RUSSIAN STATE UNIVERSITY OF TRADE AND ECONOMICS
Management department
Course 2
Group 22
ESSAY
By discipline" "Sociology" on the topic:
"Main Stages in the Formation and Development of Sociological Thought"
Completed by: FU-22 student
Genkeneva D. O.
Checked: Potapov V.P.
Moscow 2010
1. Pre-scientific stages in the development of sociology: a) antiquity b) the Middle Ages and modern times……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……….
2. O. Comte and G. Spencer – the founders of sociology as an independent science……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………
3. “Sociologism” by E. Durkheim…………………………………………………………………………….
4. “Understanding” sociology of M. Weber……………………………………………………………..
5. Sociology of Marxism………………………………………………………………………………………..
6. The main schools and directions of modern foreign sociology……..
7. Sociological thought in Russia in the 19th century: subjectivist, Marxist and psychological trends…………………………………………………………………………….
8. Multifactorial concept of M.M. Kovalevsky…………………………………………….
9. Integral sociology of P.A. Sorokin………………………………………………………….
10. Historical fate of Russian sociology in the 19th century…………………………
1. Pre-scientific stages in the development of sociology
a) Ancient period
The moment of the emergence of human society occurred no less than 40 - 50 thousand years ago. And there is no doubt that since those ancient times, people have become interested in the mechanisms of interaction between individuals, i.e. public relations. Man has always tried to understand how a society of his own kind works.
One of the first who gave fairly complete explanations about the structure of society were the ancient philosophers Plato and Aristotle. Plato was an idealist and student of Socrates. He created the first ever work on general sociology, which is considered his essay "The State". In this work, Plato emphasized the special role of the division of labor and created a model of an ideal society based on the theory of stratification developed by him for the first time in the world. According to this theory, any society is divided into three main strata (classes, estates), which exist on an equal footing.
The highest stratum - philosophers, sages, governing the state; medium, including warriors - protecting society from confusion and unrest; the lowest - artisans and peasants, i.e. working people supporting the state financially. Relations between the strata are based on mutual respect and common interests, since they should serve the idea of justice. Justice, according to Plato, lies in the fact that all citizens are free, equal and happy. Free - because they internally realized the necessity of their position, equal - because everyone occupies the social cell of society intended for him, within which a person has all the possibilities, which means that he is equal and, accordingly, happy, because he does not feel disharmony and a sense of inequality.
Since Plato believed that evil lies in private property, which corrupts people, he proposed depriving the members of the highest stratum of the right to own it, so that they would not abuse power by virtue of their enormous privileges. Only highly educated, talented people who have crossed the 50-year age threshold should be allowed to manage society. They should lead an ascetic way of life, excluding earthly pleasures. Warriors should have common wives, and children should be removed from the family for their upbringing by the state. In general, quite a communist paradigm. The ideas of government expressed by Plato were based on ethical rationalism. He considered the best form of government aristocracy- the power of the elected, the best representatives of society. Next, in descending order, are timocracy- the power of warriors, oligarchy- the power of the rich, and democracy- People power. Plato considered democracy to be the worst form of government, since tyranny usually grows out of it, and tyranny- the most disgusting form of government in which arbitrariness and violence reign, despite the fact that the tyrant comes to power as a people's choice in a democracy. There are plenty of examples of this in history to this day.
According to Plato, in a bad state, rulers stand above everyone, and in a reasonable state, laws stand above all. The law is designed to limit both the power of the rulers and the freedom of the governed. Justice must stand guard over the laws, and all citizens of the state must be involved in its implementation.
Plato's student and follower was Aristotle - the greatest scientist of antiquity, philosopher and encyclopedist, who left behind a huge scientific heritage. In his scientific work "Politics" Aristotle criticized his teacher from the standpoint of protecting private property, the family and the rights of citizens. He believed that Plato's socialization of property, wives and children leads to the destruction of the state, although he agreed that the worst forms of government are oligarchy, democracy and tyranny. Private property does not harm society, but develops healthy selfish interests. And in the presence of collective property, all people, or most of them, are poor and embittered. The support of the state should be the middle class - the class of owners. In addition, there are two more classes: rich plutocracy and proletariat without property. A state, according to Aristotle, is best managed when:
1) the poor have the opportunity to participate in governance;
2) the selfish interests of the rich are limited;
3) the most numerous is the middle class.
Aristotle distinguishes between two types of justice - egalitarian and distributive, respectively deriving them from the Platonic definitions of "arithmetic equality" and "geometric equality". The first operates in the field of exchange and is applied in the field of civil law transactions, compensation for harm, crime and punishment. The second is a manifestation of justice in the distribution of everything (power, honors, payments, etc.) that can be divided among members of society in proportion to the contribution of each to the common cause, i.e., the division of the corresponding common goods for all citizens "by dignity ". The imperfections of society are corrected not by egalitarian distribution, but by the moral improvement of people. The legislator should strive not for universal equality, but for the equalization of life chances. Aristotle saw the "golden mean" as the best measure in everything, and he considered the state of war to be the best state of society, protecting it from stagnation and decay.
b) Middle Ages and Modern times ( XV - XVIII centuries)
This time is not marked by any new significant approaches to the study of society, although individual thinkers have made a significant contribution to the prehistory of sociological science. So, the Italian thinker Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527), starting from the ideas of Plato and Aristotle, tried to create his own theory of society and the state, while focusing not on their structure, functions and patterns, but on the behavior of a political leader and his role in fate. countries. This question remains very relevant to our time.
In his main work, The Prince, Machiavelli argued that only with a strong ruler can an independent state be created, free from foreign yoke. At the same time, any means are acceptable to strengthen the state (subsequently, a policy that neglects the laws of morality began to be denoted by the term "Machiavellianism"). Machiavelli was sharply negative about the policy of the feudal lords, which led to constant strife and prevented the formation of a single state. But he also feared the "mob", giving sympathy to the middle and upper strata of the trade and handicraft class, i.e. emphasized the personally free, privately owned middle class. The most important driving force of society Machiavelli considered the political struggle, which is a type of social, class struggle (social conflicts).
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) - English materialist philosopher, who left behind the theory of the social contract, laid the foundation for the doctrine of civil society as the highest stage of sociality. According to this doctrine, society should not be based on the desire for personal gain, understood by each in his own way, but on laws recognized by all.
In civil society, according to Hobbes, three forms of government are possible: democracy, aristocracy and monarchy. As a result of the social contract, the "war of all against all" must end there, and citizens, in exchange for the voluntary restriction of their freedom, receive the necessary support, protection and security from the state. Peter I was well acquainted with these and other ideas of Hobbes that the state is the best way to meet people's need for security, and the cause of a stable and long-lived society is fear, not love and disposition. Peter applied these ideas in the spirit of paternalism, acting in the form of a reasonable, foreseeing the future of the monarch - the father of the Fatherland and the people. The views of Hobbes formed the basis of ideas about the social structure of such figures of the Enlightenment as Rousseau, Voltaire, Diderot, Montesquieu and others.
Of particular interest in the prehistory of sociology are the studies of the so-called "utopians". The terms "utopia" and "social utopia" appeared after the English humanist Thomas More (1478-1535) wrote a fantastic literary work about the non-existent country of Utopia. In it More described a socialist system based on collective ownership of the means of production and criticized the institution of private property.
The ideas of T. Mora were further developed by the Italian poet-philosopher Tommaso Campanella in his work "The City of the Sun" and by the English utopian socialist Gerard Winstanley in his book "The New Law of Justice". They argued in their books that the ideal society is not a dream, but a social order achievable in reality. These views of the early utopians reflected the aspirations and dreams of people about an ideal society and the "Golden Age" of mankind. Despite the mysticism and romanticism of their social views, they represented the beginnings of three types of worldviews, defined depending on their relationship to the ideal idea of the Golden Age. Thus, Mor, in search of the Golden Age, plunges into history, thereby opening a new research method of historical analysis in sociology - historicism. Campanella, on the contrary, is more inclined towards the search for a Golden Age in the future and discovers the method of speculation, scientific, artistic and theoretical design, further developed by Saint-Simon, Owen, Fourier and, ultimately, in Marxism (where it is combined with historicism). And Winstanley, with his search for the Golden Age in real life, determines the emergence of the idea of a connection between theory and life - pragmatism.
2. O. Comte and G. Spencer - the founders of sociology as an independent science
1) O. Kont - the founder of sociology
The founder of sociology was the French scientist Auguste Comte (1798-1857). He believed that sociology, which he at first called "social physics", should borrow from the natural sciences objectivity, verifiability, evidence. "Social physics" consisted of 2 interrelated parts: social statics and dynamics. Social statics studies the structure of society, the functions of its main institutions, social dynamics - the processes of social change. Society, according to Comte, is a complex system of relations, an integral organism, the individual structural elements of which can only be judged in relation to the whole. Evolutionary development leads to the establishment of a fundamental order. O. Comte develops methods of sociological research, emphasizes the importance of the method of observation, experiment, comparative, genetic and concrete historical methods.
Auguste Comte introduced the concept of sociology, meaning the scientific study of the phenomena of social life in the dichronic and synchronic aspects, in contrast to the speculative constructions of the traditional philosophy of history, historical factology and factography, and disparate empirical generalizations of political and legal thought. Comte's positive philosophy is a kind of transitional system between the metaphysics of the XVIII century. and the methodology of science of the XIX century. In form, positive philosophy is close to metaphysics, and sociology is close to the philosophy of history, but in general orientation both reproduce the problems of the science of man and society. Social physics or sociology, according to Comte, does not imply the reduction of social phenomena to physical ones; he took into account the specifics of the social within the framework of a positive synthesis - a kind of encyclopedia of scientific knowledge, which is based on a specially developed classification of sciences, which retains a certain significance even in modern conditions.
The system of sciences, according to Comte, represents an order that expresses in logical form the historical process of the development of knowledge from the simple to the complex, from the lower to the higher, from the general to the specific. Each stage in the development of knowledge - a science of a higher order - implies the previous one as its necessary premise, which, however, is not sufficient to explain the specific content of the science of a higher level. According to Auguste Comte, the hierarchy of basic sciences looks like this: mathematics-astronomy-physics-chemistry-biology-sociology. It follows from the general scheme that sociology is based on the laws of biology and is impossible without them, but it has "moreover, something peculiar, modifying the influence of the laws of biology and arising from the interaction of individuals with each other." This interaction of individuals is especially complicated in the human race as a result of each generation to the next. The demand put forward by Comte for sociology to study the laws of observable phenomena, and not to look for transcendent causes; to base the credibility of one's conclusions on facts and on connection, rather than on a philosophical interpretation of the meaning of history, was an innovation.
The specificity of the sociological approach to social life lies in the fact that the sociological approach presents theoretical studies of the laws of social phenomena using the general scientific method, and not philosophical reflection, that is, reflection, the study of the cognitive act, the mutual reflection of the single. Collectively, social phenomena, according to Comte, are a figurative organism. This idea of Comte anticipated the establishment of the methodology of structural-functional analysis. Solving the problem of personality, Comte emphasizes the existence in a person, along with the egoistic-personal, of a social instinct and believes that the family, and not the individual, forms the simplest integrity formed from the many elements of society. Auguste Comte, using the methodological and ideological principles of Saint-Simon, is trying to formulate the basic law that contributes to the transformation of pre-scientific knowledge about society, about man into scientific, the law to which the social process is subject. Social ties are, perhaps, external in nature, because in their emergence the main role is played by material necessity, embodied in such institutions as industry, trade, the army, etc., etc. The nature of social ties is the main issue of social statics, which has its object is the relationship that persists under all historical conditions of the elements of the social organism. It is here that Comte comes to the fore with the concept of a system, which still remains one of the central concepts in sociology. In Comte, it is organically connected with the idea of evolution. Comte claimed to have discovered the theoretical law of the duality of evolution, social and intellectual. For Auguste Comte, the social law is the law of the three stages of historical development, according to which all thoughts must pass. Three successive states: first the theological state, where spontaneously arising functions openly dominate, having no evidence. Then a metaphysical state, with the usual predominance of abstractions or entities taken for reality. And, finally, a positive state, invariably based on an accurate assessment of external activity, historical reality. Human knowledge and knowledge, the culture of mankind, Auguste Comte believed, goes through three stages: theological (religious), metaphysical, positive, i.e. scientific. Initially, religious and metaphysical ideas - fictions - dominate, then the era of the domination of positivism - positive science. Hence, the conclusion is that initially it is necessary to build a system of sciences in order to allocate a place in it to social science and its special subject, then social science can be represented as a system - a system of sociology, and finally, based on it, build a system of society.
Auguste Comte was not an innovator in science in the revolutionary sense, but acted as a conscientious and thorough systematist who generalized the various ideas of his time and made the first attempt to create a system of sociological knowledge. The orientation of sociology to positive knowledge, that is, to subject and methodological certainty, scientific character, with all the shortcomings of positivism itself, undoubtedly played a progressive role and stimulated the search for new ways and means in the development of social cognition, the disclosure of social laws, and deepened knowledge about man.
2) Sociological ideas of G. Spencer
The English scientist G. Spencer (1820-1903) is another founder of sociology. G. Spencer was one of the most prominent representatives of the naturalistic orientation in sociology, who argued that "a rational understanding of the truths of sociology is impossible without a rational understanding of the truths of biology" . Based on this idea, G. Spencer develops two most important methodological principles of his sociological system: evolutionism and organicism.
Evolution for the English sociologist is a universal process that equally explains all changes both in nature and in society. Evolution is the integration of matter. It is evolution that transforms matter from an indefinite incoherent homogeneity into a definite coherent homogeneity, i.e. social whole - society. Based on vast ethnographic material, G. Spencer examines the evolution of family relations: primitive sexual relations, family forms, the status of women and children, the evolution of ritual institutions and customs, political institutions, the state, representative institutions, the court, etc. G. Spencer interpreted social evolution as a multilinear process. He considered the degree of differentiation and integration of this or that phenomenon as an objective criterion of the process of evolution. The principle of organicism is inextricably linked with the principle of evolutionism in Spencerian sociology - an approach to the analysis of social life, which is based on the analogy of society with a biological organism. In the chapter "Society is an organism" of G. Spencer's main work "Foundations of Sociology", he quite thoroughly considers a number of analogies (similarities) between a biological and a social organism: 1) society as a biological organism, in contrast to inorganic matter, for most of its existence grows, increases in volume (the transformation of small states into empires); 2) as society grows, its structure becomes more complex in the same way as the structure of an organism becomes more complex in the process of biological evolution; 3) in both biological and social organisms, a progressive structure is accompanied by a similar differentiation of functions, which, in turn, is accompanied by an increase in their interaction; 4) both in society and in the organism in the course of evolution there is a specialization of their constituent structures; 5) in the event of a disorder in the life of society or an organism, some of their parts may continue to exist for a certain time.
