simmel (1980), and the potentiality to shape new forms. From this perspective, Campbell suggests that one can therefore see protoplasm in the form of grass, birds and human beings. In addition, Campbell argues that each form has its own intentions and own possibilities, and he goes on to say “that’s where meaning comes. Not in the protoplasm itself”.

In the above sense the energies of life bring into form humans, birds, grass and so on. In the particular case of a man or woman, as a life form, we create forms out of our human energies and potentialities. Thus human life forms are synonymous with the characteristics Simmel gives to his concept of life. This leads us onto another proposition, which Simmel puts forward, that life, including human, has, as one of its definite properties, the characteristic disposition to create entities that are “more than life”.

The question arising is what does Simmel mean by “more than life”? This concept has two elements. Firstly, it refers to the capacity of life to constitute or create forms or structures out of the material of life, which according to Simmel, “have properties that are distinguishable from life conceived either as an undifferentiated manifold of potentialities or the disposition to regenerate its own energies”, Oakes: Simmel (1980), for example forms such as, cognitive, religious, erotic, artistic, social, technical, normative and value. Secondly, these forms or entities have the inherent tendency to become detached from the rhythm and flux of life. Because these entities become emancipated from the flow of life, they

acquire, according to Simmel, stable properties and characteristics that become juxtaposed or independent to the constantly changing process of life. Simmel calls these forms “objectifications” of life.

A particular impression one picks up from the above is that human nature creates forms and structures. In this sense forms are the consequence of the activity of the human mind in expressing the experiences it encounters with the energies of life. In Kantian terminology, form is something that is constituted by the fundamental categories or priories of the human intellect or mind. In addition these very forms become emancipated. This aspect, to Simmel represents a significant premise and assumption to his theory of forms. By this Simmel argues, that because the world and life is a homogeneous and undifferentiated process it is therefore inaccessible to analysis, and thus life is not a possible object of experience or knowledge. Due to this phenomenon, Simmel asserts using Kantian terminology that life can only be grasped as possible objects of experience and knowledge only if they fall under a constituted form, which creates perceived differences.

The above Simmelian assumption implies that the way we think about the world is grounded on the constitutive forms which structure the ‘brute data’ of reality by a variety of categories identified as: “affective, intellectual, political, psychological and moral”. The constitutive function of these categories, according to Oakes on Simmel (1980), “is the indispensable condition under which the raw material of historical existence, law, psychology, natural science, religion and the entire domain of culture, can be structured in a meaningful and intelligible fashion”.

Additionally, Simmel asserts that a form, therefore, identifies the conditions under which a certain kind of cognitive status can be ascribed to a given item. Oakes gives science as an example of a form because he argues that “its presuppositions state conditions under which it is possible to conceive any phenomenon as an object of scientific knowledge”. The same can be said of history, religion, eroticism, art, and rational discourse. Therefore, form is an epistemological category.

Thus from the above we can deduce that forms originate as a result of the mind expressing in a meaningful way the experiences of life. Oakes in this sense illustrates this phenomenon by suggesting that life in perpetually renewing itself is manifested in humans by the forces of attraction between the sexes, “energies that create eroticism in which human sexual desires are expressed”, Oakes (1980). As these forms become emancipated from life’s energies they are transformed in to forms of love. Likewise, Simmel notes that the form of science arose in this way. For “the exigencies of life generated a ‘protoform’ of knowledge on which the capacity to adapt to the environment of life is dependent”, Oakes: Simmel (1980). However, when these proto-forms became independent of the needs of life they were transformed into the forms of science.

