The social system is one of the most complex systems of living nature, which is a collection of people, relationships between them, their knowledge, skills, and abilities. The main generic feature of a social system is their human nature and essence, since it is formed by people, is the sphere of their activity, the object of their influence. This is both the strength and vulnerability of social management, its creative nature and the possibility of manifestations of subjectivism and voluntarism.

The concept of "social system" is based on a systematic approach to the study of ourselves and the world around us, and therefore this definition can be considered both in the "broad" and in the "narrow" sense. In accordance with this, a social system can be understood as either a human society as a whole, or its individual components - groups of people (societies), united according to some sign (territorial, temporal, professional, etc.). At the same time, it should be taken into account that the essential features of any systems are: the plurality of elements (at least two); the existence of connections; the holistic nature of this education.

Social systems, unlike others that have received a program of their behavior from outside, are self-regulating, which is inherent in society at any stage of its development. As an integral set, the social system has specific stable qualities that make it possible to distinguish social systems from each other. These characteristics are called systemic features.

The concept of ″system features″ should be distinguished from the concept of ″system features″. The first characterizes the main features of the system, i.e. those features of a society, social group, collective, which give us reason to call a given social formation a system. The second is the qualitative characteristics inherent in a particular system and distinguishing it from another.

The signs of a social system or, in other words, society, can be divided into two groups, the first of which characterizes the external conditions of the life of a social organism, the second reveals the internal, most important moments of its existence.

External signs .

First commonly referred to as a hallmark of society territory where the development of various social relations takes place. In this case, the territory can be called a social space.

Second sign of society chronological framework his existence. Any society exists as long as there is an expediency to continue the social ties that make it up, or as long as there are no external causes that can liquidate this society.

Third the hallmark of society is relative isolation, which allows us to consider it as a system. Consistency makes it possible to divide all individuals into members and non-members of a given society. This leads to the identification of a person with a certain society and the consideration of other people as ″outsiders″. Unlike the animal herd, where identification with society occurs on the basis of instinct, in a human collective, the correlation of oneself with a given society is built primarily on the basis of reason.

internal signs.

The first The hallmark of a society is its relative stability achieved through the constant development and modification of social ties that exist in it. Society, as a social system, can exist only through the constant development and modification of the social ties that exist in it. The stability of a social system is thus closely related to its ability to develop.

Second sign - presence internal public structures. In this case, the structure is understood as stable social formations (institutions), connections, relations that exist on the basis of any principles and norms defined for this society.

Third The hallmark of a society is its ability to be self-sufficient self-regulating mechanism. In any society, its own specialization and infrastructure are created, which allow it to have everything necessary for a normal existence. Any society is multifunctional. Various social institutions and relations ensure the satisfaction of the needs of members of society and the development of society as a whole.

Finally, ability to integrate, is seventh sign of society. This sign lies in the ability of a society (social system) to include new generations (systems, subsystems), to modify the forms and principles of some of its institutions and connections on the basic principles that determine one or another character of social consciousness.

I would like to especially note that the main distinguishing feature of social systems, arising from their nature, is the presence of goal setting. Social systems always strive to achieve certain goals. Here nothing is done without a conscious intention, without a desired goal. People unite in various kinds of organizations, communities, classes, social groups and other kinds of systems, which necessarily have certain interests and common goals. Between the concepts of "goal" and "interest" there is a close relationship. Where there is no commonality of interests, there can be no unity of goals, since the unity of goals based on common interests creates the necessary prerequisites for the development and improvement of such a supersystem as society as a whole.

One and the same object (including the social system), depending on the objectives of the study, can be considered both in statics and in dynamics. At the same time, in the first case we are talking about the structure of the object of study, and in the second - about its functions.

All the variety of social relations are grouped into certain areas, which allow to single out separate subsystems in the social system, each of which performs its own functional purpose. Relationships within each subsystem are functionally dependent, i.e. collectively acquire properties that they do not possess individually.

A social system can effectively implement its tasks when performing the following functions:

1) it must have the ability to adapt, adapt to changing conditions, be able to rationally organize and distribute internal resources;

2) it must be goal-oriented, capable of setting the main goals, objectives and supporting the process of achieving them;

3) it must remain stable on the basis of common norms and values ​​that are assimilated by individuals and relieve tension in the system;

4) it must have the ability to integrate, to be included in the system of new generations. As you can see, the above is not only a set of functions, but also distinguishing features of social systems from others (biological, technical, etc.).