The analogy of society with an organism allowed the English thinker to single out three different subsystems in society: 1) supporting, ensuring the production of food sources (economy); 2) distribution, which determines the relationship between the individual parts of society and rests on the division of labor; 3) regulating, ensuring the subordination of individual parts to the whole (state power). ,
Drawing an analogy between society and a biological organism, G. Spencer did not completely identify them. On the contrary, he points out that there are certain differences between the biological organism and the processes of social life. G. Spencer saw the main meaning of these differences in the fact that in a living organism the elements exist for the sake of the whole, in society - on the contrary - it exists for the benefit of its members.
Spencer's concept of society as an organism made it possible to comprehend and understand a number of important features of the structure and functioning of social systems. It, in fact, laid the foundations for a future systemic and structural-functional approach to the study of society. Analyzing the social structure of society, Spencer identified six types of social institutions: kinship, education, political, church, professional and industrial.
3. "Sociologism" by 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 way of thinking of French sociologists, their choice of subject of research, etc. .
A distinctive feature of Durkheim's scientific positions was the concept of sociologism. According to it, social reality has its own specifics, autonomy, irreducibility to other types of reality (for example, physical, mental). It therefore has its own laws, which sociology must discover and study. From this follows one of the important methodological requirements of E. Durkheim - the social must be explained by the social, based on the social. With its tip, this concept is directed against the psychologism that existed in the time of Durkheim in the interpretation of social phenomena.
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 “the group thinks, feels, acts in a completely different way than its members would do if they were separated. If, therefore, we start from these latter, then we will not understand anything of what is happening in the group. Illustrating this thought of his, the sociologist often referred to the example of the chemical whole as a synthesis of its constituent parts. Social reality in E. Durkheim's view consists of social facts of two kinds - morphological, to which the French sociologist refers 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 representations, these common ideas and beliefs, bind people, form the very social fabric. Therefore, Durkheim considered the collective consciousness to be the vital knot of the whole society.
E. Durkheim's theory of social solidarity
The problem of social order and disorder, social norms and social pathology was one of the main problems for many early sociologists, including Durkheim. The development by the French scientist of the problem of collective consciousness, social solidarity, the methodology of structural and functional analysis, the 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 of social life, collectivity and, at the same time, the highest moral principle, the highest and universal value, which is recognized by all members of society.
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 are little dependent on each other, they exist almost autonomously. They are self-sufficient, because they perform the same or similar functions. Subsistence farming can be considered as their model. Another distinguishing feature of such societies is the weak development of the individual, personal principle in man. Within the framework of such societies, only a collective, common, supra-individual consciousness, expressed both in repressive law and in religion, can be a unifying, integrating factor.
The collective consciousness almost completely absorbs the individual. A feature of mechanical solidarity is the dissolution of the individual in the team. The less developed individuality, the less individual deviations, the more intensely and vividly expressed is the entire collective consciousness that fills and, consequently, social solidarity. Such consciousness inevitably acquires a religious character. Religion forms a social life, consisting exclusively of common rites and rituals. Thus, the unity of society, social order in primitive societies is achieved through the suppression of everything that goes beyond the scope, the volume of collective consciousness, which regulates the entire life of individuals without a trace.
The gradual development of social ties, the increase in means and means of communication, the growth of cities and population, causing the intensification of social life - all this leads to an intensification of the division of labor. The latter, undermining the integrity of the collective consciousness, its all-encompassing character, itself becomes, in the final analysis, the basis of a new solidarity - organic.
The professional specialization of people, the performance by them of special, strictly defined functions, is detrimental to the cohesion and unity of society. It also determines the differences of individuals, the development of their individual abilities and talents. But as a result of the ever-increasing specialization of labor, individuals are forced to exchange their activities, to perform complementary functions, involuntarily constituting a single whole. The awareness of this, the understanding that everyone is connected by a system of relations, outside of which they cannot exist, causes a feeling of dependence on each other, of their connection with society, i.e. solidarity. It is not the collective consciousness that has lost its integrity, differentiated, reduced, become more rational and focused on the individual, but it is the division of labor, more precisely, the awareness of its social consequences, that restores the integrity of society.
4. "Understanding" sociology of M. Weber
M. Weber was the first major anti-positivist sociologist. He believed that society should be studied not "from the outside", as the positivists insisted, but "from the inside", that is, based on the inner world of a person. His predecessor in the idea of understanding was the German philosopher of the 19th century, the creator of the theory of "understanding" psychology, Wilhelm Dilthey. This philosopher considered nature and society to be qualitatively different areas of being, and they should be studied by specific methods inherent in each area. The non-classical type of scientific sociology was developed by the German thinkers G. Simmel (1858-1918) and M. Weber. This methodology is based on the idea of the fundamental opposition between the laws of nature and society and, consequently, the recognition of the need for the existence of two types of scientific knowledge: the sciences of nature (natural science) and the sciences of culture (humanitarian knowledge). Sociology, in their opinion, is a frontier science, and therefore it should borrow all the best from the natural sciences and the humanities. Simmel and M. Weber rejected such concepts as "society", "people", "humanity", "collective", etc. as the subject of sociological knowledge. They believed that only an individual can be the subject of sociologists' research, since it is he who has consciousness, motivation for his actions and rational behavior.
G. Simmel and M. Weber state:
Sociological theories and concepts are not the result of intellectual arbitrariness, because intellectual activity itself is subject to well-defined social methods and, above all, to the rules of formal logic and universal human values.
The sociologist must know that the basis of the mechanism of his intellectual activity is the assignment of the entire variety of empirical data to these universal values that set the general direction for all human thinking.
M. Weber distinguishes between the concepts of "value judgments" and "reference to values". Value judgment is always personal and subjective. This is any statement that is associated with a moral, political or any other assessment. For example, the statement: "Faith in God is an enduring quality of human existence." Attribution to value is a procedure for both selection and organization of empirical material. In the example above, this procedure may mean the collection of facts to study the interaction of religion and various spheres of public and private life of a person, the selection and classification of these facts, their generalization, and other procedures. What is the necessity of this principle of reference to values? And that the scientist-sociologist in cognition is faced with a huge variety of facts, and in order to select and analyze these facts, he must proceed from some kind of attitude, which he formulates as a value.
But the question arises: where do these value preferences come from? M. Weber answers as follows: The change in the sociologist's value preferences is determined by the "interest of the era", that is, the socio-historical circumstances in which he acts. For G. Simmel, the “pure form” serves as an instrument of knowledge, fixing the most stable, universal features in a social phenomenon, and not the empirical diversity of social facts. G. Simmel believed that the world of ideal values rises above the world of concrete being. This world of values exists according to its own laws, different from the laws of the material world. Thus, in the teachings of G. Simmel, pure form is a relationship between individuals considered separately from those objects that act as objects of their desires, aspirations and other psychological acts. G. Simmel's formal geometric method makes it possible to single out society in general, institutions in general, and to construct a system in which sociological knowledge would be freed from subjective arbitrariness and moralizing value judgments.
M. Weber's main tool of knowledge is "ideal types". "Ideal types", according to Weber, do not have empirical prototypes in reality itself and do not reflect it, but are mental logical constructions created by the researcher. These constructions are formed by highlighting individual features of reality that are considered by the researcher to be the most typical. Ideal types are the limiting concepts used in cognition as a scale for correlating and comparing social historical reality with them. According to Weber, all social facts are explained by social types. Introducing the term "understanding" sociology, M. Weber delimits its subject not only from the subject of the natural sciences, but also from psychology. The key concept in his work is the concept of "understanding". There are two types of understanding:
Immediate understanding appears as perception. When we see a flash of anger on a person’s face, manifested in facial expressions, gestures, and also in interjections, we “understand” what this means, although we do not always know the reason for the anger. explanatory understanding. Any explanation is the establishment of logical connections in the knowledge of the object (action) of interest, the elements of the given object (action), or in the knowledge of the connections of this object with other objects. When we become aware of the motives of anger, moving towards the door, the meaning of the bell, etc., we "understand" them, although this understanding may be incorrect. The ideal type expresses human actions as if they occurred under ideal conditions, regardless of the circumstances of place and time.
5. Sociology of Marxism
The sociology of Marxism, through the mouths of its founders Karl Marx (1818-1883) and Friedrich Engels (1820-1895), declared itself as a scientific interpretation of the historical process, based on the objective data of historical, economic, sociological and other sciences. The materialistic understanding of history developed by K. Marx and F. Engels was continued in its development by G.V. Plekhanov, V.I. Lenin, A. Gramsci and other prominent representatives of Marxism of the twentieth century. At present, the sociology of Marxism is subjected to thorough and sometimes just criticism. But no matter how it is treated, it is one of the currents of modern sociological thought and has its supporters in many countries of the world.
Marxist sociology- this is primarily a materialistic understanding of history, developed on the basis of a study of the real content of the historical process, its objective laws. The formation of the sociology of Marxism was influenced to one degree or another by Hegel's dialectic, as well as the political, economic and sociological views of such thinkers of the previous period as A. Smith, D. Riccardo, C.A. Saint-Simon and others. The created diaoectico-materialistic understanding of history gives its own explanation of the material foundations of the life of society, the nature of the interaction of its main aspects, the objective direction of its development, and the role of people's conscious activity in the historical process.
Social development, according to Marx, occurs in accordance with certain laws, by which he understands the "internal and necessary connection" between phenomena. Marx believed in the existence of universal and unchanging historical laws underlying the development of mankind. He believed that contradictions, the struggle of opposites, is the source of the driving force of development. He considered the ascent from the abstract to the concrete as a general scientific method of cognition.
The theory of classes and class struggle is central to the teachings of Marx. He does not give a definition of the class in his works, although there is a reconstructed definition based on his works. Classes, according to Marx, are social groups that are in an unequal position and fight among themselves, and in a narrower sense, these are social groups that differ in their attitude to property, primarily to the means of production. Marx considered the class in terms of ownership of capital and means of production, dividing the population into property owners and the have-nots, into the capitalist class and the proletariat. He acknowledged the existence of groups outside this framework (such as peasants or smallholders), but argued that they were remnants of a pre-capitalist economy that would disappear as the capitalist system matured. The category of class for Marx means more than a simple means of describing the economic positions of various social groups - he viewed classes as real communities and real social forces that can change society.
The following statements by K. Marx finally confirm his confidence in the correctness and inevitability of the class struggle:
“Together with the growth of the mass of simultaneously employed workers, their resistance also grows, and in connection with this, the pressure of capital inevitably grows, aimed at suppressing this resistance”
“All previous history, with the exception of the primitive state, was the history of class struggle…”
“The condition for the emancipation of the working class is the destruction of all classes, just as the condition for the emancipation of the third estate, the bourgeoisie, was the destruction of all and every class”
“A class making a revolution, by the mere fact that it opposes another class, from the very beginning appears not as a class, but as a representative of the whole of society; it figures as the whole mass of society, as opposed to a single ruling class.
6. Main schools and directions of modern foreign sociology
In the 20th century, the constitution of sociological knowledge took place in the form of the opening of special departments, faculties, the organization of research centers and organizations. It should be noted the organizational strengthening of sociology. In the 20th century, the first national sociological societies and associations were created, which, after the Second World War (1946), created the International Sociological Association, which organized 14 world congresses and contributed to the transformation of sociologists into one of the prominent detachments in the field of social knowledge. Since thousands of people in each country are involved in the production and development of sociological knowledge, it is quite understandable that the variety of theories and concepts that were produced in the 20th century and continue to appear in large numbers at the present time.
Structural functionalism and related theories.
The foundations of this concept are most fully set forth by T. Parsons (1902-1979). The basic idea is the idea of "social order", which embodies the desire to maintain the balance of the system, to coordinate its various elements among themselves, to achieve agreement between them.
These ideas dominated Western sociology for a long time, sometimes under a slightly modified name - structuralism in France, which was developed by M. Foucault, C. Levi-Strauss and others. association, which develops into a picture of society as an organic whole.
At the same time, this theory was soon subjected to criticism, which was recognized by its creator himself - T. Parsons. The fact is that structural functionalism practically rejected the idea of development, calling for maintaining "balance" within the existing system, coordinating the interests of various subsystems, because such a conclusion was made on the basis of an analysis of the social and state structure of the United States, which T. Parsons considered the standard and stability of which regarded as a great achievement.
R. Merton (b. 1910), trying to overcome the metaphysical nature of the structural-functional approach, created a theory of social change by introducing the concept of "dysfunction", i.e. announced the possibility of deviation of the system from the accepted normative model. In this way, Merton tried to introduce the idea of change into functionalism, but he limited the change to an "average" level - the level of a particular social system. The idea of social change brought to life the need to search for causal relationships, and various sociologists attempted to find them, which was realized in the development and application in the analysis of several types of determinism - from biological and technological to economic (for example, W. Rostow).
theories social conflict . These theories were created on the basis of criticism of structural functionalism. At the heart of development, Ch.R. Mills (1916-1962), lies conflict, not conformity, agreement, integration. Society is always in a state of instability, because there is a constant struggle between different social groups. Mills argued that the highest manifestation of this conflict is the struggle for power. R. Dahrendorf (b. 1929) believes that all complex organizations are based on the redistribution of power, and this happens not only in an open form. In his opinion, conflicts are based not on economic, but on political reasons. The source of conflicts is the so-called political man. The American sociologist L. Koser (b. 1913) defines social conflict as an ideological phenomenon that reflects the aspirations and feelings of social groups or individuals in the struggle for power, for changing social status, redistributing income, reassessing values, etc. Most representatives of this trend emphasize the value of conflicts that prevent the ossification of society, open the way for innovation, and become a source of development and improvement. At the same time, this position rejects the spontaneity of conflicts and advocates the possibility and necessity of their regulation.
