Park’s students kept Simmel’s social relations while dropping his social process focus.

Evidence

It is notable that all these extensions of Simmel’s ideas by Park’s students—in their studies of social distance, social isolation, and individuation in the metropolis—deal with social relationships, not with social process. In Park’s scheme, the study of social processes was usurped, as we have seen, by the rather non-Simmelian concerns about the dynamics of collectivities and the natural histories of their growth. Given an established social order, however, one could study social relationships either as representing stable patterns of social accommodation or in terms of relative distance from a presumed social consensus. — Georg Simmel, on individuality and social forms_…, 136

Categorization

• XREF: Directly relevant to the reader’s essay: this shows how Lofland’s stranger-categorization framework descends from Park’s selective adaptation of Simmel, dropping process for stable patterns. — connects to: Weber’s methodology and theory of rationalization drew directly from Simmel — Georg Simmel, on individuality and social forms_…, 112; Kracauer’s early critical orientation defined itself against Simmel, Weber, Scheler, and Lukács. — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School: Its History,…, 267

Related

• Weber’s methodology and theory of rationalization drew directly from Simmel (similarity 0.85)
• Park’s sociological method shifted focus from abstract forms to concrete collectivities and consensus. (similarity 0.85)
• Kracauer’s early critical orientation defined itself against Simmel, Weber, Scheler, and Lukács. (similarity 0.82)