In the structure of society, the following main subsystems (spheres) are usually distinguished:

- economic- includes social relations of ownership, production, exchange, distribution and consumption of material and spiritual goods;

- political- the totality of social relations regarding the functioning of political power in society;

- social- a set of social relations (in the narrow sense of the term) between groups of people and individuals who occupy a certain position in society, have an appropriate status and social roles;

- spiritual and cultural- includes relations between individuals, groups of individuals about spiritual and cultural benefits.

When studying any phenomenon, it is important to single out not only its characteristic features that distinguish it from other social formations, but also to show the diversity of its manifestation and development in real life. Even a superficial glance allows one to capture the multicolored picture of the social systems that exist in the modern world. Chronological, territorial, economic, etc. are used as criteria for differentiating the types of social systems. factors, depending on the goals and objectives of the study.

The most common and generalized is the differentiation of social systems in accordance with the structure of social activity and social relations, for example, in such spheres of social life as material production, social (in the narrow sense), political, spiritual, family and household. The listed main spheres of public life are subdivided into private areas and their corresponding systems. All of them form a multi-level hierarchy, the diversity of which is due to the complexity of society itself. Society itself is a social system of the highest complexity, which is in constant development.

Without dwelling in detail on the types of social systems and their characteristics (since this is not part of the objectives of this course), we only note that the system of internal affairs bodies is also one of the varieties of social systems. We will dwell on its features and structure below.

With the advent of people, their unification into tribes and clans began, from which, thousands of years later, peoples and societies were formed. They began to populate and explore the planet, initially leading a nomadic lifestyle, and then, having settled in the most favorable places, they organized a social space. Further filling it with objects of labor and life of people became the beginning of the emergence of city-states and states.

For tens of thousands of years, a social society has been formed and developed in order to acquire the features that it has today.

Definition of social structure

Each society goes through its own path of development and formation of the foundations of which it consists. To understand what a social structure is, it should be taken into account that this is a complex relationship of elements and systems functioning in it. They constitute a kind of skeleton on which society stands, but at the same time it tends to change, depending on conditions.

The concept of social structure includes:

• elements that fill it, that is, various types of communities;
• social ties affecting all stages of its development.

The social structure consists of a society divided into groups, layers, classes, as well as into ethnic, professional, territorial and other elements. At the same time, it is a reflection of the relationship between all its members, based on cultural, economic, demographic and other types of ties.

It is people who, by creating not arbitrary, but permanent relationships with each other, form the concept of social structure as an object with established relationships. Thus, a person is not completely free in his choice, being part of this structure. He is limited by the social world and the relations that have developed in it, into which he constantly enters in various spheres of his activity.

The social structure of a society is its framework, within which there are various groups that unite people and put forward certain requirements for their behavior in the system of role relations between them. They may have some limits that must not be violated. For example, a person, working in a team where they did not impose strict requirements on the appearance of employees, having got to another job where they are, will fulfill them, even if he does not like it.

The distinctive features of the social structure are the presence of real subjects that create certain processes in it. They can be both separate individuals and various sections of the population and social communities, regardless of their size, for example, the working class, a religious sect or the intelligentsia.

The structure of society

Each country has its own social system with its own traditions, norms of behavior, economic and cultural ties. Any such society has a complex structure based on the relationship of its members and the relationship between castes, classes, layers and strata.

It is made up of large and small social groups, which are usually called associations of people united by common interests, work activities or the same values. Large communities are distinguished by the amount of income and methods of obtaining it, by social status, education, occupation or other characteristics. Some scholars refer to them as "strata", but more common are the concepts of "stratum" and "class", such as workers, who make up the largest group in most countries.

Society at all times had a clear hierarchical structure. For example, 200 years ago in some countries there were estates. Each of them had their own privileges, property and social rights, which were enshrined in law.

The hierarchical division in such a society operates vertically, passing through all types of connections - politics, economics, culture, professional activity. As it develops, groups and estates change in it, as well as the internal interconnection of their members. For example, in medieval England, an impoverished lord was more respected than a very rich merchant or merchant. Today, ancient noble families are honored in this country, but successful and wealthy businessmen, athletes or people of art are more admired.

Flexible social system

A society in which there is no caste system is mobile, since its members can move from one layer to another both horizontally and vertically. In the first case, the social status of a person does not change, for example, he simply moves from one position to a similar one in another job.

