The Who and the What

Ambiguous Individuality: Georg Simmel on the "Who" and the "What" of the Individual, is an essay written by Olli Pyyhtinen pertaining to Georg Simmel's perspective on the "Who" and the "What" of an individual. She writes that "individuality is always divided between the who and the what: on the one hand, each individual is an absolute singularity, someone incomparable and irreplaceable, and yet, on the other hand, composed of some-thing that one is, of qualities possessed by many people, the combination of which nevertheless succeeds in making one unique" (2008). This duality is common in Simmel's writings, which I find ot be fascinating because our lives seem to function best with some sort of struggle, or tug-of-war, btween two oppositions. So for Simmel to see a duality whithing us seems to make sense in a way.

I have mentioned that conformity and individuality can and should co-exist within our lives for the world to function as it does. Emile Durkheim would disagree with me and say that the individual cannot also be the conformist. Pyyhtinen mentions Durkheim and what he wrote in "The Division of Labor", that "we cannot at one and the same time adhere to both of the tendencies: if we desire to be individual, we cannot think and act as others do, and, if we express solidarity with others, our individuality decreases accordingly" (2008). Simmel's perspective of the duality of people contrasts with Durkheim's perspective. While Durkheim says that this duality cannot exist, Simmel gives us a clear example of how it does exist. Pyyhtinen writes that "Simmel argues that even though as categories the individual and society are already in principle irreconcilable, fashion is nonetheless able to reconcile their antagonism in a provisory manner: 'It is peculiarly characteristic of fashion that it rendors possible a social obedience, which at the same time is a form of individual differentiation'" (2008).

We have boundaries set before us, some of which by law we cannot break or go beyond. Even with these limitations and boundaries that we should or must conform to, Simmel is saying we do not need to lose our individuality. Both can and do exist simultaneously, no offense to Durkheim.

Continuing along this theme of dualities, Pyyhtinen writes about Simmel's concept "between the who and the what of the individual: on the one hand, the individual is an absolute singularity, someone unique and non-repeatable, on the other, one is composed of something, of more or less typical traits shared with others" (2008). It is the difference of "qualitative individuality", which "refers to the freedom and self-responsibility that a person gains in wider social circles as opposed to more limiting groups"; and "qualitative individuality", which "pertains to the fact that a person differs from others in the form or content of one's being and action" (Pyyhtinen 2008). Simmel makes this distinction for us to better understand individuality and the individual; thus now if one were to say that individuality is diminishing in our society, we could argue that it may just be the individual within the domain of qualitative individuality that seems to be diminishing, rather than the quantitative individual.

What I appreciated about this essay was that it forced me to take time to really think about individuality and that there are different parts to individuality, or rather individuality is a dualistic concept. I remember when I was in high school trying so hard not to be such a "conformist" but an individual, that I did not even know who I was. I wanted to be different, to have something that set me apart from the rest of the crowd. But by searching so hard for it, it seems I fell further away from my individuality... I have learned since then that is is okay to enjoy reading the Twilight books, or taking long walks on the beach. Being part of the majority is not always a bad thing if you know that it is something that you enjoy and like. Having similarities and common interests with others is what brings us together as family, friends, and people; then it is our unique characteristics that begin to shine through and add some spice to those similarities within those groups. Conformity and individuality co-exist and can do so in a healthy manner if we do not lose sight of who we are. Again, I believe that within critical thinking and active minds is where a lot of our uniqueness will shine through.
____________________________________________________________

Pyyhtinen, Olli. Ambiguous Individuality: Georg Simmel on the "Who" and the "What" of the Individual. Hum Stud (2008) 31:279-298.