Essay on Spencer's statement Society is a composition of all kinds of ideas, beliefs, feelings that are realized through individualism. Psychological School of Russian Sociology

Introduction 3

1. Sociology of E. Durkheim 5

1.1. E. Durkheim's theory of social solidarity 6

1.2. Special monograph by E. Durkheim 9

Conclusion 14

List of used literature 16

Introduction

The history of each science shows that at first only individual elements of science are born, formed and developed, and then a name is clarified and fixed that explains its essence and content. In other words, the point is not in the term and not in when and how it appeared. The fact is that every science arises as a response to the needs of social development. And although the term sociology itself is associated with the name of O. Comte, this does not mean at all that it was he who created this science. His genius manifested itself in the fact that he was able to generalize and see in a new way those emerging phenomena that were characteristic of the end of the 18th - early XIX centuries.

Meanwhile, if we talk about sociology, then this is a theory. And science is not about society in general (society is studied by social philosophy, history, political science, legal sciences, and cultural studies), but society in its socio-human guise. It’s not just society for a person, but a person in society - that’s what constitutes the essence of sociology. And where does a person begin in his social guise? From consciousness, from the ability to understand the world, evaluate it from personal and social positions, comprehend, based on certain values, the surrounding reality and build behavior on this basis, taking into account the influence of both the macroenvironment and the microenvironment.

For this approach, sociology uses all the wealth of philosophical knowledge about consciousness in general and social consciousness in particular, about activity and its role in social life, about the influence of objective and subjective conditions on this consciousness and behavior. For social analysis, the conclusions of psychological science about the consciousness and behavior of each individual, individual micro- and macrogroups are also important.

Based on existing knowledge, sociology gives its interpretation public consciousness and human behavior, forms its own categorical apparatus (for example, about the types and types of consciousness and activity), its vision of the objective and subjective in social processes, its idea of the macro-, meso- and micro levels of human activity.

Despite the diversity of theories, concepts and approaches in various schools in the 19th century, they were all united in one thing - the object and subject of sociology is society, all social life.

The beginning of the 20th century made significant amendments to these ideas. More and more criticism was heard that sociology pretends to play a certain role as a metascience, which seeks to absorb data from all other sciences about society and draw global conclusions on this basis. The first to doubt this formulation of the question was E. Durkheim (1858-1917). He believed that sociology, having society as the object of its study, should not pretend to “know everything” about this society - the subject of its interest should only be social facts that form social reality. Based on this, he interpreted reality (laws, customs, rules of conduct, religious beliefs, monetary system, etc.) as objective, because they do not depend on man. An equally important feature of Durkheim's concept was that he addressed social groups, highly appreciating the role of collective consciousness. Only thanks to this consciousness does social integration exist, because members of society attach importance to its norms and are guided by them in their lives. If the individual does not want to follow these norms, anomie arises, which is typical for all societies experiencing a sharp change in their structure. In this regard, the application of sociology as a theory of society to the study of the causes of suicide (there is a special work on this) revealed unusual processes occurring both in society and in the individual.

1. Sociology of E. Durkheim

E. Durkheim (1858-1917) is one of the most famous and respected French sociologists. His contribution to the history of world sociology is determined not only by his own ideas and concepts, but also by the fact that E. Durkheim created the French school of sociology, the traditions of which still have a serious influence on the thinking style of French sociologists, their choice of subject of research, etc. .

A distinctive feature of Durkheim's scientific positions was the concept of sociology. According to it, social reality has its own specificity, autonomy, and irreducibility to other types of reality (for example, physical, mental). Consequently, it has its own laws, which sociology must identify and study. This implies one of the important methodological requirements of E. Durkheim - the social must be explained by the social, based on the social. With its sharp edge, this concept is directed against the psychologism that existed in Durkheim’s time in the interpretation of social phenomena.

The qualitative specificity of society is revealed more clearly in its irreducibility to the individual and individual consciousness. In relation to the individual, social reality is objective and independent in its existence. Durkheim wrote that at birth the individual finds ready-made laws and customs, rules of conduct, religious beliefs and rituals, language, monetary system, etc., operating independently of it. “Social beliefs or acts are capable of existing independently of their individual expressions,” the sociologist wrote.

Explaining the irreducibility of social reality to the individual, individual life, Durkheim emphasized that in the process of interactions between people a new quality arises, which is called social life. For example, it is obvious that “a group thinks, feels, acts completely differently than its members would do if they were separated. If, therefore, we start from these latter, we will not understand anything of what is happening in the group.” Illustrating this idea, the sociologist often referred to the example of a chemical whole as a synthesis of its component parts.

