Tonnies's Notions of Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft

Tonnies's Notions of Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft

Tonnies’s notions of gemeinschaft and gesellschaft are two different ways of conceptualizing communities and societies. Gemeinschaft draws from the German word for 'community' and expresses a society where people are strongly connected by their shared beliefs, values, and traditions (Crossman, 2019). This society type is usually seen as harmonious and united, with intense feelings of inclusion. Within this particular society, individuals see themselves being members of the more prominent groups. The type of notion is related to communities within traditional contexts like towns in which the individuals have closer relationships strong sense of identity and values (Crossman, 2019). In this notion, most individuals are inferior to the larger groups.

On the other hand, the Gesellschaft refers to a derivative of a German word that means a society. Within this perspective, the members of the particular society are related by several common beliefs and practices. The Gesellschaft type of society has self-interests and autonomy as the primary mode of characterization (Crossman, 2019). Gesellschaft is often associated with urban or large-scale societies, such as modern cities and nations, where individuals are connected through impersonal relationships, market transactions, and a strong sense of competition (Crossman, 2019). In a Gesellschaft, individuals are free to pursue their interests and are not obligated to the group or society.

The different perspectives between the gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft are evident within the present social life. A proto example is the distinction between the rural and urban community contexts. Within the community or the traditional community contexts, individuals are considered below a group and have particular laws and rules that govern them. However, the situation is different from the urban contexts where all the individuals have the power to exploit their interests and are only connected through their market status.

Further, the difference between the two perspectives is also evident in places of work. Take an instance of a workplace with individuals with shared relationships and close associations. In this context, autonomy and self-interest are overridden, and all the members are collectively needed to work towards the group's objective. The situation is, however, different from a workplace context where the mode of connection of the individual members is through market values and other socioeconomic strains (Crossman, 2019). In this context, autonomy and self-interests are considered since each individual has their say regarding the related objective.