Another, significant property of form, conceived by Simmel, is that it can be described as being selfsufficient and immanent or autonomous. In this sense a ‘form’ is like a ‘kingdom’ which functions according to its own intrinsic laws, modes and characteristic language. Thus each ‘form’ produces a representation of the world. These kingdoms/ forms are organised within multi-levelled nested hierarchies of forms within forms, a view that is characteristic of the Koestler concept of “holons”. Thus if we consider the entire domain of culture, we find for example that it consists of forms which constitute various forms of culture such as: science, history, language, values, myths, religion, technology and art. !3

In addition they can also be stories that in turn constitute the form of culture. Culture as a form thus represents a certain way of seeing the world. In this domain Simmel notes that there appears to be a relationship of logical dependence among immanent and autonomous forms, whereby a form at one level can only constitute a content providing it is already constituted by some other form, Oakes: Simmel (1980).

The significance of the import of Simmel’s theory of forms, briefly outlined above, for understanding organisational culture and change, becomes clear when we look basically at Simmel’s analysis of culture in the light of his concept of forms. Thus, according to Simmel the origin of culture, which for this thesis we shall consider as being synonymous with an organisation, occurs as a result of the following conditions.

The genesis of an organisation is often portrayed to be the work of an individual leader or entrepreneur, Peters & Waterman (1982), Gagliardi (1986). Thus on this premise we will look at the context which led the leader to create an organisation.

Gagliardi, maintains that the leader has a “vision” - a set of beliefs — or a world view which he/she uses to get support to build the organisation so desired. Simmel’s theory of forms enables us to understand how this process unfolds. For instance, the leader~ personality can be conceived to be the development of the culture the individual lives in and their personal experience of the energies of life. In other words, Oakes referring to Goethe puts it this way “Culture produces a synthesis of the contents of life. It is the point at which the subject -the individual personality as constituted by the energies and forces of life - and the object - the world as constituted by autonomous, irreducibly different, and incommensurable forms — intersect”.

From this viewpoint Simmel infers that it is legitimate to distinguish two aspects to culture: subjective and objective culture. Whereby the “object”, mention above, Simmel refers to as being the “objective culture” which he conceives to be the result of the transcendence of subjective forms into the objective domain, where the function is a means to enable the individual to gain culture. Subjective culture, Oakes in referring to Simmel explains, is “the state of the individual personality that is the product of the [above) process”, therefore it is, “constituted by the life of the individual personality insofar as it represents a synthesis of these autonomous forms”. Thus in a sense subjective culture represents a dynamic interplay between the objective cultural norms which have been incorporated into the individual’s personality and those other forms the personality has created as a consequence of the energies of life.

Additionally, Simmel makes an interesting premise when he claims that there is a sense in which subjective culture is the dominant aim of objective culture. A process which can either create forms to enrich and intensify the contents of life, or as forms that ossify and petrify life’s creative energies, Oakes (1980)

Therefore, the point of intersection between the objective culture and subjective culture — in the sense that it is the result of objective culture and those forms which are a individual’s personal experiences of the energies of life —there is a process of dynamic interplay. A process, that gives rise to the personal philosophy and way of reasoning of an individual which produces an activity or systematic response to !4

life that expresses a certain view of the world. Additionally, the dynamic interplay between objective and subjective culture also leads to change. This phenomenon is, according to Simmel, the inevitable and universal result of the antagonism caused by the “struggle between the evolving flux of the process of life and the abstract rigidity of cultural forms”, Oakes: Simmel (1980).

Therefore, a individual or leader because of the forces created by the above process will seek out and create new entities or forms through intentional mental activities —destroying cultural forms that are exhausted and replacing them with new forms and thus renewing his/her mind. Thus these newly constituted forms transform the way the individual acts in and perceives the world.

