Georg Simmel spoke about the metropolitan mind

Authors Avatar

000305581017

MDS - 20004

 Georg Simmel spoke about the metropolitan mind. Does this theory of psychology say anything about contemporary existence?

Georg Simmel became one of the first sociologists to attempt to analyse ‘street life’ during the late part of the nineteenth century and early part of the twentieth century. Amongst his papers, he wrote ‘The Metropolis and Mental Life’ in which he outlined and tries to explain how a cities environment skews its inhabitant’s mental state. Living in Berlin for most of his life, he had a first class case study on his doorstep with it being a leading city in the western world. Although this paper may have been written over a hundred years ago, it remains relevant to today’s society with the same problems of stress and anxiety still present. However, the ways in which these nuisances manifest themselves has changed considerably alongside people’s attitudes and surroundings. To answer the question above, I found it necessary to pinpoint a certain area of ‘contemporary existence’ to prevent this thesis becoming vague. An interesting area that seemed to have limited association with Simmel’s work was unnecessary violence. At several points during ‘The Metropolis and Mental Life’, he touches upon the subject of the blasé attitude of the public that can cause a “mutual strangeness and repulsion which will break into hatred and fight at the moment of closer contact” (Simmel 1997). This kind of aggressive reaction is something that has been characterised by football hooliganism in recent history. Commonly seen as the ugly side of ‘the beautiful game’, it has become a culture in itself for several generations and as Huntington says, “The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural.” (Huntington 1993).

        It is thought that without a common culture to associate them with, people struggle to communicate. With football being the most popular spectator sport in Britain (approximately 4-5 million attending a year) (University of Leicester 2002), it seems to be the perfect way to form a widespread bond amongst the public. Of course, it isn’t as simple as that. Football is split into hundreds of different teams ranging from the Manchester United-types to local pub sides that all draw in varying crowds. This creates a problem in terms of rivalry. Whether it is healthy or not, by supporting a particular team, there will always be somebody else trying to beat you on the pitch. Simmel outlines that other people will always be enemies. By having something to be especially passionate about only heightens these feelings of hatred. Following your favourite club may give you a special bond between your own supporters, however by doing this you also set up a large group of enemies. This especially becomes a problem when a metropolis has more than one club in a small geographical area.

        London typifies this for within one city there are multiple football clubs only a few miles apart from one another. Other good examples can be found in places such as Manchester and Birmingham however perhaps probably the strongest rivalry in Britain can be found in Glasgow. Here, it is the backdrop of religious affiliation that adds to the bad feeling towards each other’s sides. With the Rangers fans being predominantly protestant and the Celtic supporters being mainly catholic. Out of these kinds of situations, the ‘football hooligan’ is born. Through their research, Zani and Kirchler found that “the stereo typology which has attached itself to the football hooligan over the past two decades, approximately, is that the typical football hooligan is: male, lower working class, often unemployed and between the ages of 18-22.” (Zani & Kirchler, 1991). Although these stereotypes may exist, they are not necessarily true. Being able to narrow this kind of violence down to such a select demographic seems very unlikely.

When people demonise others outside of their own boundaries it is not only themselves that are going to be involved in the conflict but innocents will also be caught in the crossfire. Football creates this problem when animosity between rival supporters reaches boiling point. A prime example is the highly publicised death of two men before the Leeds United versus Galatasary clash in Turkey. Although this tragic event may have been the result of provocation, the people surrounding the incident also found themselves involved. A quote from a BBC report confirms this by saying, “Loftus, a 37-year-old single man from Burmantofts, was also killed in the clashes. Four other Leeds fans were injured, one of them seriously.” (BBC, 2002). Despite two Englishmen dying in a foreign country, the media somewhat overlooked this tragic fact and went straight for the jugular of football by condemning its comparatively small hooligan contingent. Whether or not the two victims were looking for trouble or not, these are people who have family and friends and deserve some dignity in death. Simmel backs this reaction up when he says, “An incapacity thus emerges to react to new sensations with the appropriate energy” (Simmel 1950).  This also supports the notion that there is such a thing as the ‘metropolitan temper’ where there is a lack of sympathy for another urbanite. Although the press shows this kind of insensitivity regularly, the upcoming 2006 World Cup in Germany may prove interesting due to that fact.    

Join now!

Although it may be thought that these kinds of incidents should deter any further violence it can also have the opposite effect. Having such a strong bond amongst a bunch of men can make their ‘firm’ seem like a family. In effect, having a fellow supporter killed will only spurn the need for revenge. Certain things strengthen this kind of affinity. The ‘modern condition’ is said to rely heavily on image. Apparently one of the most effective ways of reaching other people is to have a common appearance. This is easily applied to the football supporter but not so to ...

This is a preview of the whole essay