Vertical transition implies an increase or decrease in social or financial status. For example, a person with an average income occupies a leadership position, which gives incomes much higher than before.

In some modern societies, there are social inequalities based on financial, racial or social differences. In such structures, some layers or groups have more privileges and opportunities than others. By the way, some scientists believe that inequality is a natural process for modern society, as a large number of people are gradually emerging in it, distinguished by outstanding abilities, talents and leadership qualities, which become its basis.

Types of social structures of the ancient world

The formation of society throughout the history of human development directly depended on the division of labor, the level of development of people and the socio-economic relations between them.

For example, during the primitive communal system, the social structure of society was determined by how useful the representatives of a tribe or clan were to the rest of its members. The sick, the elderly and the crippled were not kept unless they could make at least some feasible contribution to the welfare and security of the community.

Another thing is the slave system. Although it was divided into only 2 classes - slaves and their owners, the society itself was made up of scientists, merchants, artisans, the army, artists, philosophers, poets, peasants, priests, teachers and representatives of other professions.

On the example of ancient Greece, Rome and a number of countries of the East, one can trace how the social society of that time was formed. They had well-developed economic and cultural ties with other countries, and the strata of the population were clearly divided into representatives of various professions, into freemen and slaves, into those in power and lawyers.

Types of social structures from the Middle Ages to the present day

What is the social structure of a feudal society can be understood by tracing the development of the European countries of that period. It consisted of 2 classes - the feudal lords and their serfs, although society was also divided into several classes and representatives of the intelligentsia.

Estates are social groups that occupy their position in the system of economic, legal and traditional ties. For example, in France there were 3 classes - the secular (feudal lords, nobility), the clergy and the largest part of society, which included free peasants, artisans, merchants and merchants, and later - the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

The capitalist system, especially the modern one, has a more complex structure. For example, the concept of the middle class arose, which used to include the bourgeoisie, and today it includes merchants, and entrepreneurs, and highly paid employees and workers, and farmers, and small businesses. Membership in the middle class is determined by the income level of its members.

Although this category includes a large part of the population in highly developed capitalist countries, representatives of big business have the greatest influence on the development of the economy and politics. Separately, there is a class of intelligentsia, especially creative, scientific, technical and humanitarian. Thus, many artists, writers and representatives of other intellectual and creative professions have an income characteristic of big business.

Another type of social structure is the socialist system, which should be based on equal rights and opportunities for all members of society. But the attempt to build developed socialism in Eastern, Central Europe and Asia has led many of these countries to poverty.

A positive example is the social system in such countries as Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and others, which are based on capitalist relations with full social protection of the rights of its members.

Components of social structure

To understand what a social structure is, you need to know what elements are included in its composition:

1. Groups that bring together people connected by common interests, values, professional activities or goals. More often they are perceived by others as communities.
2. Classes are large social groups that have their own financial, economic or cultural values ​​based on their code of honor, behavior and interaction of their representatives.
3. Social strata are intermediate and constantly changing, emerging or disappearing social groups that do not have an explicit connection with the means of production.
4. Strata are social groups limited by some parameter, such as profession, status, income level, or other attribute.

These elements of the social structure determine the composition of society. The more of them, the more complex its design, the more clearly the hierarchical vertical is traced. The division of society into various elements is noticeable in the attitude of people towards each other, depending on the criteria inherent in their class. For example, the poor do not like the rich because of their financial superiority, while the latter despise them for their inability to earn money.

Population

The system of various types of communities with strong internal ties between their members is what the social structure of the population is. There are no rigid criteria that separate people in them. These can be both main and non-main classes, layers, layers within them and social groups.

For example, before the advent of Soviet power to Ukraine, most of its population was made up of artisans and individual peasants. A third were landowners, wealthy peasants, merchants and workers, while there were very few employees. After collectivization, the population of the country already consisted of only three layers - workers, employees and peasants.

If we consider the historical stages of development of countries, then the absence of a middle class, namely entrepreneurs, small businesses, free artisans and wealthy farmers, led them to impoverishment and a sharp economic contrast between the strata of society.

The formation of "middle peasants" contributes to the rise of the economy, the emergence of a whole class of people with a completely different mentality, goals, interests and culture. The poorer stratum thanks to them receives new types of goods and services, jobs and higher wages.

Today, in most countries, the population consists of the political elite, the clergy, technical, creative and humanitarian intelligentsia, workers, scientists, farmers, entrepreneurs and representatives of other professions.