The primacy, the superiority of society over the individual is revealed in social coercion. Social institutions, by the very fact of their existence, prescribe certain forms, methods and patterns of behavior for people, put pressure on them, and include negative and positive sanctions. Human behavior is mainly determined not by individual reasons and factors, but by the totality of social facts that push the individual to certain actions.

Social reality in the view of E. Durkheim consists of social facts of two kinds - morphological, to which the French sociologist includes demographic, technological and environmental facts, and from collective ideas, i.e. facts of collective consciousness. It is the latter that are especially significant for Durkheim - they reveal the specifics of society. The fact is that collective ideas, these common ideas and beliefs, connect people and form the very social fabric. Therefore, Durkheim considered collective consciousness to be the vital link of the entire society. Moreover, society is precisely “a composition of all kinds of ideas, beliefs and feelings that are realized through the medium of individuals.”

1.1. E. Durkheim's theory of social solidarity

The problem of social order and disorder, social norm and social pathology was one of the main ones for many early sociologists, including Durkheim. The development by the French scientist of the problem of collective consciousness, social solidarity, the methodology of structural-functional analysis, division of labor, as well as the study of suicide - all these are different ways of solving the same problem of social harmony.

From Durkheim's point of view, social solidarity is a certain integrity public life, collectivity and, at the same time, the highest moral principle, the highest and universal value that is recognized by all members of society.

Starting from the idea of constructing two ideal types of society, typical of nineteenth-century sociology, between which there is historical continuity, Durkheim puts forward his concept of a society with mechanical and organic solidarity.

Mechanical solidarity, according to Durkheim, is characteristic of archaic, primitive and undeveloped societies. These societies are characterized by the fact that their constituent elements or components have little dependence on each other and exist almost autonomously. They are self-sufficient because they perform the same or similar functions. Subsistence farming can be considered as their model.

Other distinguishing feature such societies - weak development of the individual, personal principle in man. Within the framework of such societies, the unifying, integrating factor can only be a collective, general, supra-individual consciousness, expressed both in repressive law and in religion.

Collective consciousness almost completely absorbs individual consciousness. The peculiarity of mechanical solidarity is the dissolution of the individual in the team. The less developed individuality is, the fewer individual deviations, the more intense and vividly expressed is the all-filling collective consciousness and, consequently, social solidarity. Such consciousness inevitably acquires a religious character. Religion forms social life, consisting exclusively of common rites and rituals. Durkheim generally identifies beliefs of strong intensity with religious ones, which gives him grounds to reduce strong, intense social interactions to religious ones: “everything that is social is religious; both words are synonyms.”

Thus, the unity of society, social order in primitive societies is achieved through the suppression of everything that goes beyond the scope of collective consciousness, which regulates the entire life of individuals without a trace.

The gradual development of public relations, an increase in means and routes of communication, the growth of cities and population, which determines the intensification of social life - all this leads to an increased division of labor. The latter, eroding the integrity of collective consciousness, its comprehensive nature, itself ultimately becomes the basis of a new solidarity - organic.

The professional specialization of people and their performance of special, strictly defined functions harms the cohesion and unity of society. It also determines the differences between individuals and their development of individual abilities and talents. But due to the ever-increasing specialization of labor, individuals are forced to exchange their activities, perform complementary functions, involuntarily forming a single whole. The awareness of this, the understanding that everyone is connected by a system of relations, without which they cannot exist, evokes a feeling of dependence on each other, one’s connection with society, i.e. solidarity. It is not the collective consciousness, which has lost its integrity, differentiated, shrunk, and become more rational and individual-oriented, but the division of labor, or more precisely, the awareness of its social consequences, that restores the integrity of society.

E. Durkheim, of course, was far from not noticing the real disharmony in his contemporary society, the crisis phenomena in the economy and politics of Europe at the end of the 19th century. He identified three main “abnormal” forms of division of labor: anomie, social inequality and inadequate organization of labor. Overcoming “abnormal” forms of division of labor, these social pathologies, was thought by Durkheim along the path of peaceful resolution of conflicts, reducing struggle and competition to acceptable levels, establishing a set of rules that strictly regulate class relations, introducing justice and equality of “external conditions”, i.e. equality of social opportunities and retribution to all according to their deserts.

Special monograph by E. Durkheim

E. Durkheim devoted a special monograph to the problem of suicide. His research is noteworthy for several reasons. First, this work has become a sociological classic. Secondly, using the example of a special and highly individualized social phenomenon, Durkheim demonstrated the heuristic capabilities of his methodological settings. Third, and importantly, he demonstrated the ability of sociology to contribute to understanding the burning problems of our time.