Behaviorism . The creative impulse of this theory lies in the fact that it put forward conscious human activity in the first place, the need to study interpersonal interaction instead of the reification of the social system, which took place within the framework of the structural-functional approach. Another feature of this direction was the constant reliance on the study of the specific state of human relations within certain social organizations and institutions, which allowed theoretical schemes to saturate the surrounding social reality with “blood and flesh”. Behaviorism exists mainly in two major theories - social exchange theory and symbolic interactionism.
Theory social exchange . Its most prominent representatives J. Homans and P. Blau proceed from the primacy of man, not the system. They also proclaimed the great importance of the mental qualities of a person, because in order to explain the behavior of people, it is necessary to know the mental states of individuals. But the main thing in this theory, according to Blau, is that since people constantly want to have rewards (approval, respect, status, practical help) for many of their actions, they can get them only by interacting with other people, although this interaction will not always be equal and satisfying to its participants.
Phenomenological sociology . The peculiarity of this sociological theory lies in the fact that it originates from the philosophical concept of the phenomenological direction of E. Husserl. The focus of the supporters of the phenomenological approach is not the world as a whole, as in the case of positivists, but a person in his specific dimension. Social reality, in their opinion, is not some objective given, which is initially outside the subject and only then through socialization, upbringing and education becomes its component. For phenomenologists, social reality is "constructed" by means of images and concepts expressed in communication. In an objectively oriented sociology, meaning reflects certain definite connections in the real world. In the phenomenological interpretation, the meaning is derived entirely from the consciousness of the subject.
The social reality that arises in the process of communication consists of explaining and attributing the motives of behavior by the participants in the communicative act, i.e. one or another representation, understanding of social reality depends primarily on how much the semantic fields of the participants in the interaction intersect.
Within the framework of the phenomenological concept, two large schools - sociology knowledge and ethnomethodology(the last term is constructed by analogy with the ethnographic term ethnoscience - rudimentary knowledge in primitive societies).
As for the sociology of knowledge, it is represented by P. Berger and T. Lukman, who sought to substantiate the need to "legitimize" the symbolic universals of society, because the internal instability of the human body requires "the creation of a stable living environment by the person himself."
G. Garfinkel, being one of the brightest and most consistent representatives of ethnomethodology, formulated its program position: "The features of the rationality of behavior must be revealed in the behavior itself." In accordance with this, the main task of sociology is to identify the rationality of everyday life, which is opposed to scientific rationality. In his opinion, it is necessary to focus on the study of individual acts of social interaction, identifying it with verbal communication.
An increasingly popular version of sociological thinking is the theory of rational choice, which was proposed by the American sociologist Coleman. The concept of a system is also denied by him. The main focus is on the concepts of resources and mobilization. This is also characteristic of the post-Marxist trend.
Despite the existence of many concepts, the face of sociology at the end of the 20th century is increasingly determined by theories that go back to man, his role and activity in the modern world.
7) sociological thought in Russia in XIX century : subjectivist , Marxist and psychological directions
The sociological thought of Russia began to take shape within the framework of other social sciences, and for a long time it was difficult to isolate it from them, not to mention presenting it as an independent discipline.
If we proceed from the fact that the subject of sociology is civil society, then these ideas are to some extent reflected in the works of the predecessors of Russian sociology - prominent representatives of social thought - P.Ya. Chaadaeva, V.G. Belinsky, A.I. Herzen, N.A. Dobrolyubova, M.A. Bakunina and others. Sociological schools proper in Russia developed within the framework of several directions.
One of them - geographical- was most clearly represented by L.I. Mechnikov (1838-1888), who in his main work “Civilization and great historical rivers. Geographical theory of the development of modern societies ”explained the unevenness of social development under the influence of geographical conditions, mainly water resources and communications. It is these factors, in his opinion, that determine the main trend in the development of mankind - from despotism to freedom, from primitive forms of organizing life to economic and social achievements based on cooperative forms of management.
Second direction - organic school- presented by E.V. de Roberti (1843-1915), A.I. Stronin (1827-1889), P.F. Lilienfeld (1829-1903), Ya.A. Novikov (1830-1912). The theory of de Roberti was based on the concept of "supraorganic", which goes through two stages in its development: simple psychophysical relations, which are the starting point of sociality and psychological interactions, which are divided into four large groups - science, philosophy (or religion), art and practical activity, which is understood as the behavior of people in technology, economics, law and politics.
Marxist school in sociology was represented by M.I. Tugan-Baranovsky (1865-1919), A.A. Bogdanov (1873-1928), G.V. Plekhanov (1856-1918), V.I. Lenin (1870-1924) and partly, until a certain time, P.B. Struve (1870-1944), S.N. Bulgakov (1871-1944) and N.A. Berdyaev (1874-1948), who, although each in their own way, developed their ideas about the materialistic understanding of history. So, Bogdanov, speaking about the independence of sociology as a science, actively defended its close and intimate connection with one of the sciences of nature - biology. He devoted a lot of time to developing theories of social adaptation (adaptation to knowledge and adaptation to ideology) and social revolution. Already after the revolution, he published his work "Tectology", in which he developed the organizational foundations of any social system, any social organization.
In Tugan-Baranovsky, his teaching about the five main groups of human interests is most attractive, among which the most important for social development are psychological, altruistic and religious.
Plekhanov presented the Marxist theory of social development in the most complete form, and examined the problems of the relationship between social being and social consciousness. Lenin's ideas in sociology are connected with the development of the teachings of K. Marx on classes, the class struggle, the role of the masses in history, as well as the solution of questions about the relationship between democracy and dictatorship, the role of the state in the creation and functioning of a new socialist state.
Danilevsky concentrated his efforts, in modern terms, on a systematic approach that takes into account psychoethnographic, anthropological, social, territorial and other signs of many cultural and historical types, of which social life is made up and each of which, like any living organism, experiences a life cycle from birth to decline.
In a certain sense, Kovalevsky also applied a systematic approach in sociology, arguing that there is no single determining social factor. Sociology, in his opinion, deals with a whole complex of "revealing the causes of the rest and movement of human societies, the stability and development of order in different eras in their succession and causal relationship with each other."
It is necessary to dwell on the scientific heritage of one of the representatives of Russian and at the same time world sociological thought in its classical sense - P.A. Sorokin. He proposed and substantiated the conceptual apparatus of sociology: social phenomenon, social control, social behavior, historical progress and its trends. A major scientific achievement of Sorokin was his development of the theory of social stratification: both general concepts and signs of social differentiation, which is based on economic, political and professional statuses.
A unique phenomenon in Russian sociology was subjective school , the most prominent representatives of which were P.L. Lavrov (1823-1900), N.K. Mikhailovsky (1842-1904), N.I. Kareev (1850-1931). The individual, Lavrov argued, is the only real driving force of society, and therefore "sociology is a science that studies the forms of manifestation, strengthening and weakening of solidarity between conscious organic individuals."
Mikhailovsky proceeded from the need to save the individual from the destructive effects of social control, he attached great importance to the interaction of a person with society. After analyzing the essence and structure of social behavior, he expressed a number of ideas that surpass the conclusions of Z. Freud on the role of imitation, suggestion and prestige.
The subjectivist trend in its most complete form gives an idea of the entire sociological thought in Russia. Although subjectivism in a detailed and justified form is oriented towards the study of a person in his specific social dimension, it must be recognized that representatives of other schools also shared many ideas about the social essence of a person, about his consciousness and participation in solving social problems.
Is not it. Petrazhitsky attached particular importance to the role of emotions as an autonomous dominant factor in social behavior, due to which adaptation to the environment is possible. A.A. Bogdanov wrote about the social instinct - the force that makes a person interact with other people, act like them, which is especially clearly manifested in imitation as a special form of social behavior. Moreover, Bogdanov argued in his work "From the Psychology of Society" that "social being and social consciousness are one and the same, and therefore social consciousness determines the social struggle." The main criterion of "cultural-historical types", according to Danilevsky, is linguistic proximity. Plekhanov paid much attention not just to social consciousness, but to social psychology and its role in people's lives.
8. multifactorial concept M . M . Kovalevsky
A multifactorial approach to the study of society is associated with the work of Maxim Maksimovich Kovalevsky (1851-1916). In his opinion, sociology is a generalizing theoretical science, integrating the results of various social sciences. The goal of sociology is to reveal the causes of the rest and movement of human society, the stability and development of order in different eras in their continuity and causal connection. The central place in the views of M. M. Kovalevsky is occupied by the doctrine of social progress, the essence of which he saw in the development of solidarity between social groups, classes and peoples. He developed a pluralistic concept of social causality, according to which in historical and sociological research one should proceed from the relationship of various factors - economic, political, psychological, cultural, etc. M. M. Kovalevsky believed that in various historical epochs completely different factors.
Based on the doctrine of progress, M. M. Kovalevsky considered the revolution as an accidental and pathological phenomenon, although he recognized that revolutions move society forward, but this movement occurs in an unnatural form. The revolution is not a historical necessity, but a consequence of the government's mistakes. The normal historical process is based on harmony, and if this harmony is violated, then there is ground for revolution. He defined sociology as the science of the organization and evolution of human society. The subject of sociology - the study of biological, psychological and economic factors of progress, acts as a synthesis of the results obtained by specific social sciences. The content of progress is seen as the expansion of solidarity and the growth of the "pacified sphere" (based on the reconciliation of opposites). From his point of view, the universal social law of the development of society is the law of "growth of human solidarity". And such phenomena as the class struggle, social revolution - a deviation from the norm. Kovalevsky believes that the nature of society should be expressed in social harmony - sociology should explain the past and present, the diversity of forms of human solidarity and its nature.
Solidarity arises from the influence of many reasons, it is impossible to single out any single factor and give preference to it. Analyzes the issues of the relationship of sociology with the historical sciences, the multifactorial basis of society, develops and uses the socio-historical method of research. The name of Kovalevsky is associated with the concept of genetic sociology, whose task is to analyze the formation of basic social institutions.
Sociology is a science that studies the forms of manifestation of the strengthening and weakening of solidarity between conscious and organic individuals. The subject of Sociology includes four elements: 1) animals, societies in which individual consciousness has developed; 2) existing forms of human community; 3) social ideals; 4) practical tasks.
We distinguish 3 general laws of the functioning of the social body: 1) general biological law 2) general social law 3) general political law.
The central category is the concept of progress as the expansion of solidarity and the growth of a peaceful sphere. The subject is the problem of progress in its organization and evolution.
3 social problems are comprehensively considered: 1) the main beginnings, contents and places of eq. interest in people's lives 2) social progress 3) the role of the political power of the revolutionary minority in the historical development of social laws are the product of human will and human calculation, they arise and are destroyed along with society.
CONCLUSION: Sociology is the science of the organization and evolution of human society. The subject of sociology is the study of biological, psychological and economic factors of progress. Sociology carries out a synthesis of the results obtained by specific social sciences. He attached great importance to the relationship of sociology and history. He created a peculiar concept of social progress: the content of progress: the expansion of solidarity and the growth of a peaceful sphere; universal special law - the law of the growth of human solidarity.
9. Integral sociology P . BUT . Sorokin
P. Sorokin divided sociology into theoretical and practical.
theoretical sociology he, in turn, divided into three departments: social analytics, social mechanics and social genetics. Social analytics studies the structure (structure) of a social phenomenon and its main forms. Subject social mechanics(or social physiology) - the process of interaction between people, in other words, the behavior of people and the forces by which it is caused and determined. Social genetics studies the development of social life, its individual aspects and institutions. It is clear that the development of a social phenomenon is determined by its structure (structure) and interaction with other phenomena, so that social genetics, as it were, contains social analytics and social mechanics.
Practical sociology characterized by P. Sorokin as an applied discipline. Based on the laws that theoretical sociology formulates, it should help society and the individual to manage social forces in accordance with the goals set. Practical sociology manifests itself essentially as social policy, directs and substantiates the latter.
The objects of study of Sorokin's neopositivist sociology are, first of all, the social behavior and activities of people, social groups and the structure of society as a whole, as well as the processes taking place in it. At the same time, all social life and all social processes can be decomposed, according to Sorokin, into phenomena and processes of interaction between two or more individuals. These are the interactions of people and are declared by them directly as the subject of study of sociology. We are talking about the "psychic-reflex" interaction of individuals, which manifests itself externally in their behavior and activities.
This is the essential difference between Sorokin's neo-positivist sociology and Comte's classical positivism. If Comte's positivist sociology is primarily aimed at studying society as an integral social organism, then the subject of direct study of Sorokin's neopositivist sociology is the interaction of two or more persons forming so-called small groups. From this kind of elementary interactions, as he believed, various kinds of social processes are formed. The interaction of two individuals is characterized by Sorokin as the simplest social phenomenon. It takes place when "when a change in the mental experiences or external acts of one individual is caused by the experiences and external acts of another." Such interactions are called by Sorokin "social cells", from which all other, more or less complex social phenomena are formed. The analysis of the simplest social interactions is devoted, in fact, to the entire first volume of P. Sorokin's System of Sociology. Its second volume explores "complex social aggregates", various kinds of social groups, their structure and interactions.
P. Sorokin proposed his own criteria classification of social groups- unilateral and multilateral. In accordance with these criteria, social groups are singled out according to one criterion, for example, language, territory, gender, age, or according to many criteria. Classes, nations and other complex, often socially heterogeneous groups are distinguished by many features.
Social stratification and social mobility
The heterogeneity of society, its objective division into different social groups are reflected in theories of social stratification and social mobility P. Sorokina. According to this theory, the whole society is divided into different layers - strata, which differ in terms of income levels, types of activities, political views, cultural orientations, etc. back to basic shapes social stratification (or stratification of society) Sorokin classified economic, political and professional. In his opinion, social stratification is a natural and normal state of society. It is objectively conditioned by the existing social division of labor, property inequality, different political orientations, and so on. Changing profession or type of activity, his economic status or political views, a person moves from one social stratum to another. This process has been named social mobility. P. Sorokin divides social mobility into horizontal and vertical.
Horizontal mobility means the transition of a person from one social group to another, which is generally at the same level of social stratification, say, when a rural resident becomes an urban one, but his profession and income level remain the same. Vertical mobility – this is the transition of people from one social stratum to another in a hierarchical order, for example, from the lower stratum of society to a higher stratum or vice versa - from a higher stratum to a lower one.
At the same time, people who belong to the highest stratum in one respect usually belong to the same stratum in other respects, and vice versa. Representatives of the highest economic strata simultaneously belong to the highest political and professional strata. The poor, as a rule, are disenfranchised and are in the lower strata of the professional hierarchy. This is the general rule, although there are many exceptions.