The concept of a social system

If for the sages who lived 2500 years ago, this term meant the orderliness of life in the state, today the social system is a complex formation, which includes the primary subsystems of society, for example, economic, cultural and spiritual, political and social.

• The economic subsystem implies the regulation of human relations in solving such issues as the production, distribution, use or exchange of material goods. It must solve 3 tasks: what to produce, how and for whom. If one of the tasks is not fulfilled, then the entire economy of the country collapses. Since the environment and the needs of the population are constantly changing, the economic system must adapt to them in order to satisfy the material interests of the whole society. The higher the standard of living of the population, the more needs it has, which means that the economy of this society functions better.
• The political subsystem is associated with the organization, establishment, operation and change of power. Its main element is the social structure of the state, namely its legal institutions, such as courts, prosecutors, electoral bodies, arbitration and others. The main function of the political subsystem is to ensure social order and stability in the country, as well as to quickly resolve the vital problems of society.
• The social (public) subsystem is responsible for the prosperity and well-being of the population as a whole, regulating the relationship between its various classes and strata. This includes health care, public transportation, utilities and domestic services.
• The cultural and spiritual subsystem is engaged in the creation, development, dissemination and preservation of cultural, traditional and moral values. Its elements include sciences, arts, upbringing, education, morality and literature. Its main duties are the education of young people, the transfer of the spiritual values ​​of the people to a new generation, and the enrichment of the cultural life of people.

Thus, the social system is a fundamental part of any society, which is responsible for the uniform development, prosperity and security of its members.

Social structure and its levels

Each country has its own territorial divisions, but in most of them they are approximately the same. In modern society, the levels of social structure are divided into 5 zones:

1. State. It is responsible for making decisions concerning the country as a whole, its development, security and international position.
2. Regional social space. It concerns each region separately, taking into account its climatic, economic and cultural characteristics. It may be independent, or it may depend on the higher state zone in matters of subsidies or budget redistribution.
3. The territorial zone is a small subject of the regional space, which has the right to elections to local councils, to form and use its own budget, to resolve issues and tasks at the local level.
4. Corporate zone. It is possible only in a market economy and is represented by farms that conduct their labor activities with the formation of the budget and local government, for example, shareholders. It is subject to territorial or regional zones according to laws formed at the state level.
5. Individual level. Although it is at the bottom of the pyramid, it is its basis, since it implies the personal interests of a person, which are always above the public. The needs of an individual can have a wide range of desires - from a guaranteed decent salary to self-expression.

Thus, the formation of a social structure is always based on the elements and levels of its components.

Changes in the structure of society

Each time countries have moved to a new level of development, their structure has changed. For example, the change in the social structure of society during the times of serfdom was associated with the development of industry and the growth of cities. Many serfs went to work in factories, moving into the class of workers.

Today, such changes concern wages and labor productivity. If even 100 years ago physical labor was paid higher than mental labor, today the opposite is true. For example, a programmer can earn more than a highly skilled worker.

A social system is defined as a set of elements (individuals, groups, communities) that are in interactions and relationships and form a single whole.

Such an integrity (system), when interacting with the external environment, is able to change the relations of elements, i.e., its structure, which is a network of ordered and interdependent relationships between the elements of the system. So, the essential characteristics of any system are the integrity and integration of structural elements. The specificity of a social system lies in the fact that its elements (components) are individuals, groups, social communities, whose behavior is determined by certain social positions (roles).

The process of the historical formation of society shows that individuals carried out their activities together with other people to satisfy their vital interests and needs. In the process of this interaction, certain norms of relations, standards of behavior were developed, which, to one degree or another, were shared by everyone. This turned group relations into a social system, an integrity with qualities that may not be observed in the social sets that make up the system separately. For example, the education system can be represented in the form of elements: primary, secondary and higher education. In order to get a secondary education, a person must master the elementary level, and in order to get a higher education, the secondary level, that is, how to observe a certain hierarchy of mastering the components of the system. So, when we talk about social structure, we mean some order within the system. The problem of order and thus the nature of the integration of stable social systems (i.e., social structure) focuses attention on the motives and standards of human behavior.

Such standards are forms of basic values ​​and constitute the most significant part of the cultural environment of a social system. It follows that the integrity of the structure is supported by the commitment of people to common values, a common system of motivations for actions, and to some extent, common feelings. The desire to maintain a system and a certain structure is thus associated with the interests and expectations of people, the ability of a person to predict the satisfaction of his various needs in an organized way.