E. Durkheim views suicide as a social phenomenon, as a collective disease of society, and not as an “individual case.” Therefore, the actual subject of his research is the social suicide rate (the ratio of the number of suicides to the population). E. Durkheim argued that the change in this percentage is not associated with individual psychological motives of people, not with those apparent reasons that often come to the fore when explaining a particular suicide, but with social conditions. “Suicide depends mainly not on the internal properties of the individual, but on external causes that control people.” Therefore, wrote E. Durkheim, “leaving aside the individual, his motives and ideas, we directly ask ourselves what are the various states of the social environment (religious beliefs, family, political life, professional groups, etc.), under the influence which changes the suicide rate."

The suicide rate is a function of several social variables, relationships in religious, family, political, national and other groups. The collapse or strengthening of social ties, the strengthening or weakening of social discipline, social integration - this is what it really is main reason suicides. E. Durkheim, of course, does not discount the individuals themselves. However, individual motives and reasons seem to him only a distorted expression of general social conditions: “if an individual so easily succumbs to the blows of life’s circumstances, this is because the state of the society to which he belongs has made him a prey, already completely ready for suicide.” .

Turning to official statistics, research by sociologists and criminologists, E. Durkheim identified a number of empirical patterns: the percentage of suicides is higher in summer than in winter; men are more likely to commit suicide than women; old more often than young; soldiers more often than civilians; Protestants more often than Catholics; single, widowed and divorced people more often than married people; city dwellers more often than rural residents. What explains these patterns? In an effort to answer this question, E. Durkheim alternately considered the proposed scientific literature reasons for suicide, discarding untenable ones. Thus, refuting the prevailing idea that suicide is necessarily associated with mental disorders, E. Durkheim gives the following example: the number of women in psychiatric clinics far exceeds the number of men, while the number of suicides among men is higher than among women. Another argument is that the suicide rate increases with age, while mental disorders reach their highest point in the years of adulthood - between 30 and 45 years. In a similar way, the sociologist considers other proposed causes of suicide - genetic, racial, climatic, etc. Noting their imaginary nature, E. Durkheim emphasizes that they are best case scenario can only indirectly influence the suicide rate. So, from the point of view of E. Durkheim, the only causes of suicide can only be social factors. Using the example of a study of how a particular religion affects suicide, E. Durkheim demonstrates and proves this idea. Catholicism, for example, is an older and more traditional system of beliefs and practices. It has, in comparison with Protestantism, much greater integrity, strength of conviction, and intransigence to innovations that destroy the common spirit. All this leads to greater cohesion of the religious group (church) of Catholics. Protestantism is associated with the decline of traditional beliefs and is imbued with the “spirit of free thought” and criticism. Its ability to unite believers is much less than in Catholicism, which is why the suicide rate among Protestants is higher. “The advantage on the side of Protestantism in the area of suicide occurs because this church is essentially less integral than the Catholic one.”

Thus, the question of the causes of suicide comes down to the question of the degree of social integration of the individual and the factors that destroy or support this integration of a person into the human community. “The number of suicides,” writes E. Durkheim, “is inversely proportional to the degree of integration of the social groups to which the individual belongs.” Family, children, rural life - these are the socially integrating factors that protect the individual from feelings of social isolation, and therefore from the possibility of suicide. “We are protected from suicide only to the extent that we are socialized,” concludes E. Durkheim. On the other hand, the sociologist considers the higher percentage of suicides among military personnel compared to civilians to be a consequence of excessive, excessive integration of the military and regulation of their lives.

The typology of suicides proposed by E. Durkheim is interesting from the point of view of their causes. The sociologist distinguishes three types: egoistic, anomic and altruistic suicide.

Selfish suicide. It is caused by separation, alienation of the individual from society, social groups, the loss by society of the ability to regulate human behavior, influence, influence him. “If the bonds that connect a person with life are broken, it is because his connection with society is weakened.” Severance of social ties, lack of support from the team, a state of disunity, weakening of the ties that bind a person to society, loss of control by the social group over the individual and his behavior - these are the reasons for egoistic suicide. In this context, E. Durkheim analyzes egoism and shows that it and the extreme individualism associated with it isolate a person from society. However, the true reasons for suicide are not these, but namely “sick society”, “collective insensitivity”, “social melancholy” - this gives rise to individualism. According to E. Durkheim, this type of suicide is common among the intelligentsia.