According to Sorokin, social mobility is as natural and inevitable as the social stratification on the basis of which it exists. This applies to both upward and downward social mobility, during which people move up the social ladder. He substantiated such a concept as "social space", the essence of which is revealed through the concepts of "higher and lower classes", "moving up the social ladder" and "social distance"
P. Sorokin attached great importance to questions social equality pointing to the complex and multifaceted nature of the problem of social equality, he believed that the main thing in it is the provision of material and spiritual benefits to each person “according to his merits”, i.e. "according to the degree of his personal socially useful work." Of exceptional importance is the "more or less even distribution of knowledge and education", without which, in his opinion, it is generally impossible egalitarian, i.e. based on social equality, a system of society.
P. Sorokin was deeply convinced that all problems arising in society should be solved on the basis of reasonable management, conscious resolution of social contradictions and providing every person with opportunities for creative self-expression. He was opposed to all social upheavals, including revolutions, and advocated a normal, evolutionary path of development.
Sorokin also analyzes the development of cultures of peoples, develops value theory. The concept of "value" appears as one of the most important in his sociology. With the help of this concept, the behavior of individuals and social groups, their interactions in various directions are explained. Great importance is attached to universal human values, on the basis of which cooperation between peoples is possible. This is what P. Sorokin always called for as a scientist and public figure. In his later years, he came up with the idea convergence, according to which, in the future, capitalist and communist, as he wrote, types of society will merge into a kind of third integral society, which "will unite the majority of positive values and free itself from serious defects of each type."
10) Historical fate of Russian sociology XIX in the century
Past present Future -
object of historical sociology
Positions 2, 3, 4, 8, 15 are closest to the problems of the new in sociological theory and practice (as applied to modern Russia); sociological retrospective analysis of institutions, structures, values of the past; showing how aspects of the past are connected with topical modern problems become an integral part of our life; construction of theories, concepts of sociology on the empirical basis of historical (and modern) material; comparative historical and sociological studies, in which theories of the middle level, metatheories are formulated, tested, refined; the history of modernity as an epoch, based on the sociological development of the past and making predictions of social development. That is, in the context of posing the problems of this article, the connections of the past with the present, as well as forecasting the future a) directly or b) through generalizing concepts, theories, which by their scientific nature have an element of "look" into the future, are highlighted.
Historical and sociological knowledge of the past is important for Russian modernity as a) (un-)usable legacy; b) the starting point for moving forward; c) the foundation, the support of such a movement; d) theoretical (sociological) understanding of the results and lessons of the past, etc. Historical and sociological knowledge of the past of Russia and the USSR (we restrict ourselves to the 19th and 20th centuries) can serve to update domestic sociological theory and practice, providing a reliable analysis of the past, present and future.
In a letter to G.E. Zborovsky (Yekaterinburg), one of the most significant problems of modern domestic sociology is singled out in "Sociological Research": specific social situations" (1999, No. 6, p. 101). Supplementing the author's argumentation, we note that correct knowledge of the present, its projection on the emerging trends of the future is impossible without relying on a historical basis. The past as an established social fact is the dominant of the present and the future. The past is knowledge about how a social phenomenon arose, through what stages it passed and how it acquired its modern form. On its basis, the meaning and significance of the present, alternative potentials of the future are revealed, mental (theoretical) constructions are built that serve as a guide for the researcher.
In the last 10-15 years, unexpected events for society, the country's leadership, and scientists have regularly occurred in our country. The answer to the question about the causes of surprises is given by science or practice; the latter is often delayed. One of the reasons for this situation, in our opinion, is the fragmentation of knowledge about modern society due to the lack of knowledge of Soviet society in relation to the post-Soviet present.
"Formula Andropov" works
We don't know the society we live in stated Yu.V. Andropov about 20 years ago (1983). This assessment of the knowledge of Soviet society at the final stage of its historical trajectory could warn politicians: to manage an object without knowing it is tantamount to sailing on a stormy sea without a compass and rudder. Of necessity, a cursory analysis of the level of knowledge (at that time) of the history of the USSR in our country and abroad allows us to more objectively reveal the nature and consequences (for sociology) of the gap between the past, present and future indicated by the "Andropov formula". In theoretical and methodological terms, in the social science thought of the USSR (I simplify the situation, speaking of the dominant views that determined the public consciousness and behavior of the majority), the dogma about the movement of Soviet society and the whole world towards socialism and communism dominated. In the sphere of ideology and politics, the axiom of the socialist nature of Soviet society led to assessments of the real from the point of view of the norms of due under socialism: socialist classes, the state of all the people, dying off in the future, friendship of peoples, a new historical community - the Soviet people, the superiority of the socialist social, state, economic systems over the opposing one, the socialist way of life, etc. Data that did not fit into the scheme were archived with care, excluding their falling into the hands of researchers. The strict tutelage of sociological research, which was revived in the 1960s, was intended to preserve the limits of the ideologically permissible.
In the capitalist diaspora, views were more differentiated. They - also simplified - can be reduced to three positions (they were also transferred to the discourse of post-Soviet societies). Approximately equal positions were occupied by assessments of the socialist camp from the positions of a) the doctrine of totalitarianism and b) the theory of modernization. They didn't differ in many ways, but they didn't completely exclude each other either. The third group of views was represented by the supporters (not isolated from the adherents of totalitarian approaches or the theory of modernization) of neo-Marxist assessments, whose integration into the dominant views was prevented by their Marxist apparatus. In assessing the prospects, foreign thought was divided into those who either predicted a "cumulative crisis" of the Soviet system (in particular, "after Brezhnev"), or considered it possible to reform it. Sovietologists hardly considered the collapse of the USSR an alternative until the early 1990s.
For the renewal of sociology, however, it is important that at the end of the Soviet era, scientific knowledge about Soviet society from the theoretical and informational-factual points of view was expressed by the metaphors of "white spot", "black hole". "Developed socialism". "acceleration" and "perestroika" reflected the sweeping nature of the plans for accelerated movement forward, the lack of understanding of the real conditions of the environment in which these actions were planned to be carried out. A hasty revision of a number of positions after 1989, some cautiously formulated updated approaches, were not in demand. The "ignorance" that Andropov warned about prevailed - opinions, beliefs of dubious authenticity. An invasion through the media into the public consciousness of metaphors and thoughts began, revolving around thoughtlessly repeated formulas such as "elite", "totalitarianism", "reforms", "renewal", "Russia that we have lost", etc., often compensated by aggressiveness. In the future, lightweight propaganda in the media of sensational subjectivist concepts became a negative social factor, akin to the "icebreaker" of V. Suvorov. Unfortunately, there are too many such examples. In the context of the growing role of electronic media, the Internet, the degree of manipulation of historical knowledge has sharply increased. The prospect of large social strata colliding into a virtual consciousness, disoriented behavior has been created. The corporation of historians is not consolidated, it is difficult to form a consensus of views on the last decades of the 20th century in the USSR and around it, and then in Russia.
Sociologists understand the importance of social facts. The editors of Sociological Research, when the liberalization of access to formerly secret archives gave rise to "archival fever", created the column "Archives Begin to Talk". Materials important for understanding the social structure and processes of the Soviet era, with scientific comments, were published on the peculiarities of the mentality, the behavior of social groups, the appearance and motivations of the ruling stratum of the USSR, analytical data on the deportations of ethnic and social groups, mass repressions, displaced persons. But the answer to the question "what?" (establishing the fact) turns into questions "how?", "why?". The heading "Historical Sociology" that replaced it tries to answer them. The editors of the journal draw attention to monographic studies on the past of Russia and the USSR, in which there are attempts to identify sociologically important issues. Understanding the recent past, however, is far from needed. Understanding the current issues of Russian history, unfortunately, is the lot of small-circulation publications. It is difficult for modern researchers of Russian society to make the past accessible, understandable, used, and taken into account in actual practical activity. This difficulty is substantive.
Agenda, or What we don't know?
It is hardly expedient to analyze the degree of research of specific events or stages of the history of Russia. A sociologist needs all relevant historical material for analyzing the present, comparing trends specific to Russia and those characteristic of other countries, and testing "grand" theories. Meanwhile, in recent years, there have been relatively few studies on Russian history in the second half of the 20th century; the general questions of the historical process in Russia are timidly raised.
The sociological relevance of our past is obvious. Little explored, full of paradoxes remain institutions - the pillars of the Soviet system, active and now - in changed forms. This is a party that did not oppose its own ban. The power departments, which were at first key in the implementation of the orientation towards world revolution, then became key in terms of the share of expenditures and, to an increasing, but unclear extent, in terms of influence in politics: their "interactions" have not been studied. The evolution of the institute "union republic" (specially - the RSFSR, a key element of the Union) has not been clarified. The paradox of the institute "collective farm": forcibly, it seemed, imposed, damned by everyone, it survived, even in Ukraine, which was especially affected during the famine of the 30s. The Comintern, the organ of the world revolution, degenerates into an insignificant instrument of Soviet foreign and military policy, remaining as a myth about the world revolutionary process.
Among the social problems, urbanization with its tangible consequences is poorly analyzed. In August 1991, the workers, mostly former peasants, the party's reserve and support, did not support the CPSU: the peasantry became the basis of the "red belt". The discussed problem of the modern elite requires clarifying the source material of the Soviet era: "new class", "nomenklatura", "bureaucracy". The origins of gender and ethno-sociological problems, the nature and characteristics (typology) of ethno-conflicts partly go back to the Soviet period. The dynamics of deviant behavior, criminality and corruption is partly rooted in everyday lack of rights, low legal awareness, gross violations of the law and the merging of a private trader ("proto-businessman") with crime in "prison universities". In passing, we emphasize that the problems of crime and corruption in modern Russia are difficult to understand without historical and sociological knowledge. The situation here is often compared to the Middle Ages. And there is more truth in this comparison than those who speak of it suspect. As the analysis of the phenomenon of power entrepreneurship shows (see the article by V.V. Volkov in No. 1 for 1999 of our journal), the range of tasks for creating a market economy that Russia now faces should have been solved in the Middle Ages. Since they have not been resolved, they have to be solved - with the phenomena accompanying the initial period of the formation of the market.
Among the historical and sociological problems of the economic sphere, the issue of remuneration for work is important. The function of wages in Russia and the USSR was deformed: the employee did not receive a regulated and understandable part of the value created. What was “complained” from above in the consciousness and behavior of the worker was not associated with the quantity and quality of labor, undermining labor motivation, attitude towards work, labor morality, the reverse side was the now popular “freebie”. Probably, in the mass consciousness, entrepreneurialism, intensive work run into an ingrained mental barrier of the absence of a connection between high-quality personal work and remuneration and living standards. In the spiritual sphere (along with the consequences of wars and hardships), the metamorphoses of patriotism, its interaction with the national, ethnic, and international have not been studied. The human consequences and aspects of the Great Patriotic War, losses and hardships, such as the mass loneliness of women, orphanhood, the bleak existence of the elderly who have experienced the loss of children, are not even set as a subject of study.
These are some of the "what?" questions. As for "how?" and "why?", one has to look at the history of the USSR in a comparative way (whether they are applicable or not) of a number of sociological, social science theories. Structural-functional analysis of the Soviet system of power will probably confirm the little applicability of Parsons formulas to the processes of change. Durkheim's views on integration and solidarity in an industrial society, within certain limits, are also fruitful when applied to the fate of the Soviet system. The communication theory of society and power (N. Luhmann and others) can reveal the absence in the USSR of a key element of a modern viable political system. The gaps in "communication" between the authorities and the people, society, and the intelligentsia that have occurred in the past century also carry a more general lesson. It is time to change the type of relationship between society and the state in Russia, it cannot remain the same. Power, in accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation and by nature, is a public institution, an institution of society. Perhaps this is the main sociological lesson of the social, political, military, economic, spiritual and other history of the country in the 20th century. Finally, this is indicated by some publications of sociologists about the upcoming global changes, perhaps the ideas of socialism and internationalism will be relevant in an updated form.
From a slightly different perspective, IP problems bring the contemporary back to those classics of sociology who advocated the convergence of history and sociology. There is a certain dialectical relationship between sociology and history: the variety of approaches to IS, the possibilities of its use is associated with a specific understanding of sociology as a science. "Different sociology" corresponds to different IS. Perhaps specialization. the differentiation of scientific disciplines is a thing of the past: the information revolution makes the collection of empirical data an order of magnitude more accessible than it is now; the relationship of some social disciplines can move into the plane of the formation of "social science" about the past, present, future of society.
Conclusion
The historical sociology of Russia of the past makes it possible to reach deeper layers of contemporary problems. So. October 1917 (it would seem, what period of our history has been studied better?) can be considered an attempt by the Bolshevik leaders to “get ahead” (see A.P. Butenko’s article in No. 6, 1999 of our journal) in the absence of prerequisites for socialism. But the “running behind” could also be the result of a miscalculation in relation to the world (European) revolution, or the already beginning European revolution (Germany) was stopped by the effect (among other factors of the experience of the socialist revolution in Russia, pushing the proletariat of Europe away from the attempt to seize power.
The revolutions of 1917 could also be a manifestation of a deep factor in Russian history of the 20th century: the desire of the lower classes (the overwhelming majority) to survive. In the article by A.V. Posadsky "The Dialectics of the Communal and the Individual at the Limit of Extensive Development" (Sociological Research 2000, No. 4), this motif is shown as the dominant of the consciousness and behavior of the peasants of the Saratov region (representative for the peasants of European Russia) after the reform of 1861. The food issue was not resolved. The survival instinct was reinforced by the experience of the World War II comfrey workers (a decisive factor in the 1917 revolutions). The war struck by the scale of the millions of victims. The lower classes of large cities also faced the problem of survival - hunger (queues for bread - the "locus" of the movement for the overthrow of tsarism).
