l, but such a definition begs the question: what is the "traditional community in general?" Sociologists have observed dramatic changes in the way human communities relate to eachother in a modern world, a world with advanced technology, a world containing cities with populations of 30 million and more, a world where money has become one of the leading functions of transaction between individuals. Some, such as George Simmel and Ferdinand Tonnies, suggest that human relationships have become shallower in an increasingly atomizing society. As the Industrial Revolution of the 19th and 
20th centuries brought about the demand for specialized labor, communities started to lose their family-oriented value and became estranged, goal-oriented ones, with only ideals of "normalness" and tradition as a framework for their societal values. According to Simmel and Tonnies, shallower relations between individuals in an atomized society has led to difficulty in understanding, adapting, and appreciating the uniqueness of other individuals. In Philosophy of Money, Simmel describes how individuals in modern society have used money to mediate their relationships more and more. In Community and Society, Tonnies distinguishes between primary relationships, such as family bonds, and secondary relationships, such as employer/employee or teacher/student, and he describes how modern society has seemed to exchange primary relationships for secondary, goal-oriented ones.If these sociologists' insights into some of modern societies' discontents are acceptable, then we need to consider if it is in fact modern society itself that is incapable of fulfilling human social needs. What if we are alienated by a society that we contribute to everyday? That seems messed up. Shouldn't something you put effort into return some kind of satisfaction? Unfortunately, it seems that alienating transactions are not so uncommon.
How many times have you heard someone else say, "I hate my job," "I hate my boss," "My work is so boring," "I don't do anything at my job," "My job title is too long and complicat
ed to explain - let's just say that I stare at a computer screen all day."? If someone feels like this, if they do not get any satisfaction from the time and effort they put into work, then why don't they do what Peter Gibbons and his friends did in the movie Office Space (1999) and just stop going to work because they don't want to? Why do we work for someone or some business/organization that we deem meaningless - meaningless because we clearly do not receive satisfaction or self-fulfillment from working for no apparent reason. Of course, we do work for a reason, that is, money. Simmel's argument that money has become the medium of relational transaction
s seems to make sense when we think of it this way: There are many of us who don't go to work because we have a familial bond with our co-workers, nor because we are truly dedicated to the mission of our employer or business/organization; we go to make money. Of course that money secures us food, shelter, and a great deal of luxury. But when was it decided that we would spend such a significant amount of our time and effort on secondary relationships to secure a "standard of living?" Is this a sacrifice that is necessary? Is this a good sacrifice? Is it possible, as sociologists suggest, that it is this meaningless exchange of time and effort for money that has alienated us from the very society that we contribute to daily?
ed to explain - let's just say that I stare at a computer screen all day."? If someone feels like this, if they do not get any satisfaction from the time and effort they put into work, then why don't they do what Peter Gibbons and his friends did in the movie Office Space (1999) and just stop going to work because they don't want to? Why do we work for someone or some business/organization that we deem meaningless - meaningless because we clearly do not receive satisfaction or self-fulfillment from working for no apparent reason. Of course, we do work for a reason, that is, money. Simmel's argument that money has become the medium of relational transaction
s seems to make sense when we think of it this way: There are many of us who don't go to work because we have a familial bond with our co-workers, nor because we are truly dedicated to the mission of our employer or business/organization; we go to make money. Of course that money secures us food, shelter, and a great deal of luxury. But when was it decided that we would spend such a significant amount of our time and effort on secondary relationships to secure a "standard of living?" Is this a sacrifice that is necessary? Is this a good sacrifice? Is it possible, as sociologists suggest, that it is this meaningless exchange of time and effort for money that has alienated us from the very society that we contribute to daily? 