Altruistic suicide. Describing this type of suicide, Durkheim writes: “If, as we have just seen, extreme individualism leads a person to suicide, then insufficiently developed individuality should lead to the same results. When a person is separated from society, the thought of committing suicide easily arises in him; the same thing happens to him in the case when the public completely and completely absorbs his individuality.” The sociologist analyzes this type of suicide mainly using examples of “lower” societies. He talks about Danish warriors who considered it a shame for themselves to die in their bed or end their days from illness and in old age and therefore committed suicide, about Visigothic old men who threw themselves down from the “ancestral rock”, about Indian widows who committed suicide after the death of husbands, etc. Specifically, we are talking about suicides of sick people, old people, wives after the death of their husbands, slaves and servants after the death of the owner and some others. “In all these cases, a person takes his own life not because he himself wanted it, but because he had to do it. If he evades this duty, then dishonor and, most often, religious punishment await him.”

Anomic suicide. It is characteristic of eras of rapid and turbulent social change, for example, periods of economic crises, when old norms, values, and ideals collapse and lose their meaning. The state of society is characterized by anomie, that is, without norms, the absence of a generally valid value-normative system. Anomie gives rise to the moral instability of individuals; it is accompanied by the inability of people to adapt to rapid social changes, the instability of the social position of individuals, and the social and spiritual disorganization of society. Anomic suicide is considered by E. Durkheim from two sides. At the social level, it is generated by social disorganization. “At the moment of social disorganization - whether it occurs due to a painful crisis or, conversely, during a period of favorable, but too sudden social transformations - society turns out to be temporarily unable to exert the necessary influence on a person.” On the individual level - certain properties of the commercial and industrial world, its representatives, whom the sociologist considers most susceptible to this type of suicide. The desire for profit, unbridled aspirations, unlimited desires, rapid ups and downs that do not meet the regulatory influence of society violate the moral and mental balance of a person, which often ends in suicide. “In the end, even one feeling of fatigue can give rise to hopeless disappointment, because it is difficult not to feel the futility of chasing the unattainable.”

Having identified three types of suicides, E. Durkheim pointed out that in many specific cases there is a combination of anomie and egoism, egoism and altruism, etc.

Conclusion

Sociology is not only a theory, but also a methodology, i.e. such a level of theoretical knowledge that is interpreted in the language of sociology, allowing one to operate with information translated into the language of indicators and indicators. For example, consciousness can be represented through a set of components such as knowledge, assessment, mood, motives, values, attitudes, orientations, etc. It is precisely the operation of these specific indicators that makes it possible to fill with “blood” and “flesh” some concepts that are at the level social philosophy or social psychology do not require such detail and specification.

In addition to methodology, the method of understanding social reality is very important for sociology. And not only because it seriously differs from other sciences, but because it involves the use of statistical and mathematical apparatus and a variety of specific methods of cognition. Strictly speaking, sociology deals not with reality itself, but with the perception of this reality by individuals, social groups and strata. To do this, she developed a system of specific techniques and tools with the help of which information is collected and then interpreted.

Meanwhile, sociology reflects a qualitative stage in the history of mankind, when society appeared before us in the human dimension, when not just people, but every person became a subject historical process, which was the beginning of the great bourgeois revolutions. It is from this period that a new understanding of the role of man begins, of all people without exception in all forms of their consciousness and behavior and their transformation into active participants in economic, social, political and cultural changes. Of course, this process occurred gradually, with difficulty, with disruptions and retreats, but there is no doubt that the human dimension of society made its way and was then reflected in scientific thought. Of course, this stage in the development of social thought could not begin suddenly, from an open sheet of paper - the prerequisites for a different approach to man and society matured gradually. But these premises must be given their proper place, and not make cavemen representatives of sociology during the period of hunting mammoths or harvesting from the branches of wild fruit trees.

Sociology as a science is called upon to operate not with speculative schemes, but with real manifestations of life, which, first of all, is reflected in the state of social consciousness, in various forms and types of activities, in the possibilities of their manifestation in specific historical conditions. This is the consciousness and behavior not of an individual, but of social communities and groups, the consciousness and behavior of which acquire social characteristics, have social significance, and form stable social processes and phenomena.

List of used literature

1. Goffman A.B. Seven lectures on the history of sociology: Proc. Benefit. - M.: Book. house "University", 1999. - 208 p.