But this question is not limited to 1917. The Russians' attitude to survival was strengthened by the civil war (with intervention), the consequences of forced collectivization, and repression. Great Patriotic War, post-war famine. How much has been written by historians about the Great Patriotic War? Only now is there a consensus on the number of human losses in this war: 26-29 million (See the article by LL Rybakovsky in this issue of the journal). But who studied the psychological impact of the war, its consequences, the impact on the social strata and groups of the population of the USSR - women, children, front-line soldiers, the elderly, etc.? Even the socio-demographic composition of these millions of dead is still unknown. The Cold War, the threat of a nuclear catastrophe, the Caribbean crisis, the confrontation with NATO, "Afghan" and Chechnya contributed to maintaining the survival instinct (the famous: "if only there was no war"). Survival as a dominant feature of Russian history in the 20th century. imprinted in the mentality, and now surprises analysts. The ability of Russians not to grumble during the years of "reforms", their social optimism, the tradition of belief in a "better tomorrow" are emphasized in the article by S.F. Grebenichenko "Where and why is Russia going?" (Sociological research. 1999, No. 7, p. 35).
As a factor in the transition to the path of "sustainable development", such a mentality, it can be argued, contains elements of the future of both Russia and regions where survival or the distant past (Europe, North America, Japan, Australia, New Zealand) or ordinary everyday life. The desire for survival, it can be argued, is akin to solidarity. It goes into the primitive (primordialist) consciousness (even subconsciousness) of people. This circumstance, we note, indicates the proximity of sociology to the "metaphysics" of being, in the sense that the Ukrainian researcher of creativity F.M. Dostoevsky (No. 4, 2000). Sociologists can discuss a lot in the subject of their discipline - "a living person", his life. Sociological science, wrote Zh.T. Toshchenko (eg, Sotsiol. Issled. 2000, No. 2) is the sociology of life. The aspect of IP that I have singled out speaks in favor of such a view of sociological knowledge.
Bibliography:
1) History of sociology: http://cityref.ru/prosmotr/13211-740.htm
2) Sociology: the science of society. Under total ed. prof. V.P.Andrushchenko, prof. N.I. Gorlacha.- H.: 1997.- 687p.
3) Sociology: Ed. prof. V.N. Lavrinenko - M.: UNITI-DANA, 2000. - 407 p.
4) Kravchenko A.I. Sociology: Textbook. - M.: Logos, 2000. - 382p.
5) Frolov S.S. Sociology: Proc. allowance. - M.: Gardariki, 2000. - 344 p.
6) Nekrasov A.I. Sociology. - H.: Odysseus, 2007. - 304 p.
7) Radugin A.A., Radugin K.A. Sociology. - M.: Center, 2008. - 224 p.
8) Aphorisms, sayings / Marx K., Engels F., Lenin V.I. - M.: Politizdat, 1987. - 541 p.
9) Marxist-Leninist theory of the historical process. Historical process: integrity, unity and diversity, formation steps / Yu.K. Pletnikov, V.A. Kutyrev, E.N. Lysmankin and others - M .: Nauka, 1983.
10) History of sociology: Proc. allowance / Ed. A.N. Elsukov. - Minsk: Higher School, 1997. - P. 188.
11) Toshchenko Zh.T. Sociology. General course. - M.: Yurayt-M, 2001. - S. 15., p.17, p.19
12) History of sociology: Proc. allowance / Ed. A.N. Elsukov. - Minsk: Higher School, 1997. - S. 246 - 247.
13) Zborovsky T.E., Orlov G.P. Introduction to sociology. - Yekaterinburg, 1992. - S. 44 - 45.
14) Klyuchevsky V.O. Russian history. Complete course in three books. Book. 1. M., 1993. S. 5, 9. 15.
15) Afanasiev V.V. Historical sociology. Barnaul. 1995.
16) Soviet society: emergence, development, historical finale. M., RGGU. In two volumes 1997. Vol. 1; Pikhoya R.G. Soviet Union: the history of power (1945-1991). M., 1999. 736 p.; Mironov B.N. Social history of Russia in the period of the empire (XVIII-XX centuries). In two volumes. SPb., 1999.
Sociology as a science and academic discipline.
Sociology is the science of society, its institutions and processes taking place in society.
Among the behavioral sciences, sociology is distinguished by the complexity of the subject of study, the huge amount of material studied, which is primarily due to the complexity of the object under study - modern society. Sociology has a special place in the system of scientific knowledge. It is the only science that studies society as a whole. It is known that sociology is the science of society and human relationships. Its applied focus is the creation of a stable, constantly progressing society.
The object of sociology is society in all its environments. The subject of sociology is the processes taking place in the institutions of society.
Object, subject, levels of sociological knowledge, empirical base (foundation).
Formation and main stages of development of sociology as a science.
The problems of the development of social life have worried mankind for a long time. Their theoretical development was undertaken by the ancient Greek philosophers. Plato and Aristotle. Such works of Plato as "State" or "Laws", as well as "Politics" of Aristotle marked the beginning of the study of individual social institutions, in particular the state, family, law. For the first time, ancient philosophers turned to the problem of a person's place in society. The authors of ancient works put the doctrine of man and society on a theoretical basis.
The first sociologists of antiquity are called social philosophers. They, like today's sociologists, studied the traditions, customs, mores and relationships of people, generalized the facts, built concepts that ended with practical recommendations on how to improve society. Since in antiquity "society" and "state" were not distinguished, both concepts were used as synonyms.
Reasons (prerequisites) for the emergence of sociology:
1. Antiquity: the appearance of the first problems related to interaction in groups, associations, etc.
2. Renaissance, Enlightenment: the ability to scientifically predict the behavior of people and the ability to stimulate the development of production.
3. History: settlement of social conflicts.
4 stages of development of sociology:
1. 60s - 90s of the 19th century.
The development of classical sociology. The emergence of sociology is associated with the name of the French philosopher Auguste Comte(1798-1857), who coined the term "sociology" itself. Comte, in the general classification of sciences, placed sociology at the very top. Sociology must discover the universal laws of the development and functioning of society. She makes her discoveries using four methods: observation, experiment, comparison and historical method. Moreover, they should be applied objectively and regardless of the value judgments of the researcher. This approach has since been called positivism. The essence of positivism founded by Comte (positive) can be reduced to the following. Sociology should not engage in subjective reasoning and abstract unsubstantiated philosophizing. She studies society, and it is the same "organism" as the organisms of living nature. Its development is also governed by objective laws, like natural laws. Therefore, sociology must be an exact science, acting on the model of the natural "positive" sciences. The positivists advocated an objective, impartial explanation of social processes. Such an "explanatory sociology" must be free from all ideologies and personal judgments of individuals.
From the most complex to the simplest: sociology - biology - chemistry - physics - astronomy - mathematics.
2. 90s of the 19th century - 30s of the 20th century.
Pitirim Sorokin (Russian-American sociologist), Talcott Parsons (American).
The main efforts of American scientists have always focused on solving practical problems:
What are the motives (what motivates human activity) of people's behavior;
How best to exercise social control and management;
· How to overcome conflicts and maintain stability in society;
· How to ensure the spirit of cooperation of people in production.
3. 30s - 60s of the 20th century.
4. The 60s of the 20th century are our time.
Modern stage. Service delivery comes first.
2. Prerequisites for the emergence of sociology
3. The main stages in the development of sociology
Pre-scientific stage:
- sociological doctrine of Plato and Aristotle
The main socio-political theories of the New Time: a look at society, man and history by N. Machiavelli, T. Hobbes, J. Vicco
Philosophy of the Age of Enlightenment: A Look at Society by J. Locke, C Montesquieu, J-J. Rousseau, French materialists
Classic stage of development:
- French sociological school.
- German School of Sociology.
- The early stage of development of American sociology: L. Ward, W. Sumner, F. Giddings, A. Small.
- The modern stage of sociology.
1. Criteria for periodization and stages in the development of sociology
Three types of criteria for periodization of the stages of development of sociology can be distinguished: temporal (19th-20th centuries), spatial (continents), content (schools, currents, paradigms).
Attempts to periodize the history of sociology. Repeatedly undertaken in foreign and domestic science, they rarely took into account all these criteria in their combination and unity. In some works (even in textbooks on the history of sociology) no periodization is given at all and the question of its criteria is not raised, which, of course, does not contribute to the systematization of the accumulated material.
Usually, in works on the history of sociology, attention was focused on some one, most often temporal or substantive criteria. At the same time, different criteria could be used as the basis for each re-odization. French scientists Sh.A. Kuen and F. Gresl in their work "The History of Sociology" distinguish five stages in the development of sociological science:
The first until 1917;
The second - 1918-1945;
Third - 1945-1968;
Fourth - 1969-1990s;
Fifth - since the early 1990s.
The basis of such a redistribution is not so much a meaningful process that took place in sociological science itself, but rather major political events of world significance: revolutions, wars, socio-political movements and speeches that seriously influenced the development of society.
Much more accurate is the periodization of the history of sociology, which is based on an analysis of the internal development, content, significant changes that occur with the development of sociological knowledge, and its core problems are identified. Among them are the understanding of society, its relationship with social groups and individuals, the question of the subject of sociology, and so on. Therefore, one of the most relevant and "cross-cutting" is the problem of the relationship between theoretical and empirical sociology.
There are two main stages in the development of sociology. The first covers the 19th century (from the time of Comte) and the beginning of the 20th century. (until the 1920s), the second - the entire 20th century. The first was called classical (the stage of emergence and development of classical sociology), the second - modern (the stage of development of modern sociology). The first one is connected with the existence, mainly of theoretical sociology, the second one, along with the continuation of this process, the emergence and development of empirical sociology.
Theoretical sociology is the area of development of theoretical knowledge, the creation of general and special sociological theories.
Empirical sociology is the acquisition of factual knowledge based on the study of specific social problems using appropriate methods.
It is clear that calling the second stage modern, we run the risk of being misunderstood. Is it really possible at the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries to assert that the processes that took place 80 years ago in sociology should be considered as the current stage of its development.
Regarding the boundaries between the classical and modern stages of the development of sociology, there is another point of view, also widespread in the world and domestic history of sociology. So, V.P. Kultygin believes that the current stage covers the post-war (meaning World War II) and modern sociology. The boundary between the periods of the late 1960s. gg. The length of the classical stage is determined by the emergence of sociology in the middle of the 19th century and its completion during the Second World War. At the same time, it includes the periods of early and late sociological classics. The boundary between them is the First World War and the October Revolution in Russia. It was the beginning of the 1920s. marked the transition of society to a new state, caused by the need to comprehend it with the help of non-traditional sociological theories, primarily with the help of empirical research. Social groups, local issues of city life, production, ethical relations, education, etc. began to be studied. Thanks to such studies, branches of sociology began to emerge. The direction of studying subjective phenomena from the point of view of the impact of social processes on them and revealing their social nature has intensified.
It seems that for the sociology of the 20th century. the central link, and for some time in the 21st century. there will be a relationship between theoretical and empirical sociology. The fruitful development of sociological research for many decades rests on the question of their validity, evidence, both at the theoretical and empirical levels.
|
Time Criteria |
Spatial criterion. Personalities |
|
|
Early Classic Period: 1830s-1880s |
Positivism Naturalism, Organicism: Social Darwinism racial-anthropological direction geographic direction |
Comte (France), Spencer (England), Kovalevsky (Russia) Gumplovich, Ratzenhofer (Austria), Small, Sumner (USA), Stronin, Lilienfeld Gobineau, Letourneau (France) Buckle (England), Ratzel, Haushofer (Germany), Reclus (France), Mechnikov (Russia) |
|
Marxism |
Marx, Engels (Germany), Plekhanov, Ulyanov/Lenin (Russia) |
|
|
Late Classic Period: 1880s-1910s-1920s |
Psychological direction: evolutionism psychology of peoples group psychology instinctivism interactionism |
Ward, Giddings (USA), de Roberti, Kareev (Russia) Wundt(Germany) Tarde, Lebon (France) McDougall (England) Cooley (USA) |
|
Classical German Sociology: Formal Sociology understanding sociology |
Tennis, Simmel (Germany) Weber (Germany) |
|
|
Positivism and neo-positivism |
Durkheim (France), Pareto (Italy), Sorokin (Russia) |
modern stage. The modern stage is associated, firstly, with the formation and development of empirical sociology; secondly, with the sectoral differentiation of sociological science; s third, with the emergence of new schools, trends, paradigms and theories in comparison with those that were in the 19th century; fourthly, with the desire to combine theoretical and empirical sociology in a certain way; fifthly, with the search for ways to move away from classical theories towards "postclassics".
Several periods can be distinguished within the boundaries of the present stage of development of sociology.
First account for the 1920-1930s. and is characterized by a powerful offensive of sociological empiricism.
Second- 1940-1960s - is determined by a significant strengthening of theoretical and methodological constructions, which has become a kind of reaction to the dominance of the empirical tradition.
Third- 1970s - mid-1980s; At this time, attempts are being made, on the one hand, to combine theoretical and empirical research, micro- and macrosociology, on the other hand, to bring science to a new level of theoretical understanding of processes (both in real life and in sociology itself).
Fourth- covers the last 20 years and makes it possible to detect fundamentally different trends of an integrative nature. New movements, theories and paradigms in sociology give grounds to speak of the beginning of a period of "post-classical" constructions.
For the first time the word "sociology", denoting the field of scientific knowledge, was introduced into scientific circulation by the French thinker Auguste Comte in his work "Course of Positive Philosophy" (1842). Like many other philosophers of his time, Auguste Comte was influenced by major advances in the natural sciences. Therefore, considering the problems of society and social behavior, he, firstly, raised the motto "Order and Progress" to the shield, where the order was understood by analogy with physics as the symmetry and balance of the structural elements of society (individuals and groups), and progress - as the use of knowledge about society, first of all, to solve specific problems aimed at achieving the optimization of human relations, where, in his opinion, there was a lag behind other sciences.
Secondly, O. Comte believed that sociology should consider society as a kind of organism with its own structure, each element of which should be studied from the point of view of utility for the public good. This organism, in his opinion, acted in accordance with cruel laws, like the law of universal gravitation in physics. In this regard, O. Comte divided all sociology into social statics and social dynamics and allowed the application of the laws of mechanics to the study of society and its basic elements.
In addition, speaking of gaining knowledge about society and the laws of its functioning and development, O. Comte assumed, first of all, the need to study individual social facts, compare and verify them, almost completely denying the role of general theory in sociology. Instead of theoretical generalizations of empirical data and their reduction into something whole, the French thinker assumed only a primary generalization and built a picture of society mainly in the form of a mosaic of separate interconnected facts. This approach to obtaining and using scientific knowledge is usually qualified as empiricism in sociology.