The above phenomenon has import into the way we understand how an organisational culture emerges. For example, the founder of ITT in 1920 realised that the emerging technology of telecommunications was to be a major force within Europe. The best way to meet demand competitively was to “develop truly national systems operated by the national of each company”, Bartlett & Ghoshal (1988). This was based on the knowledge that Europe was relatively fragmented. The leader sold this philosophy to other individuals and formed a business. This process involved the thinking of the leader taking on a form, with a life of its own, that became a fundamental component of the company’s corporate culture into which employees where socialised. In Simmelian terminology, the contents of the psychological processes of the founder became independent of their genesis through Simmel’s concept of objectification. In short, this is the idea that forms naturally transcend the ‘flow of life’ or their origins. Oak writes that forms or “categories that are generated by the process of life and are created in order to sustain the energies of life acquire the status of autonomous structures which have their own import and value”. Thus as Oakes notes, the founder’s categories or beliefs “are transformed into the objectified domains which acquire a relative independence or life”, Oakes: Simmel (1980). What this implies is that the organisational culture, which was created by the subjective culture of the founder, is also becoming relatively detached from life.

Simmel Further, these objective expressions then became part of the subjective culture of specific individuals when they interpreted these forms and are converted to them. The depth to which people subscribe depends upon the degree to which the founder’s beliefs were confirmed by success in the marketplace. As the business becomes successful and sustains this overtime the organisation’s culture becomes stronger, as its members accept more deeply the founder’s beliefs, traits and objectives into their subjective culture, Gagliardi (1986). In affect a reigning culture or ‘kingdom’ within the company has been established, which works unconsciously in its member to make them think and pursue activities in a certain way that has been conducive to problem solving and business success.

The process of objectification is an important concept to Simmel’s theory of forms and culture as a form. Objectification in more detail is the idea that forms or categories that are generated by the process of life are, Oakes explains, “created in order to sustain the energies of life acquire the status of autonomous structures which have their own import and value”. In our above example, the founder’s categories or beliefs, notes Oakes are “transformed into the objectified domains which acquire a relative independence or life”, Oakes: Simmel (1980). What this implies is that the organisational culture, which was created by the subjective culture of the founder, is also becoming relatively detached from life.

As a result of the emancipation of culture, it becomes juxtaposed to the flow of life. However, Simmel’s concept of form suggests that the culture would continue to develop incrementally based upon its own immanent logic. This process will for a certain period of time relatively follow the flow of life, creating what Gagliardi calls “virtuous circles” of thinking. For example ITT’s way of thinking overcame certain problems and brought strategic success, the result of which was to reinforce the shared cultural values that in turn enhanced further the core competence of the organisation, Gagliardi, (1986).

However, over time the ability of the culture to flow with the flow of life becomes increasingly difficult. The energies and forces of life are incessantly evolving dynamically, whereby the forms of a culture (a form itself) have an inherent tendency to become rigid, stable and habitual, Oakes (1980). The consequence of this is that although in the past the tradition of rational discourse was continually changing in the effort to make sense of experience, confined within the independent immanent logic of its own thinking, it is now confronted with new forces that it can no longer adequately deal with, Gagliardi (1986) and Newbigin (1991). In other words, the culture’s tradition of rational discourse can no longer deal with the new realities that the life throws up, and this becomes more and more obvious as time progresses. Therefore, the culture faces a crisis, which generates internal self-contradictions and whereby energies are focused internally to find blame for failure. A crisis caused by the culture not being able to understand the new experiences and problems within terms of the existing ways of thought, Newbigin (1991). Thus the virtuous circle of thinking and acting becomes a vicious circle, Gagliardi (1986).

The natural path of the vicious circle leads the culture towards destruction. The culture ossifies the energies of life within it, Oakes (1980). Therefore, the process of development ceases, which reinforces the process of ossification, and consequentially the culture becomes archaic. Then eventually the forces of life, according to Simmel, become intolerable within the organisation until eventually they can no longer be confined within the cultures limits and as a consequence the culture dies - the old culture is shattered, Oakes: Simmel (1980). The examples of organisations that followed this path according to Harvey-Jones (1988) is excessive, and notes Singer, as an example, who no longer produces sewing machines. The ITT example, is yet another case, for in the 1970s their market became more globally orientated and at the same time new technology emerged in the form of digital switches, however, the company could not respond and eventually pulled out of the telecommunication market, Bartlett & Ghoshal (1988). Such examples, according to Harvey-Jones, are the unfortunate result of a culture clinging to what it knew best without being prepared to adapt or change, and slowly but inexorably saw its business disappearing beneath them.