2. Kravchenko A.I. Sociology: Textbook. - M.: Logos, 2000. - 382 p.

3. Radugin A.A., Radugin K.A. Sociology: Course of lectures. - M.: Center, 2000. - 244 p.

4. Russian Sociological Encyclopedia / Ed. G.V. Osipova. - M.: NORMA-INFRA-M, 1999. - 672 p.

5. Sociology: Textbook / Ed. V.N. Lavrinenko. - M.: UNITY, 2000. - 407 p.

6. Tadevosyan E.V. Sociology: Textbook. allowance. - M.: Knowledge, 1999. - 272 p.

7. Toshchenko Zh.T. Sociology. General course: Textbook. - M.: Prometheus, Yurayt, 1998. - 511 p.

8. Frolov S.S. Sociology: Textbook. allowance. - M.: Gardariki, 2000. - 344 p.

Throughout history, man and society have been inseparable. And it’s difficult to understand who complemented whom. If we pay attention to the historical process, we can note that each event is the result of the actions of one individual. A certain person understands that the time has come for change, and does everything in his power. Therefore, looking back into the past, we see people's names brightly displayed. What is the role of society in this?

The fact is that it is society that shapes a person as an individual and influences his further actions and destiny. This statement completely negates the idea that everything is decided by the “top” or the authorities. The people have special power. Since it is the place where various ideas, talents, beliefs and feelings are stored, it endows a person with a certain set of qualities and abilities.

Of course, such influence can be of a different nature. How good and a kind person who helps others and tries to bring maximum benefit, and Serial killer, bringing pain and suffering, is part of society. Every time a person faces contempt, misunderstanding, or criticism from society, he has a reason to start moving in a different direction.

Based on this, we can conclude that society is a storehouse of useful things that can be used to achieve a goal. But we must remember that we, as individuals, are also part of society, so we must do everything to ensure that our words and actions do not become a temptation for others.

Updated: 2015-02-23

Attention!
If you notice an error or typo, highlight the text and click Ctrl+Enter.
By doing so, you will provide invaluable benefit to the project and other readers.

Thank you for your attention.

The entire history of sociological thought - the history of searches scientific approaches and methods for constructing a theory of society that reflects the actual realities of social life. There are a number of different conceptual approaches to the category "society".

There is, for example, atomic theory, according to which society is understood as a set of acting individuals or relationships between them. “In the end, the whole society,” says J. Davis, “can be represented as an easy path of interpersonal feelings or attitudes. this person can be represented as sitting at the center of a web he has woven, connected directly with a few others and indirectly with the whole world."

A brief expression of this concept was the theory of G. Simmel.
In modern sociology, this concept is known as “network” theory, the basic principles of which were formulated by R. Burt. This theory places the main emphasis on acting individuals who make socially significant decisions in isolation from each other.

In "social group" theories, society was interpreted as a collection of different overlapping groups of people who are varieties of one dominant one.

If in the “atomistic” or “network” concept an essential component in the definition of society is the type of relationship, then in “group” theories it is human groups. Considering society as the most general collection of people, the authors of this concept essentially identify the concept of “society” with the concept of “humanity”.

There are definitions of the category “society”, according to which it is a system of social institutions and organizations. This system guarantees stability, constancy of relationships between people, establishes a stable structure of all possible forms of collective life.

The functional concept treats society as a group of human beings representing a self-sustaining system of actions.

Based different approaches In sociology, another (analytical) theory has emerged, according to which society is a relatively independent or self-sufficient population, characterized by “internal organization, territoriality, cultural differences and natural reproduction.”

In a number of textbooks you can find various definitions of society in the narrow sense: subjective, which considers society as a special amateur collective of people; active, which determines that society should be considered not so much the collective itself as the process of collective existence of people; organizational, which considers society as an institutional system of stable connections between interacting people and social groups.

The approach of sociologists to the definition of the concept of “society” is widely known as a relatively stable system of social connections and relations of both large and small groups of people, determined in the process of historical development of mankind, supported by the forces of custom, traditions, law, social institutions, etc. (civil society, which is based on a certain method of production, distribution of exchange, and consumption of material and spiritual goods).

In general, having examined a large number of definitions of society, sociologists reduce them to the following:

Society is a functioning system based on the division of labor (O. Comte);

Society is a composition of all kinds of ideas, beliefs and feelings that are realized through individuals (G. Spencer);

Society is a social organism, a metasystem that includes all types of communities and is characterized by integrity, balance, and self-organization; spatiotemporal existence (G. Zborovsky);

Society is a union of people connected by the division of labor (A. Smith);

Society is an independent system, with its own laws of development, the analysis of which makes possible analogies with other systems, for example with biological ones (O. Comte, G. Spencer);

Society is a sphere of necessary human interaction, it is a consequence of the work of a mechanism that connects the urgent needs and interests of everyone with the needs and interests of everyone (Mandeville);

Society is a social system that has relative independence from the point of view of the criterion of balance between such factors as territorially oriented political organization, access to environmental resources, reproduction and socialization of the population and cultural legitimization of the system as an independent whole.