The most profound problem of social systems was developed by the American sociologist-theorist T. Parsons (1902-1979) in his work "The Social System". It was the first to comprehensively analyze the differences between social and personal systems, as well as cultural patterns.

The theory of social systems created by Parsons involves the development of a certain conceptual apparatus, which primarily reflects the systemic characteristics of society (at various levels of organization), and also indicates the points of intersection of social and personal systems and functioning culture patterns.

In order to reflect the systemic characteristics of the individual, society, culture in the conceptual apparatus, Parsons gives a number of explanations about the functional support of each of these components of the action.

Like Durkheim, he believed that integration within a system and between systems and cultural patterns was a major factor in their survival. Parsons considers three kinds of problems: the integration of social and personal systems, the integration of the elements of the system, and the integration of the social system with cultural patterns. The possibilities of such integration are related to the following functional requirements.

First, the social system must have a sufficient number of "actors" that compose it, i.e., actors who are adequately compelled to act in accordance with the requirements of system roles.

Secondly, the social system should not adhere to such patterns of culture that cannot create at least a minimum order or make absolutely impossible demands on people and thereby give rise to conflicts and anomie.

In his further works, T. Parsons develops the concept of a social system, the central concept of which is institutionalization, capable of creating relatively stable forms of interaction - social institutions. These models are regulated normatively and integrated with cultural patterns of behavior. We can say that the institutionalization of patterns of value orientations (and, consequently, people's behavior) constitutes a general mechanism for the integration (balance) of social systems.

Despite the fact that the works of T. Parsons mainly consider society as a whole, from the point of view of a social system, interactions of social sets at the micro level can be analyzed. As a social system, university students, an informal group, etc. can be analyzed.

For the purposes of sociological analysis, it is necessary to know that any social system is limited by the framework of cultural patterns and determines the system of the individual, the nature of her behavior.

T. Parsons sees the mechanism of a social system striving to maintain balance, i.e., to self-preservation, in the sphere of integration of individual value orientations of acting "actors". This balance is not only instrumental, but also meaningful for people, since as a result of it, the goals of optimizing the satisfaction of needs should be achieved. The balance of the social system is ensured when individual value orientations correspond to the expectations of the surrounding people. It follows from this that social deviations in the orientations and behavior of individuals from generally recognized norms and patterns lead to dysfunction and sometimes to the disintegration of the system.

Since every social system is interested in self-preservation, the problem of social control arises, which can be defined as a process that counteracts social deviations in the social system. Social control in various ways (from persuasion to coercion) eliminates deviations and restores the normal functioning of the social system. However, the social behavior of people is not mononormative. It presupposes a certain freedom of action for individuals within the framework of permitted social norms, thereby contributing to the existence of relatively diverse social personality types and patterns of behavior.

Social control, along with the processes of socialization, ensures the integration of individuals into society. This happens through the individual's internalization of social norms, roles and patterns of behavior. The mechanisms of social control, according to T. Parsons, include:

• - institutionalization;
• - interpersonal sanctions and influences;
• - ritual actions;
• - structures that ensure the preservation of values;
• - institutionalization of a system capable of exercising violence and coercion.

A decisive role in the process of socialization and forms of social control is played by culture, which reflects the nature of the interactions of individuals and groups, as well as "ideas" that mediate cultural patterns of behavior. This means that the social structure is a product and a special type of interaction between people, their feelings, emotions, moods.

Introduction 2

1. The concept of social system 3

2. Social system and its structure 3

3. Functional problems of social systems 8

4. Hierarchy of social systems 12

5. Social connections and types of social systems 13

6. Types of social interactions between subsystems 17

7. Societies and social systems 21

8. Social and cultural systems 28

9. Social systems and the individual 30

10. Paradigm of the analysis of social systems 31

Conclusion 32

References 33

Introduction

The theoretical and methodological foundations for the development of the theory of social systems are associated with the names of G.V.F. Hegel as the founder of system analysis and worldview, as well as A.A. Bogdanov (pseudonym A.A. Malinovsky) and L. Bertalanffy. In methodological terms, the theory of social systems focuses on a functional methodology based on the principle of the primacy of identifying the whole (system) and its elements. Such identification should be carried out at the level of explaining the behavior and properties of the whole. Since the subsystem elements are connected by various cause-and-effect relationships, the problems existing in them can be generated by the system to one degree or another and affect the state of the system as a whole.