The historical and scientific role of Auguste Comte lies, first of all, in the fact that he raised the problem of studying society and the relationships within it within the framework of a separate science, which he called sociology. Unfortunately, O. Comte was not able to clearly define the subject of the new science and find a scientific method that would allow a comprehensive study of the laws of social development. His complete analogy of social phenomena with phenomena observed in physics, chemistry and medicine was questioned and criticized already during his lifetime. Even the initial study of society has shown that social life differs to a large extent from the regularities with which the natural sciences deal.
Sociology of G. Spencer
Investigating the origin of all living bodies, and G. Spencer considered society to be such, he set himself the task of making as many empirical generalizations as possible to prove evolutionary hypothesis. This would allow him to assert with greater certainty that evolution has taken place and is taking place in all areas of nature, including science and art, religion and philosophy. The evolutionary hypothesis, Spencer believed, finds support both in numerous analogies and in direct data. Considering evolution as a transition from an indefinite, incoherent homogeneity to a definite, coherent heterogeneity that accompanies the dispersion of motion and the integration of matter, he distinguished three types of evolution in his work “Basic Principles”: inorganic, organic and supraorganic. Particular attention was paid by G. Spencer to the analysis of supraorganic evolution in another work "Foundations of Sociology".
Sociology studies the form of supraorganic evolution, which is "revealed by human societies", their growth and structure, "products and departures". But, from his point of view, social phenomena are largely determined by the properties of the units that make up society and the conditions for the existence of these units, and not by the conditions of life of the whole society and the very life of society. It is not for nothing that researchers of G. Spencer's work emphasize his characteristic sociological views individualistic approach to understanding society and its evolution. People live and stay to live together with each other because it is beneficial for them. He represented the joint life of people as a necessary condition for a developing individual.
The “starting” state of the conditions for the development of individuals and their own, as primitive people, physical, emotional and intellectual parameters were considered by Spencer as external and internal “factors of social phenomena”. He had no doubt that secondary or derivative factors are caused by social evolution. Using numerous examples, he demonstrates the dependence of human activity and social phenomena on the properties of the climate, the landscape of the area of residence of a particular group of people and the soil, flora and fauna of the area. At the same time, he emphasizes that the earlier stages of social evolution are much more dependent on local conditions than later ones. Armed with facts about the basic properties of uncivilized people and analyzing them, Spencer comes to the conclusion that the progress of primitive man was retarded by the lack of abilities that could only appear with progress itself. The development of higher physical, emotional, intellectual abilities went, according to him, along with social progress.
The less developed the physical, emotional and intellectual abilities of a person, the stronger his dependence on external conditions of existence, the most important part of which may be the appropriate group education. In the struggle for survival, a person and a group perform a number of unintended actions, objectively predetermined functions. These functions, carried out by members of certain groups and by the groups themselves, determine group organizations and structures, the corresponding institutions for monitoring the behavior of group members. Such formations of primitive people may seem very strange and often unnecessary to modern people. But for uncivilized people, Spencer believed, they are necessary, as they perform a certain social role, allow the tribe to carry out the corresponding function aimed at maintaining its normal life.
Each social structure and organization that arises in the process of supraorganic evolution has a functional orientation. Therefore, the sociologist must first of all study the functioning of this or that social unit, and the sociology that studies social units must concentrate on the results that appear in the course of the interaction of these units. Sociology is called upon to describe and explain the emergence and development of political organization and ecclesiastical institutions, the vital activity of society and all parts as a whole (“departments”, in Spencer’s phrase), the control concluded in ritual forms and the relationship between the regulatory and productive departments of each society. At the next stage, the objects of sociological analysis are developing languages and knowledge, morality and aesthetics, and as a result, the mutual dependence between the structures and organizations of society, on the one hand, and the life of society and its parts, on the other, is taken into account.
Stages of development
The beginning of the study of the life of society goes far into antiquity. From the "State" of Plato and "Politics" of Aristotle (V-IV centuries BC) to "On the Spirit of the Laws" by C. Montesquieu and "On the Social Contract" by J. Rousseau (XVIII century) - such is the long and the thorny historical path of social science up to modern times. The fundamental distinguishing feature here is that society was regarded simply as part of nature, and knowledge about it as an integral part of other, already known sciences, such as "political arithmetic", "asocial physics", etc. And only by the middle of the 19th century was the understanding of sociology established as an independent science of society as an integral system, along with physics, chemistry and biology. This is the merit, first of all, of the founders of science, O. Comte and G. Spencer, the first of whom has the honor of introducing the very concept of “sociology” into scientific circulation.
Contrary to the prevailing point of view, R. Aron considers it necessary to start the history of sociology a century earlier, because, in his opinion, C. Montesquieu (1689-1755) is “not a harbinger of sociology, but one of the founders of the sociological doctrine.”
Since ancient times, man has been interested not only in the mysteries and phenomena of the nature around him (river floods, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, the change of seasons or day and night, etc.), but also the problems associated with his own existence among other people. Indeed, why do people tend to live among other people, and not alone? What makes them draw borders among themselves, divide into separate states and be at enmity with each other? Why are some allowed to enjoy many benefits, while others are denied everything?
The search for answers to these and other questions forced scientists and thinkers of antiquity to look at a person and the society in which he exists: Just as mathematics, a science largely built on abstractions, began with geometry, with the measurement of real objects, so the origins of sociology can be found in the reasoning of scientists and sages - in wise advice with philosophical overtones on various everyday issues. An example of such reasoning are the books of philosophers of the Taoist school of Mo-tzu, in which attempts were made, on the basis of observation and reflection, to determine the ways of the best government, the education of youth, as well as the conditions for activities with the greatest benefit, etc. The Indian texts of the Mahabharata define, in particular, the order of social life necessary to achieve the power of rulers and happiness for all living people.
Antique thought gave a new impetus to the study of the social sphere, laid a number of elements in the foundation of the foundations of sociology. Such works of Plato as "State" or "Laws", as well as "Politics" of Aristotle marked the beginning of the study of individual social institutions, in particular the state, family, law. For the first time, ancient philosophers turned to the problem of a person's place in society. The authors of ancient works put the doctrine of man and society on a theoretical basis. This found expression in the models of logical-conceptual analysis (Plato), empirical-scientific (Aristotle) and historical-political (Polybius) study of the social problems of the contemporary world.
The Renaissance can rightfully be considered a new stage in the development of social thought. During this period, new research aimed at studying various aspects of society appears, which can certainly be attributed to the field of sociology. Erasmus Rotterdams Thomas More, Niccolo Machiavelli, Michel Montaigne - this is a far from complete list of the great medieval scientists who raised the problems of human relations in society. As a result, a model of society began to take shape, resembling a community, where order, moral foundations were regulated by the will of God and traditions. Man played a very insignificant role in such a system of the universe.
Later, the figures of the Enlightenment radically changed the view of society and the place of man in it. Claude Adrian Helvetius, Diderot, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Voltaire begin to analyze the structure of society, determine the origins of the development of inequality, the emergence of heterogeneity in society, and identify the role of religion in social processes. Having created a mechanical, rational model of society, they singled out: an individual as an independent subject, whose behavior depends mainly on his own volitional efforts.
During this period, the Italian philosopher Giambattista Vico (16 1744) tried to create the basis of a new science of society, to develop a scheme for the "movement of nations." This attempt was then the only one. Basically, all research in this area was characterized by fragmentary, unsystematic, in connection with which it is impossible to say about the emergence of sociology as a science at that time. Analysis of the general behavior of a person in a group, issues of heterogeneity and inequality did not attract sufficient attention of researchers, and achievements in the study of social phenomena were insignificant compared with successes in other areas of scientific activity. Why was there such a lag in the study of social phenomena? There are several reasons for this, which consisted in approaches to the study of social problems.
Firstly, for a long time it was believed that every person endowed with consciousness has absolute freedom in choosing a line of behavior, profession, society. This freedom was limited only by Divine Providence. According to this opinion, a person at any time, at his own whim, can change behavior, the society in which he lives, the laws and customs that exist in the state, establish a fair order, if this does not diverge from the Divine will. Man is free like a bird, but is there any possibility of scientific study of the trajectory and direction of its flight?
Secondly, the French enlighteners Voltaire, Holbach, Diderot were convinced that a person has not only free will, but also reason and the ability to learn. From this indisputable circumstance, it was concluded that the most important thing is to teach people to perceive mercy, culture, justice and virtue, and also to give them the best model for organizing society. People who have mastered the highest values of culture and behavior will realize the benefits and necessity of the best model, arrange their lives in accordance with it and establish the best social order and prosperity. From the point of view of science, in this case, only two points are of interest: the determination of the optimal ways of enlightenment, the spread of high culture, and the development of the best code of human behavior and a reasonable state structure.
Such or similar rather naive views on society and man dominated the scientific world for quite a long time, until the complication of human relations, the creation of complex organizations, the development of various spheres of human life raised questions of practical solutions to the problems of relationships between people and social communities, the creation of operating organizations, extinguishing emerging social conflicts, etc. Life required the scientific development of these pressing problems. At the same time, it turned out that a person in society, despite the possession of consciousness and will, has a limited choice of the type of behavior. The actions of other people or their mere presence, the limits of decency, morality and laws, the established structures of power, religious beliefs - all this limits the possibilities for the manifestation of a person's "free will" and makes his behavior largely similar to the behavior of members of a social group or society to which he belongs. People themselves limit their behavior during their life together, suppressing natural instincts. The customs, morals and laws necessary for daily life and the maintenance of order arise and are fixed in society on the basis of their usefulness for the common good.
These limitations are created unconsciously in the course of daily practice, and people usually do not notice the emergence of new limitations or the death of old ones until it becomes a fait accompli. The restriction of the choice of behavior of an individual on the part of a group or society excludes the spontaneity of human behavior, the actions and actions of people with the complication of social ties become more and more ordered, repeatability and regularity appear in them. This means that social behavior becomes somewhat predictable. There is an opportunity for a scientific analysis of the issues of interaction between individuals, groups, various kinds of social relations.
Of course, people cannot be completely limited by morality, they are able to consciously adapt to moral norms, modify or avoid them. In other words, one should take into account the activity of people and some possibility for them to choose new forms of relations and interactions. The existence of such a choice and the activity of people lead to a constant change and development of social relations and cultural forms, which are expressed in social processes that are also amenable to study.
As for the point of view about the "volitional and conscious" reorganization of the world, now its inconsistency is obvious. Jesus Christ offered humanity the best moral code based on love for others, justice, selflessness and equality. However, it turned out that people cannot cope with such an eternal problem as social inequality, and even if they really strive for universal love and justice, they first of all implement these principles in relation to the individuals of their group, be it a family, a closed social stratum or a class. . All noble impulses are shattered by the natural selfishness of people who see their group as the center of the universe and ignore the needs and needs of other people, other groups. In the same way, people ignore utopian "reasonable" types of government with universal equality, adhering to traditional cultural norms and values. Any schemes introduced from outside that are rejected by tradition are regarded as a threat to culture, the cultural gene pool of society and are discarded either immediately or after some time. Therefore, it is necessary, first of all, to subject the existing social structures, cultural patterns, relationships between members of society to scientific analysis, and then, on the basis of scientific foresight of their development, to carry out social reorganization, not rejecting, but, on the contrary, using the existing forms of people's existence and establishing the necessary social order.
Understanding the need to study the social communities of people and the processes of their development and functioning appeared relatively recently. Mankind came to the taming and use of the power of steam, the discovery of electricity, made fundamental discoveries in literally all areas of the natural sciences, while in the study of man and his place in society, human relationships, there was inaction and a very significant lag.
The impetus for the study of social issues was the development of production. Using natural resources, expanding the sphere of production in this way, people faced the limitation of these resources, as a result of which the only way to increase productivity was the rational use of labor, or, in other words, people employed in the production of material goods. If at the beginning of the XIX century. Since manufacturers served as an addition to resources and mechanisms, and only mechanisms had to be invented and improved, then in the middle of the century it became obvious that only competent people who were interested in their activities could manage complex equipment. In addition, the complication of all spheres of human life has posed the problem of interaction between them, managing these interactions and creating social order in society. When these problems were recognized and posed, the prerequisites for the formation and development of a science that studies people's associations, their behavior in these associations, as well as interactions between people and the results of such interactions arose.
Classical period of development of sociology
Sociology received real development and recognition only when the main scientific concepts were developed and formulated and it became possible to create the theoretical foundations for the study of social phenomena. The honor of the actual "discovery" of sociology belongs to three outstanding thinkers who lived and worked in the period from the middle of the 19th century to the beginning of the 20th century. These are the German scientists Karl Marx and Max Weber, as well as the Frenchman Emile Durkheim.
The work of Karl Marx
Karl Marx (1818-1883) made a significant contribution to the development of sociology. One of his main merits is considered to be the scientific analysis of contemporary capitalist society. As a tool for this analysis, Marx used the mass structure of society: all individuals belong to certain social classes, the division into which occurs on the basis of ownership of the means of production and the amount of remuneration received from this ownership. The division into classes is based on inequality, which means that one class (the class of owners of the means of production) is in a better position than the rest, and appropriates part of the results of the labor of another class (the working class).
K. Marx considered the structure of society in dynamics, assuming that classes are historically changing components of the social structure. Qualitative changes in the major components of the social structure occur as a result of a change in socio-economic formations. All changes in a society divided into classes are based on the laws of dialectics, on the constant struggle between the classes of the poor, the oppressed and the oppressors.
Marx comprehensively substantiated the mechanism of the emergence and development of social conflict, which occurs as a result of inequality, which is constantly intensifying with the dominance of some classes over others. The struggle of the working class to change the distribution of the product produced leads to the achievement of an unstable equilibrium on the basis of a temporary agreement between the exploiters and the exploited. In the future, contradictions accumulate, which leads to new clashes leading to a new agreement on conditions different from the previous ones. At the same time, there is a quantitative accumulation of discontent among the representatives of the oppressed classes and their awareness of the injustice of their position, and at the same time their strength. All this ultimately causes a global class conflict and the emergence of a new qualitative certainty - a classless society, where the produced product is distributed fairly and there is no exploitation.
Thus, K. Marx for the first time presented society as a product of historical development, as a dynamically developing structure. He substantiated the emergence of social inequality and analyzed social conflicts as a phenomenon necessary for social development and progress.
Sociology of Max Weber
The work of Max Weber (1864-1920), a German economist, historian and sociologist, is characterized, first of all, by deep penetration into the subject of research, the search for initial, basic elements with which one could come to an understanding of the laws of social development. Under the influence of Marx and Nietzsche, Weber nevertheless developed his own sociological theory, which still has a decisive influence on all scientific sociological theories and on the activities of sociologists in all countries of the world.