Ideas about society as a system began to take shape in sociology under the influence of the works of T. Parsons and R. Merton.

Many features of the functional approach can already be found in Plato and Aristotle, as well as in Comte, Spencer and Durkheim.

Durkheim viewed society as an individual spiritual reality based on collective ideas. According to M. Weber, society is the interaction of people, which is a product of social actions. The prominent American sociologist T. Parsons defined society as a system of relations between people, the connecting principle of which is norms and values. From the point of view of K. Marx, society is a historically developing set of relations between people that develop in the process of their joint activities.

It is obvious that in all these definitions, to one degree or another, an approach to society is expressed as an integral system of elements that are in a state of close interconnection. This approach to society is called systemic, the main task of which is to combine knowledge about society into an integral system that could become unified theory society.

Note that a system is a set of elements ordered in a certain way, interconnected and forming some kind of integral unity. This unity has levels: elements; properties of elements; connection (structure); relations (functions); law of interrelation.

Let us highlight the most general characteristics of objects that embody the principles of systematicity as a special type of connection between the phenomena of our world.

The first and simplest sign of a system object is its qualitative certainty.

We consider the heterogeneity of its structure to be the second necessary feature of a system. The system consists of interconnected parts that mediate each other and their whole. Thus, changes in cardiac activity affect the condition of all other parts of the human body. Such interdependence of parts and the whole is manifested in the special integral properties of the system - its most important feature.

A social system is a holistic formation, the main element of which is people, their connections, interactions and relationships. These connections, interactions and relationships are sustainable and are reproduced in the historical process, passing from generation to generation. Each individual, upon being born, falls into a certain structure of connections and relationships and, in the process of socialization, is included in it.

As a result of its integral qualities, the social system acquires a certain independence in relation to its constituent elements, a relatively independent way of its development.

The systemic approach to society is complemented in sociology by deterministic and functionalist ones. The first is most clearly expressed in Marxism. From the point of view of this doctrine, society as an integral system consists of the following subsystems: economic, social, political and ideological, each of which, in turn, can be considered as a system. To distinguish these subsystems, society is represented as a socio-system. All these systems are in a relationship of subordination and subordination in the order in which they are listed. From the point of view of Marxism, the economic system determines the development of other systems, but at the same time the feedback of all subsystems is emphasized. The mutual influence of these subsystems is dialectical in nature.

However, the ideas of functionalism are more inherent in Anglo-American sociology (H. Spencer, R. Merton).

The basic principles of the functional approach according to Spencer are that:

Society is a single integral organism consisting of many parts: economic, political, military, religious, and so on;

Each part of the system exists only within the framework of integrity, performing its functions within it;

The functions of the parts are aimed at satisfying certain social needs, and together they are aimed at maintaining the stability of society and the reproduction of the human race;

The more the functions differ from each other, the more difficult it is for other parts to compensate for the impaired functions;

The social system maintains stability because it contains elements of control (political administration, law enforcement, religious institutions and moral norms).

Another theory based on the methodology of individualism is symbolic interactionism (interaction), whose representatives are J. Mead and G. Blumer. According to this theory, interaction between individuals is a continuous dialogue in which people monitor, interpret and respond to each other's intentions. Becoming social connection, communication becomes possible due to the fact that people attach the same meaning to a given symbol. According to J. Mead, the social “I” includes two aspects: “I” itself and “We”. Actually, “I” is individual consciousness. “We” is the individual consciousness in the eyes of others. “I” is always a dialogue between “I” and “We”. “I” evaluates its actions through the internal development of “We”. Thus, society finds itself, as it were, inside the “I”. The social “I” is established in the totality of processes of interindividual interaction.

Thus, sociology has a number of methodological approaches that are often consistent with each other, but can also come into conflict. However, all concepts of society give vital importance forming it as an integral system.

What are the natural and historical conditions of society?

There are qualitative differences in the action of the forces of nature and society. If the forces of nature act spontaneously, then man himself creates his own history. Unlike the laws of nature, the laws of history make their way through the disparate social actions of people endowed with consciousness and will. Moreover, each person in his activities is guided by certain goals, ideals and values and chooses specific means to achieve them. The basis of his purposeful activity is, first of all, the desire to satisfy material and spiritual needs.