Gagliardi also expresses the above as being the result of a culture who although experiencing failure refuses to “explore routes which are different from those sanctioned by the group’s basic values and point of view - just as the failure to catch fish in the Mediterranean would never in itself have induced the sailors of olden times to go beyond the Pillars of Hercules in search of fish”.

The answer to this paradox, using the premises of Simmel’s concept of forms, can only arise when people no longer conform to their traditional culture - they rebel. The initiating factor behind this comes from the radical challenge that arises from a new rival form that has either emerged as a view within the environment or one that has recently become present within the organisation but was muted by the success of the reigning culture. Thus this rival kingdom challenges the beliefs of the present tradition and !6

presents a perspective or paradigm, that when grasped by the adherents of the old tradition they find is more adequate to the realities they face. Consequently, this process leads to the conversion to the new view, as people step out in faith and through its testing discover success, which in turn reinforces the acceptance of the new tradition of rationality. This represents a paradigm shift by the renewing of the mind of individuals within an organisation that in turn transforms the organisation’s culture. A process that Gagliardi calls changing the “cultural identity”. For example, it will be like a new form arising that challenges the beliefs of the Mediterranean sailors, whereby as a consequence certain individuals went beyond the Pillars of Hercules and discovered an abundance of fish, in stark contrast to their now depleted traditional fishing areas. As a result it initiated a transformation of their culture as everyone copied the adventurous fishermen.

The forms of the new objective culture, therefore, become incorporated into the subjective culture of individuals. However, this process destroys those forms that were the result of the traditional culture. The result of this activity gives way to the death of the traditional nature of the organisation or “old man”, and the resurrection of a new creation or “new man”, Gagliardi (1986). This phenomenon is equivalent to the idea of morphogenesis, Smith (1984), whereby the culture is transformed into another type of ‘animal’ within the same species. For example a hospital may transform itself from a bureaucracy into an adhocracy yet still remain a hospital - it does not become a car manufacturer!

Overall, the implications of the perspective of this essay for managers of change, is that it infers that the only way to change a culture is to transform the way it thinks by the renewing of its mind. A process, which inevitably means converting the way its members’ think, by incorporating the forms and viewpoint of a new culture into the subjective culture of its members, that is more responsive to the realties of life. Additionally, this view sees life as continuously changing which implies that the above process will have to be repeated when the new form becomes obsolete and life generates new forms. Therefore, life creates episodic cultural changes, Bate (1990). A view of life which was expressed within the poem “Hellas”, by Shelly (1821): “Worlds on worlds are rolling ever from creation to decay like the bubbles on a river / Sparkling, bursting, borne away”.

Therefore, the only way to survive in such a world is to understand that one must be able to transform the ‘bubble’ or culture into another ‘bubble’ or culture that is more resilient and responsive to the new forces and energies of life, by: renewing, stabilising, renewing, stabilising, and so on.

! ! !

Bibliography Essays on Interpretation in Social Science, Oakes: Simmel (1980). Rabbits, Lynxes, and organisational transitions, Smith (1984).

! 4. ! 5. ! 6. ! 7.

! 8. ! 9. !

10.

The creation and change of organisational cultures: A conceptual framework, P. Gagliardi (1986). The Gospel in a pluralist society, L. Newbigin (1991). Making it Happen, J. Harvey Jones (1989). In Search of Excellence, T. Peters & R. Waterman (1982). Organising for Worldwide Effectiveness: The Transnationa]. Solution, C. Bartlett & S. Ghoshal, (1988). Holy Bible - New International Version. The Present of the Past, R. Sheldrake, (1989). A description, Evaluation, and Integration of four Approaches to the Management of Culture Change in Organisations, S. P. Bate (1990).