One of the central points of Max Weber's theory was his allocation of an elementary particle of the individual's behavior in society - social action, which is the cause and effect of a system of complex relationships between people. At the same time, society, according to the teachings of Weber, is a set of acting individuals, each of which, acting, seeks to achieve its own goals. The actions of individual individuals cooperate, and associations (groups or societies) are formed on the basis of this cooperation. Despite their selfish aspirations, people act together because their actions are meaningful, rational, and they understand that individual goals are best achieved through joint action. This understanding comes to them due to the fact that in the course of social practice, unnecessary patterns of behavior are always discarded and only those that can be foreseen, calculated and that bring benefits with the least risk are left. Thus, meaningful behavior resulting in the achievement of individual goals leads to the fact that a person acts as a social being, in association with others, thus achieving significant progress in interaction with the environment.
A very important aspect of Weber's work can be considered his study of basic relations in social associations. It is, first of all, relations of power. Since the organized behavior of individuals, the creation and functioning of institutions is impossible without effective social control and management, a necessary condition for the implementation of such actions are the relations of power that permeate all social structures. Weber analyzed in detail the relations of power, as well as the nature and structure of organizations, where these relations manifest themselves most clearly. He considered bureaucracy as an ideal mechanism for embodying and maintaining relations of power in an organization - an artificially created apparatus for managing an organization, extremely rational, controlling and coordinating the activities of all its employees.
The theoretical works of Max Weber not only clearly defined the subject of sociology as a science, but also laid the foundations for its development, both in theoretical and practical terms. Weber's ideas still inspire many sociologists to further theoretical developments, he has many followers, and his books are considered classic examples of scientific research.
Ideas of Émile Durkheim
Emile Durkheim (1858-1917) - founder of the French sociological school. He strove, first of all, for the autonomy of sociology, the separation of its subject from the subject of other social sciences, and also for the explanation of all the phenomena of social life exclusively from sociological positions.
Unlike M. Weber, E. Durkheim believed that society is a supra-individual being, the existence and laws of which do not depend on the actions of individual individuals. Uniting in groups, people immediately begin to obey the rules and norms, which he called "collective consciousness". Each social unit must perform a certain function necessary for the existence of society as a whole. However, the functioning of individual parts of the social whole can be disrupted, and then these parts will be a distorted, poorly functioning form of social organization. Durkheim paid much attention to the study of such forms, as well as types of behavior that deviate from generally accepted rules and norms. The term "anomie" introduced by him into scientific use serves to explain the causes of deviant behavior, defects in social norms, and makes it possible to classify in detail the types of such behavior.
The doctrine of E. Durkheim's society formed the basis of many modern sociological theories and, above all, structural-functional analysis. Numerous followers created the Durkheim sociological school, and modern sociologists rightly recognize Durkheim as a classic in the field of sociology.
Summing up, we can say that the name of the science "sociology" (literally - the science of society), so successfully applied by Auguste Comte, was subsequently saturated with scientific, theoretical content thanks to the works of K. Marx, M. Weber and E. Durkheim. It is as a result of their efforts that sociology has become a science that has its own subject, its own theory, and opportunities for empirical confirmation of various aspects of this theory.
Introduction____________________________________________________________ 3
The formation and main stages of the historical development of sociology ______ 4
The subject and specifics of sociology as a science _____________________ 8
Sociology and other social sciences _____________________________ 14
The Structure of Sociology _____________________________________________ 17
Conclusion ________________________________________________________ 19
Any amount of people's knowledge about the world around them can be called science only if there is a clearly defined subject of study, a system of knowledge related to this subject, as well as a categorical apparatus that describes the essential foundations of this subject. Most modern sciences formed their subject and knowledge system as a result of a long historical period. At the very beginning of this path, we encounter thoughts and ideas that describe the subject of science exclusively at the level of ordinary knowledge. However, in the future, this knowledge acts as the foundations of science, the germs of new directions in the development of human thought.
"Sociology is one of the youngest and most meaningful sciences about society." The desire to understand, comprehend society, to express one's attitude towards it was characteristic of mankind at all stages of its history. Usually the word "sociology" is associated with conducting polls, studying public opinion. The survey is an important research tool in sociology, but the main task of sociologists was considered to be the analysis and understanding of the problems associated with the functioning and development of both society as a whole and individual social groups and institutions.
Speaking about the emergence of sociology as a science, it should be remembered that sociology is a system of internally organized and conducted knowledge about the facts that make up the life of people in modern society. This means that knowledge about any sociological phenomenon must be based on verified and confirmed information and scientific evidence. Unlike such sciences as physics, chemistry or biology, sociology operates with clear concepts that are constantly used in everyday life.
Formation and main stages of the historical development of sociology.
Since ancient times, man has been interested not only in the mysteries and phenomena of the nature around him, but also in the problems associated with his own existence among other people. Indeed, why do people tend to live among other people, and not alone? What makes them draw borders among themselves, divide into separate states and be at enmity with each other? Why are some allowed to enjoy many riches, while others are denied everything?
The search for answers to these and other questions forced scientists and thinkers of antiquity to turn their gaze to man and the society in which he exists. The origins of sociology can be found in the reasoning of scientists and sages - in wise advice on various everyday issues. An example of such reasoning is the books of the philosophers of the Taoist school of Mo-tzu, in which attempts were made, on the basis of observation and reflection, to determine the ways of the best government, the education of youth, as well as the conditions for activity with the greatest benefit. And the Indian texts of the Mahabharata define the order of social life necessary to achieve the power of rulers and happiness for all living people.
Ancient thought gave a new impetus to the study of the social sphere. Plato's works such as "State" or "Laws", as well as Aristotle's "Politics" marked the beginning of the study of individual social institutions, in particular the state, family, law. For the first time, ancient philosophers turned to the problem of a person's place in society. The authors of ancient works put the doctrine of man and society on a theoretical basis.
The Renaissance can be considered a new stage in the development of social thought. During this period, new research aimed at studying various aspects of society appears, which can be attributed to the field of sociology. Erasmus of Rotterdam, Thomas More, Niccolo Machiavelli, Michel Montaigne are the great medieval scientists who raised the problems of human relations in society. As a result, a model of society began to take shape, resembling a community, where order and moral principles were regulated by the will of God and traditions. Man in such a system of the universe played an insignificant role.
Later, the figures of the Enlightenment radically changed the view of society and the place of man in it. Claude Adrian Helvetsky, Denis Diderot, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Voltaire begin to analyze the structure of society, determine the origins of the development of inequality, the emergence of heterogeneity in society, and identify the role of religion in social processes. Creating a mechanical, rational model of society, they consider a person separately as an independent subject, whose behavior depends mainly on his own volitional efforts.
During this period, the Italian philosopher D. Vico tried to create the basis of a new science of society. But basically, all research in this area was characterized by fragmentary, not systematic. Achievements in the field of the study of social phenomena were insignificant in comparison with successes in other areas of scientific activity. The lag in the study of social phenomena can be explained by several reasons.
First, for a long time it was believed that every person has absolute freedom in choosing a line of behavior, profession, society. This freedom was limited only by Divine conduct. Thus, a person at any time, at his own whim, can change behavior, the society in which he lives, the laws and customs that exist in the state, establish the existing order.
Secondly, the French enlighteners Voltaire, Holbach, Diderot were convinced that a person has not only free will, but also reason, the ability to learn. It was concluded that the most important thing is to teach people to perceive mercy, culture, justice and virtue, as well as to give them the best model for organizing society and people will be able to arrange their lives in accordance with it and establish the best social order and prosperity.
Such naive views of society and man dominated the scientific world until the complication of human relations, the creation of complex organizations, the development of various spheres of human life did not lead to the need for a practical solution to the problems of relationships between people and social communities, the creation of existing organizations, the suppression of emerging social conflicts and so on. Life demanded the scientific development of these vital problems.
Understanding The need to study the social communities of people and the processes of their development and functioning appeared relatively recently. push to the study of social issues was the development of production, when people were faced with limited resources, as a result of which the only way to increase productivity was the rational use of labor. It became obvious that only competent people who are interested in their activities can manage complex equipment. In addition, the complication of all spheres of human life has posed the problem of interaction between them, managing these interactions and creating social order in society. When these problems were recognized and posed, the prerequisites for the formation and development of a science that studies people's associations, their behavior in these associations, as well as the interaction between people and the results of such interactions arose.
The word sociology, denoting the field of scientific knowledge, was introduced into scientific circulation by the French thinker O. Comte in the 30s of the last century in his work “Course of Positive Philosophy”. O.Kont in his works drew an analogy between social phenomena and phenomena observed in physics, chemistry, medicine, which was questioned and criticized already during his lifetime. “In his understanding, sociology was equivalent to social science, which includes everything that relates to society. The philosophy of O. Comte was called "positivism". The “positive philosophy” proclaimed by him was reduced to the task of simply summing up the general conclusions of individual particular sciences. The same principle was extended by Comte to sociology, the role of which he defined by the tasks of observing the facts and processes of social life, their description and systematization.
The historical and scientific role of O. Comte lies primarily in the fact that he placed the problem of studying society and the relationships within it within the framework of a certain science, which he called sociology. Although he was unable to clearly define the subject of the new science and find a scientific method that allows a comprehensive study of the laws of social development.
Sociology received real development and recognition only when the main scientific concepts were developed and formulated and it became possible to create the theoretical foundations for the study of social phenomena. This is a classic period in the development of sociology. Here we can note three prominent thinkers living in the period from the middle of the 19th century to the beginning of the 20th century. These are the German scientists Karl Marx and Max Weber, as well as the Frenchman Emile Durkheim.
K. Marx was the first to present society as a product of historical development, as a dynamically developing structure. He substantiated the emergence of social inequality and analyzed social conflicts as phenomena necessary for social development and progress.
M. Weber developed a social sociological theory. One of the central points of the theory was the selection by him of an elementary particle of the individual's behavior in society - social action, which is the cause and effect of a system of complex relationships between people. At the same time, society is a collection of acting individuals, each of which strives to achieve its own goals. The actions of individual individuals cooperate, and associations (groups or societies) are formed on the basis of this cooperation.
E. Durkheim is the founder of the French sociological school. He strove primarily for the autonomy of sociology, the separation of its subject from the subject of other social sciences, and also for the explanation of all the phenomena of social life exclusively from sociological positions. E. Durkheim believed that the existence and laws of society do not depend on the actions of individual individuals. Uniting in groups, people immediately begin to obey the rules and norms, which he called "collective consciousness". Each social unit must perform a certain function necessary for the existence of society as a whole. Thus, “E. Durkheim was the first sociologist who gave a narrow interpretation of sociological science. His name is associated with the transition of sociology from a science identical to social science, to a science associated with the study of social phenomena and social relations of social life, that is, an independent one, standing among other social sciences - political economy, philosophy, history and others.
The doctrine of E. Durkheim's society formed the basis of many modern sociological theories, and modern scientists rightly call him a classic in the field of sociology.
Thus, the name of the science "sociology", so successfully applied by O. Comte, was subsequently saturated with scientific, theoretical content thanks to the works of K. Marx, M. Weber and E. Durkheim. As a result of their efforts, sociology has become a science that has its own subject, its own theory and the possibilities for empirical confirmation of various aspects of this theory.
The subject and specificity of sociology as a science.
With the term "sociology" each of us met repeatedly. Television, radio, and newspapers report on the results of sociological surveys of the population on a variety of problems. The sociological services of the Parliament, the President, and various research centers study public opinion on the most important socio-political and economic issues: the rating of the most influential people in the state, pricing policy issues, satisfaction with the standard of living, and so on. The regions conduct their own specific sociological research, which determines the satisfaction of the population with transport services, the work of various organizations, and the service sector. In institutes, students evaluate the work of teachers by filling out the questionnaire "Teacher through the eyes of a student." All this is an external level of sociological research lying on the surface, which creates the image of sociology as an applied empirical science that serves to satisfy some current, momentary needs of society. But is the subject and tasks of sociology exhausted by this alone? What is sociology as a science?
Let's start with etymology. The term "sociology" is derived from two words: the Latin word societas - society and the Greek logos - a word, concept, doctrine. Therefore, etymologically, sociology is the science of society. This is how the American sociologist J. Smelser characterizes it in his textbook "Sociology". But this is a rather abstract definition, since society in its various aspects is studied by a significant number of humanitarian and social disciplines: social philosophy, political economy, history, and so on. In order to understand the features of sociology, the sociological approach to the study of society, it is necessary to isolate one's own field of sociological research, as well as to determine the methods by which sociology operates. To do this, first of all, it is necessary to draw a strict distinction between the object and subject of sociology.
Let us first clarify the general concepts of object and subject.
“The object of study is usually understood as a certain part of the material or non-material world around us, a reality that exists independently of our knowledge of it. These can be physical bodies interacting with each other, living organisms or a person. The important thing is that all these objects of the surrounding reality existed before our knowledge and do not depend on it.”
Thus, “the object of knowledge is everything that the researcher’s activity is aimed at, which opposes it as an objective reality. Any phenomenon, process or relation of objective reality can be the object of study of various sciences (physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, economics, and so on)." When it comes to the subject of study of a particular science, then one or another part of objective reality (city, village, person, culture, organization, and so on) is taken not entirely, but only that side of it, which is determined by the specifics of this science.
The subject of research exists only in the head of the researcher, that is, it completely depends on the knowledge itself and is part of it. Defining the subject of research, we single out one or several aspects of the object in a purely abstract way and try to study them, taking into account or not taking into account the influence of other parties that we do not single out. According to this logic, each object of study can correspond to several subjects of study. For example, a stone building as an object of a reality that exists independently of us may be of interest to an economist from the point of view of construction costs, a foundation builder from the point of view of planting the building in the ground and the strength of the foundation, a person living in the building from the point of view of the convenience of the interior, and so on. Further. Everyone can be interested in other aspects of the object, but only on the basis of the fact of their influence on the subject of interest to him. The object itself does not contain any subject of study. According to G. Shchedrovitsky, the subject of research “can be singled out as a special content through practical and cognitive actions with the object.” Each science is different from another subject. Physics and chemistry, biology and psychology, economics and sociology, and so on have their own subject. All these sciences study nature and society, but each of them studies its own special side or sphere, objective reality, the laws and regularities of this reality that are specific only for this science. At the same time, one and the same side of objective reality can be the object of study of many sciences. So, physical reality is the object of study of many social and technical sciences, social reality is the object of study of social sciences and the humanities.
