Talk:Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Psychology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Sociology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

More than that -- I find it utterly bizarre and out of place. It talks about a book by Porter Brown that has no relevance to the topic. Misogynistic stereotypes about good and bad women are everywhere, and have no special relevance to the topic of "Gemeinschaft" vs. "Gesellschaft". The connection is too weak for this paragraph to remain in this article -- its inclusion looks like an act of the free association of ideas, nothing more. If there is any reason to keep a paragraph like this, it needs to be extensively revised to make it more on point. 24.134.112.93 (talk) 09:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article does a good job, I think, of explaining these related terms in a sociological context, but doesn't it need some discussion of how the terms evolved in, for example, the work of Hegel? Did the meanings or understanding of the terms evolve later?jackbrown 20:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So would it be accurate to characterize the regular editors of Wikipedia as a Gesellschaft? —Dgies^t c 09:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, I should like to agree: Wikipedia is overwhelmingly “gesellschaft”, most contributors using it for their own goals.
But, as it happens very often in gesellschafts, the contributors prefer to think of themselves as friends or the like, i.e. as members of a “gemeinschaft”. And, to a degree, it works. Remember, in real social life gemeinschaft and gesellschaft always co-exist. Only as theoretical concepts, they are contradictory. -- €pa 00:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is something wrong with the text at the beggining of the article in the main page. It reads:

"Tönnies' concepts of both Gemeinscha (SIC) “Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft” (1887).[1] Seven more German editions came out during his life time, the last 1935.[2] The second edition of 1912 turned out to be an unexpected but lasting success[3], and the antagonism of these two terms belonged to the general stock of concepts German pre-1933 intellectuals were quite familiar with and quite often misunderstood."

It doesn't make much sense in itself and it has little conexion with the previous sentence. Please take a look and correct.

Geopolitical Analysis 20:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC) . I strongly believe that in german Europäische Gemeinschaft and Europäische Union are two distinct institutions, so the argument under the Outside sociology header can do with a cleanup — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimvotes (talk • contribs) 20:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ain't that more an article for Wiktionary 16:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)16:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)16:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.216.89.205 (talk)

Quite off the point. “Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft” by Ferdinand Tönnies (1887) is a key work of sociology. - €pa (talk) 00:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this word in the Times this morning. I came here to find its meaning. (So yes, I welcome its inclusion.) But I did not come acorss the synonym "Community" until I waded in fairly deep. Perhaps this ought to be moved to paragraph one? Paul, in Saudi (talk) 10:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070307232648/http://www.degruyter.de/rs/172_WS_D_ED_DEU_h.cfm?rc=16033&id=SER-M1-WDG-TG-B-16033&fg=WS to http://www.degruyter.de/rs/172_WS_D_ED_DEU_h.cfm?rc=16033&id=SER-M1-WDG-TG-B-16033&fg=WS

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear all,

I am writing to ask about the reason of the section dedicated to the use of the word Gesellschaft outside of sociology.

It does not refer to Gesellschaft as a concept created by Ferdinand Toennis but rather to the German word itself and the way it is used. In my opinion it does not make any sense.

This is my first contribution to Wikipedia. I hope I am respecting all the rules. Congratulations for this project and thanks in advance for taking my comment into consideration.

Best regards,

Animal Symbolicum — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnimalSymbolicum (talk • contribs) 13:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Will (sociology) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 9 § Will (sociology) until a consensus is reached. Batrachoseps (talk) 15:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]