The One Before the Many: Towards a Simmelian Sociogenesis

Authors

  • Marine Kneubühler

Keywords:

Sociogenesis, Quantitative determination, Mediation, Individualization and Individualism

Abstract

This article recovers a principle central to Simmel’s sociology yet largely overlooked: the quantitative, or numerical, determination of social forms. Read as the basis for a genuine sociogenesis, this principle first lets us unsettle the dichotomous typologies on which classical sociology was founded, replacing fixed historical types with a continuous, threshold-sensitive scale that governs both the differentiation of individuals and the normative order that binds them. Pursued to its own logical end, however, this same principle requires a further descent, from three to two to one, that challenges an influential recent reading of Simmel – Gilbert’s claim that the dyad forms sociology’s minimal unit – and locates the group’s least common denominator in the individual as such, apart from the legacies of individualization and individualism.

References

Burrell J., and M. Fourcade (2021). “The Society of Algorithms”, in: Annual Review of Sociology, 47, pp. 213-237.

Couldry N., Fotopoulou A., and L. Dickens (2016). “Real social analytics: A contribution towards a phenomenology of a digital world”, in: The British Journal of Sociology, 67(1), pp. 118-137.

Durkheim É. [1893] (1960). The Division of Labor in Society. Illinois: The free Press of Glencoe.

Durkheim É. [1895] (1982). The Rules of Sociological Method. New York: Free Press.

Elias N. [1987] (2010). The Society of Individuals. Dublin: University College Dublin Press.

Elias N. [1991] (1993). Mozart: Portrait of a Genius. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Fitzi G. (2019). The Challenge of Modernity. Simmel’s Sociological Theory. London & New York: Routledge.

Gilbert M. (2009). “Walking Together: A Paradigmatic Social Phenomenon”, in: Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 15(1), pp. 1-14.

Ginzburg C. [1976] (1980). The Cheese and the Worms. The Cosmos of a Sixteenth-Century Miller. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Kaufmann L. (2025a). “‘The Strength of the Bond’: From Grammar to Phenomenology and Back Again”, in Vandenberghe F. and C. Papilloud (Ed.) New Directions in Relational Sociology, Volume 1. Relations All the Way Up. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 201-231.

Kaufmann L. (2025b). “Discovering Society, Inventing Sociology: Sieyès and the Revolutionary Origins of the Sciences of Society”, in Sociological Theory, 43(2), pp. 157-183.

Kneubühler M. (2023). “The Loss of Singular Existence and Personal Experience. The Problem of Interchangeability in the Social Sciences”, in: Wardle H., Rapport N and A. Piette (Ed.) The Routledge International Handbook of Existential Human Science. London & New York: Routledge, pp. 244-254.

Kneubühler M. and A. Piette (2019). “Following and Analyzing a Human Being: On the Continuity and Singularity of an Individual”, in: F. Cooren and F. Malbois (Ed.) Methodological and ontological principles of observation and analysis. New York: Routledge, pp. 13-43.

Müller H.-P. (2018). “How Is Individuality Possible? Georg Simmel’s Philosophy and Sociology of Individualism”, in: Simmel Studies, 22(1), pp. 15-43.

Simmel G. (1890). Über sociale Differenzierung: Soziologische und psychologische Untersuchungen. Leipzig: Duncker und Humblot.

Simmel G. [1894-1908] (2009). Sociology. Inquiries into the Construction of Social Forms. Leiden & Boston: Brill.

Tönnies F. [1887] (1957). Community and Society. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.

Vandenberghe F. [1997] (2009). A Philosophical History of German Sociology. London & New York: Routledge.

Published

2026-07-17

Issue

Section

Articles