SavedAdd your journal

Journals / HUMANITAS - Uluslararası Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 12 Sayı: 23

Georg Simmel's Stranger and Walter Benjamin's Flaneur's Ways of Seeing and Knowing

Recep Cemali Akgün(KARAMANOĞLU MEHMETBEY ÜNİVERSİTESİ, EDEBİYAT FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0001-5944-4544
Pages
41–52
Publication Date
2024-03-14
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The study claims that even though the stranger and the flaneur’s ways of seeing and knowing can make the plurality of truth and points of view possible, they do not completely go beyond modernity’s subjectivity and its experiential forms.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Georg Simmel’s stranger and Walter Benjamin’s flaneur are social types constructed and reconstructed by modern life experiences and capitalism.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Thinking each of these types as social scientists and filmmakers, the study analyzes their ways of seeing and knowing.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The study claims that even though the stranger and the flaneur’s ways of seeing and knowing can make the plurality of truth and points of view possible, they do not completely go beyond modernity’s subjectivity and its experiential forms.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Yabancı · Flanör · Toplumsal Tipler

Abstract

Georg Simmel’s stranger and Walter Benjamin’s flaneur are social types constructed and reconstructed by modern life experiences and capitalism. Thinking each of these types as social scientists and filmmakers, the study analyzes their ways of seeing and knowing. In that sense, it lays bare that the stranger and the flaneur offer alternative ways of seeing and knowing that differ from the modernist ones. Accordingly, it investigates what the possibilities and limitations of the stranger and the flaneur’s ways of seeing and knowing are, and how these possibilities and limitations are being formed. The main question of the study is how ways of seeing and knowing of these types differentiate from the modernist ones. The study claims that even though the stranger and the flaneur’s ways of seeing and knowing can make the plurality of truth and points of view possible, they do not completely go beyond modernity’s subjectivity and its experiential forms.

Özet

Modern yaşam deneyimleri ve kapitalizm tarafından kurulan ve yeniden kurulan Georg Simmel’in yabancısı ve Walter Benjamin’in flanörü toplumsal tiplerdir. Bu çalışma, bu tiplerin her birini sosyal bilimci ve sinemacı olarak düşünerek onların görme ve bilme biçimlerini ele alıyor. Bu manada yabancı ve flanörün modernist olanlardan farklılaşan görme ve bilme biçimleri sunduğu açıkça ortaya koyuyor. Buna bağlı olarak, yabancı ve flanörün görme ve bilme biçimlerinin imkanları ve sınırlılıklarını, bu olasılık ve sınırlılıkların nasıl biçimlendiğini araştırıyor. Buna uygun olarak, çalışmanın temel sorusu bu tiplerin görme ve bilme biçimlerinin modernist olanlardan nasıl farklılaştığıdır. Bu bağlamda onların alternatifliliğinin kapsam ve sınırlarını gösteriyor. Çalışma, yabancı ve flanörün görme ve bilme biçimleri hakikatin ve bakış açılarının çoğulluğuna dair imkanlar açmalarına rağmen, onların modernitenin öznellik ve deneyim biçimlerinin ötesine tamamıyla geçemediklerini iddia eder.

🔖

Cite This Article

Akgün, R. C. (2024). Georg Simmel's Stranger and Walter Benjamin's Flaneur's Ways of Seeing and Knowing. HUMANITAS - Uluslararası Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 12 Sayı: 23, 41–52. https://doi.org/10.20304/humanitas.1384552

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (22)

  1. Baker, U. (2002). From opinions to images: towards a sociology of affects [Doctoral dissertation, Middle East Technical University].
  2. Benjamin, Walter. (1999) The arcades project, New York: Harvard University Press.
  3. Benjamin, W. (2004). The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction. L. Braudy and M. Cohen (Eds.), Film theory and criticism (pp. 791-811). New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  4. Benjamin, W. (2006). The writer of modern life: essays on Charles Baudelaire. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
  5. Berger, J. (2008). Ways of seeing. London: Penguin Books.
  6. Cohen, M. (Autumn 1989). Walter Benjamin’s phantasmagoria. New German Critique, 48, 87-107.
  7. Crary, J. (1990). Techniques of the observer: on vision and modernity in the nineteenth century. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  8. Certeau, M. (1988). The practice of everyday life. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
  9. Deleuze, G. (1986). Cinema 1: the movement image. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
  10. Deleuze, G. (1989). Cinema 2: the time image. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
  11. Descartes, R. (1996). Meditations on first philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
  12. Eisenstein, S. (1994). Towards a theory of montage. London: British Film Institute.
  13. Fischel, A. (1999). Engagement and documentary. Jump Cut, 34, 35-40.
  14. Gleber, A. (1999) The art of taking a walk: flanerie, literature, and film in Weimar culture. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  15. Kant, I. (1998). Critique of pure reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  16. Poe, E. A. (2001). The man of the crowd. J. Manis (Ed), The works of Edgar Allan Poe in five volumes: volume five (pp. 29-37). Hazleton: The Pennsylvania State University.
  17. Simmel, G. (1965). The sociology of Georg Simmel. New York: The Free Press.
  18. Simmel, G. (1971). On individuality and social forms: selected writings. Chicago: Chicago Press.
  19. Simmel, G. (1984). On women, sexuality and love. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  20. Simmel, G. (1990). Philosophy of money. London and New York: Routledge.
  21. Simmel, G. (2000). Simmel on culture. London: Sage Publications.
  22. Vertov, D. (1985). Kino-Eye: the writings of Dziga Vertov. London: University of California Press.