Schwiedland’s 1917 pamphlet frames the relation between persons and social wholes as a problem shared by sociology, ethics, law, and economics. The two lectures ask how collective life forms individuals, disciplines them, and also depends on their initiative.
Das Verhältnis der einzelnen Persönlichkeiten zu den gesellschaftlichen Kreisen, denen sie zugehören, berührt die Gesellschaftskunde, die Ethik, die Rechtswissenschaft, die Volkswirtschaftslehre.
English translation: The relationship of individual personalities to the social circles to which they belong concerns sociology, ethics, jurisprudence, and economics.
The first lecture, “Soziale Disziplinierung,” treats custom, morality, and law as historical forms of social regulation. Schwiedland begins from Sitte: conduct expected by the community and stabilized by repetition, approval, and disapproval. He distinguishes outward practice from inward moral conviction, but he does not detach conscience from social life.
Sitte ist äußere Übung, Sittlichkeit innerliche Gesinnung.
English translation: Custom is outward practice; morality is inward disposition.
From this basis he reconstructs law as a later and firmer crystallization of custom. Punishment develops from vengeance, expiation, religious sanction, and public authority; private right grows from decisions about what is equitable and secure in relations among individuals and between individuals and the whole. The lecture’s central claim is that morality, custom, and law differ by sanction—conscience, public opinion, coercion—but all serve the ordering and self-protection of collective life.
This does not make Schwiedland a simple collectivist. He repeatedly notes that conscience may oppose prevailing custom and law, and that ethical development can begin in conflict with inherited forms. Yet the dominant social fact remains discipline: the collectivity educates, restrains, and uses the individual. His discussion of the state sharpens the argument. States demand morality from citizens while often suspending ordinary moral rules in politics and war, revealing that moral valuations are historically tied to the preservation of larger social circles.
The lecture then extends the same pattern to economic life. Medieval corporate orders bound production and exchange through inherited rules; nineteenth-century liberalism released individual economic force; the modern age, in Schwiedland’s view, is moving toward renewed organization through labor protection, insurance, cartels, unions, associations, and state intervention. The result is neither a return to old corporate immobility nor unrestricted laissez-faire, but a more regulated “organized individualism.”
The second lecture, “Vergesellschaftende Kräfte,” turns from discipline to the forces that draw persons into association: religion, law, homeland, patriotism, common interest, professional purpose, and political action. Schwiedland compares social bodies to organisms, but insists that societies are not natural organisms with fixed substance. They exist through relations among persons, yet their effects exceed any simple sum of individuals.
Die gesellschaftlichen Vorgänge spielen sich wohl interindividuell ab, sie sind aber in ihren Wirkungen supraindividuell.
English translation: Social processes indeed take place interindividually, but in their effects they are supra-individual.
This supraindividual force appears in families, churches, municipalities, professional bodies, labor unions, cartels, parties, and the state. Free associations enlarge power, knowledge, protection, and culture, but they also harden interests and narrow judgment. The state both permits and limits such bodies, and it often incorporates forms of assistance first developed by private association into public administration.
The closing opposition is between inherited order and freedom of movement, between organic-social continuity and individual initiative. Schwiedland’s answer is practical rather than utopian: modern society must preserve personality while preventing individual freedom from dissolving the conditions of common life.
Vernünftigerweise kann es nur ein praktisches Ziel geben: die Harmonie zwischen dem Glücke des einzelnen und jenem der Gesamtheit.
English translation: Reasonably, there can be only one practical aim: harmony between the happiness of the individual and that of the community.
This work was divided into 13 sections when it entered the library's research corpus—an apparatus for search and citation, not necessarily the author's own table of contents. Each title opens its summary.
Put a question to this work; the Librarian answers from its 13 sections and cites the passage.
Ask the Librarian