So, a certain sphere of the objective or subjective world always acts as the object of a particular science, while the subject of any science is the result of theoretical abstraction, which allows researchers to highlight those aspects and patterns of development and functioning of the object under study that are specific to a given science. Thus, the object of a particular science is a part of objective or subjective reality, which has its own properties that are studied only by this science, and the subject of science is the result of research activities.
“The object of any science is what the research process is aimed at, and its subject area is those aspects, connections, relations that make up the object that are to be studied. The object of sociology is social reality, and therefore sociology is the science of society. But this is not enough to define its subject. This is just an indication of the object of study, which coincides with the object of other social sciences, be it history, ethnography, demography, or law. Sociology is the science of the integrity of social relations, society as a whole organism. »
Accept that the object of sociological knowledge is the totality of properties, connections and relations that are called social. What is social? From the point of view of the Russian sociologist G.V. Osipov, social is a set of certain properties and features of social relations integrated by individuals or communities in the process of joint activity in specific conditions, and manifested in their relationship to each other, to their position in society, to the phenomena and processes of social life. A social phenomenon or process occurs when the behavior of even one individual is influenced by another individual or their group (community) - regardless of whether this individual or community is present. It is in the process of interaction with each other that individuals influence each other, thereby contributing to the fact that each of them becomes the bearer and spokesman of any social qualities. Thus, social connections, social interaction, social relations and the way they are organized are the objects of sociological research.
The subject of sociology, since it is the result of research activities, cannot be defined in the same unambiguous way. The understanding of the subject of sociology has changed throughout the history of the existence of this science. Representatives of various schools and directions expressed and express different understanding of the subject of sociology. And this is natural, since the subject of science is in close connection with the research activities of scientists.
The founder of sociology, the French thinker O. Comte, believed that sociology is a positive science about society. The outstanding French sociologist E. Durkheim called social facts the subject of sociology. At the same time, social, according to Durkheim, means collective. Therefore, the subject of sociology, in his opinion, is the collective in all its manifestations.
From the point of view of the famous German sociologist M. Weber, sociology is the science of social behavior, which it seeks to understand and interpret. According to M. Weber, social behavior is a person's attitude, in other words, an internal or externally manifested position, focused on an act or refraining from it. This relationship is behavior when the subject associates it with a certain meaning. Behavior is considered social when, according to the meaning given to it by the subject, it is correlated with the behavior of other individuals.
In Marxism, the subject of sociological research is the scientific study of society as a social system and its constituent structural elements - individuals, social communities, social institutions. The following definition of sociology is widely used in our domestic literature. Sociology is the science of society as a social system as a whole, the functioning and development of this system through its constituent elements: individuals, social communities, institutions. In the textbook "Sociology" (M.: Thought, 1990) by G.V. Osipov, written from the Marxist methodological positions, sociology is defined as the science of general and specific social laws and patterns of development and functioning of historically defined social systems, the science of mechanisms actions and forms of manifestation of these laws and patterns in the activities of individuals, social communities, classes, peoples. (p.25).
The selection of the subject of study from such a large and complex subject of study as human society became the basis for the selection and independent development of a number of sciences. Society and man are studied by several groups of sciences that have a similar subject of study. Thus, the subject of study of economic sciences are the processes of production of material goods, their exchange, distribution and consumption; political sciences - major social processes related to the management and functioning of the institution of the state, the formation of the government, the distribution of power between various social groups; the subject of the study of historical sciences are the processes of change occurring in different time periods, and the problems associated with the origin of individual social groups or societies; behavioral sciences (psychology and social psychology) distinguish in the object and study various types and forms of behavior of individuals, the impact on the behavior of the human psyche, his social environment. What place among such sciences does sociology occupy? What is its subject?
For a better understanding of the essence of the subject of sociology, it is important to imagine society as a structure, that is, not as a simple accumulation of individuals randomly interacting with each other, but “as a whole, consisting of a certain way arranged ordered parts interacting with each other within strictly specified boundaries.” These parts can include both the simplest elements, which are individuals, and the totality of these elements, or social communities, united according to certain characteristics. G. Schedrovitsky clearly illustrates the essence of the system of connections between the individual parts of the social structure. Let us imagine two boards on which balls are located in the holes, symbolizing parts of the whole we are studying. If the balls are arranged simply, without any connection, that is, our system is ordered and organized, but its parts do not interact, then when the position of one ball changes, this will not affect the change in the position of the rest of the balls. But if we fix the position of the balls with a spring, then each change in the position of one of them will inevitably lead to a change in the positions of all the other balls. Using this mechanical model for the analysis of human society, one can come to the conclusion that each individual in it occupies a strictly defined position or has a certain social status. For example, he may have the status of a director, worker, president, athlete, and so on. In accordance with this, each individual is in social relations with other individuals (that is, he is in complex systems of interactions and interdependencies). A change in these relations, as well as the position of an individual in society, inevitably entails a change in the ties and position of other individuals. People with similar social statuses occupy places close to each other in society and form social communities (categories, groups, strata, and so on) in which there are the strongest and most stable ties. In addition, in the course of joint activities, they are associated with individuals from other groups. The totality of connections and mutual arrangement of individual parts of the structure in the social space determine the behavior of people, any social unit that is part of the social structure. The positions of people in the social space differ depending on the possession of such resources as means, prestige, the amount of knowledge, and others. Therefore, to talk about social structure is to talk about social difference and inequality between people. The degree of social differences and the place of each individual in the structure are determined by two main parameters: the social distance between statuses and the number of individuals with a particular status.
An important point in defining the subject of sociology is the following: when studying social structures, one must remember that they are made up of people who are actively acting individuals who, as a result of joint actions, are able to change the positions of individual parts of the structure relative to each other, the level of restriction of behavior and the degree of freedom of each part, as well as the nature of the relationship of individual structural elements. In order for social structures to be preserved in the same form and not disintegrate, people have to perform many joint unidirectional actions that are subject to the corresponding social laws. This dynamic side of the subject matter of sociology must also be taken into account when conducting sociological research and constructing sociological theories.
Sociology and other social sciences
In order to understand more specifically what sociology studies, it is necessary to consider the relationship of related sciences about society, the social, communities and individuals. Here, first of all, it is necessary to compare sociology and social philosophy. Sociology, like many other sciences, emerged from philosophy.
For a long time, sociological knowledge accumulated in the depths of philosophy. And even after sociology, represented by O. Comte and E. Durkheim, proclaimed its independence from philosophy as a true science of society, philosophy continued to play a prominent role in sociological research. The sociology of the "founding fathers" O. Comte, G. Spencer, E. Durkheim, M. Weber is still very difficult to distinguish from social philosophy. Moreover, it can be said with certainty that in a number of studies of key problems of social life, theoretical sociology is intertwined with social philosophy.
Social philosophy is a branch of philosophy devoted to understanding the qualitative originality of society in its difference from nature. It analyzes the problems of the meaning and purpose of the existence of society, its genesis, fate and prospects, direction, driving forces and its development.
Social philosophy and sociology have a very wide area of coincidence of the object of study. Their difference is more clearly manifested in the subject of research. The subject area of socio-philosophical reflections is the study of social life, primarily from the point of view of solving worldview problems, the central place among which is occupied by meaningful life problems.
To an even greater extent, the difference between social philosophy and sociology is found in the method of studying the social. Philosophy solves social problems speculatively, guided by certain guidelines that develop on the basis of a chain of logical reflections. Sociology declared its independence in relation to philosophy precisely because it set itself the task of solving social problems on the basis of scientific methods of cognition of reality. According to the "founding fathers" of sociology, social life should be studied not speculatively, but on the basis of the methods of empirical (experimental) science. The independent development of sociology is precisely due to the fact that it began to actively master quantitative methods in the analysis of social processes using complex mathematical procedures, including probability theory, the collection and analysis of empirical data, the establishment of statistical patterns, and developed certain procedures for empirical research. At the same time, sociology relied on the achievements of statistics, demography, psychology and other disciplines that study society and man.
But in this case, the question arises: how to distinguish between sociology and other empirical sciences about society and the individual? This problem is particularly complex and largely unresolved in relation to specific social sciences and sectoral sociologies, such as economic theory and economic sociology. It is rather sharp, although perhaps not so noticeable, in the relationship between psychology and sociology, bearing in mind that social psychology is a branch of sociology. The solution to this problem is proposed according to the following scheme. Psychology is mainly focused on the study of the individual "I", the sphere of sociology is the problems of interpersonal interaction - "we". To the extent that a scientist studies a person as a subject and an object of social connection, interactions and relationships, considers personal value orientations from social positions, and so on, he acts as a sociologist.
The solution of the question of the specifics of sociology is directly related to the answer to the question: when did it appear as an independent science? From the point of view of science of science, the formation of any science is primarily associated with the external and internal institutionalization of this science, that is, the acquisition by this science of all the attributes of a social institution.
In this process, a number of necessary points can be identified, each of which consistently deepens institutionalization: 1) the formation of self-awareness of scientists specializing in this field of knowledge. Scientists are aware that they have their own specific object and their own specific methods of research; 2) creation of specialized periodicals; 3) the introduction of these scientific disciplines into the curricula of various types of educational institutions: lyceums, gymnasiums, colleges, universities, and so on; 4) creation of specialized educational institutions for these branches of knowledge; 5) creation of an organizational form of association of scientists of these disciplines: national and international associations. Sociology has gone through all these stages of the process of institutionalization in various countries of Europe and the USA, starting from the 40s of the 19th century.
Structure of sociology
In addition to external institutionalization, sociology, like any other science, must go through a process of internal institutionalization. Internal institutionalization means the improvement of the organizational structure of science, the existence of a stable division of labor within the discipline, the formation of rules and norms of professional ethics, the development of effective research methods and techniques. All this should ensure the actual process of production and systematization of knowledge in a particular field of knowledge. One of the most important places in this process belongs to the division of labor, the presence of three relatively independent levels in the organizational structure of science: 1 - the level of fundamental research, the task of which is to increase scientific knowledge by constructing theories that reveal universal patterns and principles of this area; 2 - the level of applied research, which sets the task of studying topical problems of immediate practical value, based on existing fundamental knowledge; 3 - social engineering - the level of practical implementation of scientific knowledge in order to design various technical means and improve existing technologies. This classification makes it possible to isolate the following levels in the structure of sociology: theoretical sociology, applied sociology, social engineering.
Along with these three levels, sociologists also distinguish macro- and microsociology within their science. Macrosociology studies large-scale social systems and historically long processes. "Macrotheorists" operate with the concepts of society, culture, social institutions, social systems and structures, global social processes. Microsociology studies the ubiquitous behavior of people in their direct interpersonal interaction. "Microtheorists" work with the concepts of social behavior, focusing on its mechanisms, including interpersonal interaction, motivation, incentives for group action. These levels are closely interconnected, since the direct, everyday behavior of people is carried out within certain social systems, structures and institutions.
“Hence two completely different approaches to the definition of sociology: one in the direction of unfolding its subject as integrity sciences social organism, about social organizations and the social system, the other is like science of mass social processes and mass behavior .»
A kind of intersection of all these levels are sectoral sociology: sociology of labor, economic sociology, sociology of organizations, and so on. Here we are talking about the division of labor in the field of sociology according to the nature of the objects under study.
All major spheres of public life are studied on the basis of sociological methods. For example, the sociology of labor studies labor as a socio-economic process in all its diversity of connections with social institutions. The theory and practice of social management of people's labor activity are organically linked in it.
So, "Sociology is the science of general and specific social laws and patterns of development and functioning of historically defined social systems, the science of the mechanisms of action and forms of manifestation of these laws and patterns in the activities of individuals, social groups, communities, classes, peoples." Sociology is one of the specific sciences and has a practical character. Sociology directly studies the practical branches of human activity and directly answers the question: why? - for social development, for the improvement of social relations, for the formation of a comprehensively developed personality, for social management, and so on. Knowledge of the problems of social development, social management, planning and forecasting, as well as special branches of sociological knowledge are associated with the social policy of the party and the state, that is, they are focused on solving social problems.
The variety of connections of sociology with the life of society, its social purpose are determined by the functions that it performs. The most important among them are cognitive associated with the study of the laws of social development, the trend of changes in various social phenomena and processes; practical, is determined by the degree of participation of sociology in the development of practical recommendations and proposals for improving the efficiency of managing various social processes; ideological conditioned by the participation of sociology in ideological activity.
The practical function of sociology is closely connected with the cognitive one. The unity of theory and practice is a characteristic feature of sociology. Revealing the patterns of development of various spheres of society, sociological studies provide specific information necessary for effective social control over social processes and put forward scientifically based forecasts regarding the development of society in the future, which are the theoretical basis for constructing long-term plans for social development.
Sociology, studying social life in various forms and spheres, firstly, solves scientific problems related to the formation of knowledge about social reality, description, explanation and understanding of the processes of social development, development of the conceptual apparatus of sociology, methodology and methods of sociological research; secondly, sociology studies the problems associated with the transformation of social reality, the analysis of ways and means of systematic, purposeful influence on social processes.
Of great importance in the life of society is the use of sociological research for planning the development of various spheres of public life. Social planning is developed in all countries of the world, regardless of social systems. It covers the widest areas, ranging from certain processes of life of the world community, individual regions and countries, and ending with the social planning of the life of cities, villages, individual enterprises and collectives.
Sociology can also serve to improve mutual understanding between people, to form a sense of closeness in them, which contributes to the improvement of social relations.
Frolov S.S. Sociology. - Moscow, 1998. - S. 5.
Osipov G.V. Sociology. - Moscow, 1990. - S. 20.
Frolov S.S. Sociology. - Moscow, 1998. - S. 19.
Osipov G.V. Sociology. - Moscow, 1990. - S. 21.
Yadov V.A. Reflections on the subject of sociology. // Sociol. research. - 1990. - No. 2. - P. 3-16.
Frolov S.S. Sociology. - Moscow, 1998. - S. 21.
Yadov V.A. Reflections on the subject of sociology. // Sociol. research - 1990. - S. 3-16.
Ibid, p. 3-16.
Osipov G.V. Sociology. - Moscow, 1990. - S. 25.
