Forms of interaction retain identity across varied contents and historical settings

Evidence

In this latter case, ascertaining them would be in the service of history, so to speak; in the former case, it would provide material for the induction of timeless uniformities. About competition, for instance, we learn something from a great many fields—political science, economics, history of religion, history of art, and so on. The point is to ascertain from all the facts what competition is as a pure form of human behavior; under what circumstances it emerges and develops; how it is modified by the particular character of its object; by what contemporaneous formal and material features of a society it is increased or reduced; and how competition between individuals differs from that between groups. In short, we must ascertain what competition is as a form of relation among individuals. This form may involve all sorts of contents. But in spite of the great variety of these contents, the form maintains its own identity and proves that it belongs to a sphere which is governed by its own laws and which may legitimately be abstracted from other spheres or from total reality. — Georg Simmel, on individuality and social forms_…, 202

Categorization

• XREF: The claim that a pure form (like the stranger, or the blasé attitude) keeps its own laws across contents underpins why Simmel, Lofland, and Cole can be cross-applied to a single character. — connects to: Widely shared similarities cool connections into a sense of contingency — Georg Simmel, on individuality and social forms_…, 396; Forms differ from Kantian categories by informing all experience and changing over time — Georg Simmel, on individuality and social forms_…, 21; Social forms must be abstracted from many historical instances — Georg Simmel, on individuality and social forms_…, 60 (+20 more)

Related

• The same content persists across different interaction forms (similarity 0.92)
• Identical interaction forms recur across radically different social groups (similarity 0.88)
• Social forms must be abstracted from many historical instances (similarity 0.87)
• Marx decentered identity by lodging subjects inside un-chosen historical practices (similarity 0.85)
• Forms differ from Kantian categories by informing all experience and changing over time (similarity 0.83)
• The formal content distinction in sociology can only be illustrated, not yet defined (similarity 0.80)
• Individual motives become social only through forms of mutual interaction (similarity 0.79)
• Social forms can be classified by the interpersonal distances they create (similarity 0.78)
• Historical pattern explanations need leveled generality (similarity 0.78)
• Formal similarity of social position creates solidarity regardless of personal character (similarity 0.78)