A necessary condition and the general means of labor, as well as the raw material basis of social production, is the geographical environment. Social theories that attach decisive importance in the development of society to a geographical environment artificially modified by man are called the concepts of environmental determinism (A. Hight, O. Duncan). Determining factor social development is the nature of human interaction with the natural ecological environment. Social ecologists, that is, scientists who study the patterns of interaction between the naturally formed and artificially created environment, rightly note that a violation of human environmental actions can fall on society and lead humanity to an environmental disaster.

Social theories that declare the size and quality of population to be the most important problem of social development are designated as concepts demographic determinism(O. Spengler), whose supporters rightfully raise the question of the need for appropriate material resources.

The historical conditions of society's life are formed on the basis of natural ones. The most important of these is technology. The immoral use of modern technology as a means of pursuing profit, ignorance or ignoring the pattern of the impact of technology on the natural conditions of society lead to catastrophic consequences.

Exists economic theory society (economic determinism). Only in the relation of people to nature does production take place. People who are engaged in production activities in a certain way enter into certain social and production relations.

If we approach society from the position of studying the patterns of interaction between society and man, economic and social factors, then the corresponding theory can be called the theory of “socio-historical determinism”, or the socio-historical theory of society. Socio-historical determinism expresses the specificity of the concrete historical existence of society. Society is a social integrity that exists, functions and develops through man and his activities. History is nothing more than the activity of a person pursuing his goals.

Just as society produces man as a man, so man produces society. In contrast to the lower animals, man is the product of his own spiritual and material activity. He is not only an object, but also a subject of social action.

A person carries out his activities through historically established types and forms of interaction and relationships with other people. Therefore, no matter in what sphere of society’s life it is carried out, it is always not individual, but social in nature.

Social activity is a set of socially significant actions carried out by a subject (society, group, individual) in various spheres and at various levels of social organization of society, pursuing certain social goals and interests and using various means - economic, social, political and ideological.

The variety of social actions can be reduced to four main groups. These are, firstly, actions related to changes in a given social system and operating conditions; secondly, actions aimed at their stabilization; thirdly, actions pursuing the goal of adaptation to a given social system and conditions of activity, and fourthly, integrative action, which involves the inclusion of an individual, group or some other community in a larger social community or system.

Any activity includes four interconnected subsystems: objective-prerequisite (needs and interests); subjective-regulatory (distinctive); performing (a set of actions performed in the name of achieving a set goal); objective-resultative (performance results).

Social determinism of people’s activities and behavior can be of two types:

Firstly, this is a strict determination of one social phenomenon by another;

Secondly, the concept of determinism refers to the characteristics of certain properties or qualities inherent not in an individual object, but in the class of objects as a whole. At the same time, the content and nature of the behavior of this class of objects is considered not as random, but as determined by a certain system of conditions, properties and qualities included in this system of objects.

So, main feature socio-historical determinism is that its object is the activity of people, who at the same time act as the subject of activity.

2. Social class structure of society

One of the most powerful concepts of the 20th century is Marxist concept social structure society, which was developed in the works of V. Lenin. Its essence lies in the fact that classes formed in the production process are considered as the main groups of society. The main characteristics of a class thus arise from its place in the system of production relations, primarily property relations:

– attitude towards the means of production;

– role in the social organization of labor;

– methods of obtaining and the size of the share of social wealth;

– the nature and level of consumption and other less significant characteristics.

At the same time, being large production groups of people, classes determine the nature of the entire social structure of society as a whole - the national, demographic, professional structure of society, ultimately determining the position of the individual in society. It is in this sense that all social relations (national, demographic, interpersonal) in a class society, subject to the logic of social class contradictions, acquire the tragic meaning of social inequality.

K. Marx himself rightly noted that the merit of discovering the existence of classes and their struggle among themselves does not belong to him. Indeed, since the time of Plato, and especially since the bourgeoisie powerfully entered the stage of history in the 18th century, many economists, philosophers, historians have firmly introduced the concept of social class into the social sciences of Europe (Adam Smith, Etienne Condillac, Claude Saint-Simon, Francois Guizot, Auguste Minier).

However, no one before Marx gave such a deep justification for the class structure of society, deriving it from a fundamental analysis of the entire system of economic relations. No one before him had given such a comprehensive disclosure of class relations, the mechanism of exploitation in the capitalist society that existed in his time. Therefore, in most modern works on the problems of social inequality, stratification and class differentiation, both supporters of Marxism and authors far from the positions of K. Marx give an analysis of his theory of classes.

K. Marx and F. Engels were primarily interested in the so-called main classes of society (slave owners and slaves, landowners and peasants, capitalists and workers), the struggle between which led, in their opinion, to the replacement of one socio-economic formation by another, and the deepening contradictions and the struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie was supposed to lead to the replacement of capitalism with socialism.

However, based on the definition of class that was given above and which goes back to the well-known Leninist definition, in society it is possible to distinguish not only the main classes, but also some other groups of people who also represent social classes (but not the main ones).

The theories of M. Weber, along with the teachings of K. Marx, were of decisive importance for the formation of modern ideas about the essence, forms and functions of social inequality. The ideological basis of Weber's views is that the individual is the subject of social action. Weber, in contrast to Marx, in addition to the economic aspect of the division of society, took into account such aspects as power and prestige. He viewed property, power, and prestige as three separate, interacting factors underlying hierarchies in any society. Differences in ownership give rise to economic classes; differences related to power give rise to political parties, and differences of prestige give rise to status groupings, or strata. From here he formulated his idea of “three autonomous dimensions of stratification.” He emphasized that "classes", "status groups" and "parties" are phenomena related to the distribution of power within a community.

Weber's main contradiction with Marx is that, according to Weber, a class cannot be a subject of action, since it is not a community. Unlike Marx, he associated the concept of class only with capitalist society, where the most important regulator of relations is the market. Through it, people satisfy their needs for material benefits and services. However, in the market people occupy different positions or are in different “class situations”. Everything is bought and sold here. Some sell goods and services; others - labor. The difference here is that some people own property while others do not.

Weber does not have a clear class structure of capitalist society, so different interpreters of his works give different lists of classes. Taking into account his methodological principles and summarizing his historical, economic and sociological works, we can present Weber's typology of classes under capitalism as follows:

1. The working class, deprived of property. It offers its services on the market and differentiates itself by level of qualifications.

2. Petty bourgeoisie - a class of small businessmen and traders.

3. Dispossessed white collar workers: technical specialists and intellectuals.

4. Administrators and managers.

5. Owners who strive through education for the advantages that intellectuals have.

5.1 The class of owners, that is, those who receive rent from owning land and mines.

5.2 "Commercial class", that is, entrepreneurs.

Weber argued that property owners are a “positively privileged class.” At the other pole is “the negatively privileged class, here he included those who have neither property nor qualifications that can be offered on the market.

The question arises: what is the basis for dividing people into various social groups, including class ones? This basis is the differences that exist between people. They are the ones who determine a person’s belonging to one or another social category of society (Fig. 4).

The main thing in this series is social differences. The social groups formed on their basis exist primarily as classes - large production groups of people.

The fact is that it is in the relations of classes that the contradictions of the privately owned mode of production are realized, which, in turn, act as a source of development of society.

It is social differences between people that give rise to social inequality in society.

Non-social natural differences do not in themselves give rise to social inequality. But, subject to the logic of class relations, they acquire the meaning of social inequality. So, for example, the relationship between a man and a woman is a natural difference, which in a class society takes on the character of a relationship of dominance and subordination. The same can be said about national relations. Hence the urgency of the national question, the problem of women's emancipation, and the problem of social justice in general.

Fig.4. Classification of differences between people

All noted (natural, actually social and not really social) differences between people through the system of economic relations give rise to the social structure of society with enormous typological properties, which allows us to conclude that the social structure of society is understood as a set of subjects of historical action (classes, social groups , as well as layers, etc.) and the relationships between them. The social structure is shown schematically in Fig. 5.

Public relations(O.O.)
–spiritual
– aesthetic
–ecological
–legal
–religious
–political
–economic
	Historical communities (clan, tribe, nationality, nation)	Classes	Social communities	Social institutions	Demographic Groups	Personality	Subjects of historical action

Rice. 5 Graphic diagram of the social structure of society

As you know, today, in the context of the crisis of communist ideology, a critical rethinking of Marxist theory is taking place.

In Marxist theory, the method of class analysis of society was absolutized, and at the same time, the possibility of a personal approach to the study of society was completely ignored. But these two methods of analyzing society are two sides of the same coin;

It should also be recognized that the class approach is not always the most effective when analyzing certain problems of society.

What is the role of society in this?

The fact is that it is society that shapes a person as an individual and influences his further actions and destiny.

This statement completely negates the idea that everything is decided by the “top” or the authorities. The people have special power. Since it is the place where various ideas, talents, beliefs and feelings are stored, it endows a person with a certain set of qualities and abilities.

Of course, such influence can be of a different nature. Just like a good and kind person who helps others and tries to bring maximum benefit, a serial killer who brings pain and suffering is part of society. Every time a person faces contempt, misunderstanding, criticism from society, he has a reason to

to start moving in a different direction.

Other works on this topic:

Share link on Google Plus