Each social system can be an element of a more global social formation. It is this fact that causes the greatest difficulty in constructing conceptual models of a problem situation and the subject of sociological analysis. A micromodel of a social system is a personality - a stable integrity (system) of socially significant features, characteristics of an individual as a member of society, group, community. A special role in the process of conceptualization is played by the problem of establishing the boundaries of the social system under study.

1. The concept of a social system

A social system is defined as a set of elements (individuals, groups, communities) that are in interactions and relationships forming a single whole. Such a system, when interacting with the external environment, is able to change the relations of elements, i.e. its structure, which is a network of ordered and interdependent relationships between the elements of the system.

The most profound problem of social systems was developed by the American sociologist-theorist T. Parsons (1902 - 1979) in his work "The Social System". Despite the fact that in the works of T. Parsons, society as a whole is mainly considered, from the point of view of the social system, interactions of social sets at the micro level can be analyzed. As a social system, university students, an informal group, etc. can be analyzed.

Self-preservation is the mechanism of the social system, striving to maintain balance. Since every social system is interested in self-preservation, the problem of social control arises, which can be defined as a process that counteracts social deviations in the social system. Social control, along with the processes of socialization, ensures the integration of individuals into society. This happens through the individual's internalization of social norms, roles and patterns of behavior. The mechanisms of social control, according to T. Parsons, include: institutionalization; interpersonal sanctions and influences; ritual actions; structures that ensure the preservation of values; institutionalization of a system capable of exercising violence and coercion. A decisive role in the process of socialization and forms of social control is played by culture, which reflects the nature of the interactions of individuals and groups, as well as "ideas" that mediate cultural patterns of behavior. This means that the social system is a product and a special type of interaction between people, their feelings, emotions, moods.

Each of the main functions of the social system is differentiated into a large number of subfunctions (less common functions) that are implemented by people included in one or another normative and organizational social structure that more or less meets the functional requirements of society. The interaction of micro- and macro-subjective and objective elements included in a given organizational structure for the implementation of the functions (economic, political, etc.) of a social organism gives it the character of a social system.

Functioning within the framework of one or more basic structures of a social system, social systems act as structural elements of social reality, and, consequently, as the initial elements of sociological knowledge of its structures.

2. Social system and its structure

A system is an object, phenomenon or process consisting of a qualitatively defined set of elements that are in mutual connections and relationships, form a single whole and are capable of changing their structure in interaction with the external conditions of their existence. The essential features of any system are integrity and integration.

The first concept (integrity) fixes the objective form of existence of the phenomenon, i.e. its existence as a whole, and the second (integration) is the process and mechanism of unification of its parts. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. This means that each whole has new qualities that are not mechanically reducible to the sum of its elements, reveals a certain "integral effect". These new qualities inherent in the phenomenon as a whole are usually referred to as systemic and integral qualities.

The specificity of a social system lies in the fact that it is formed on the basis of a particular community of people, and its elements are people whose behavior is determined by certain social positions they occupy and the specific social functions they perform; social norms and values ​​accepted in a given social system, as well as their various individual qualities. The elements of a social system may include various ideal and random elements.

The individual does not carry out his activities in isolation, but in the process of interaction with other people, united in various communities under the action of a combination of factors that influence the formation and behavior of the individual. In the process of this interaction, people, the social environment have a systematic impact on this individual, as well as he has the opposite effect on other individuals and the environment. As a result, this community of people becomes a social system, an integrity that has systemic qualities, i.e. qualities that none of the individual elements included in it have.

A certain way of linking the interaction of elements, i.e. individuals occupying certain social positions and performing certain social functions in accordance with the set of norms and values ​​accepted in a given social system, form the structure of a social system. In sociology, there is no generally accepted definition of the concept of "social structure". In various scientific works, this concept is defined as “organization of relations”, “certain articulation, order of arrangement of parts”; "successive, more or less constant regularities"; “pattern of behavior, i.e. observable informal action or sequence of actions”; “relationships between groups and individuals, which are manifested in their behavior”, etc. All these examples, in our opinion, do not oppose, but complement each other, allow us to create an integral idea of ​​the elements and properties of the social structure.

The types of social structure are: an ideal structure that links together beliefs, convictions, and imaginations; normative structure, including values, norms, prescribed social roles; organizational structure that determines the way positions or statuses are interconnected and determines the nature of the repetition of systems; a random structure consisting of elements included in its functioning, currently available. The first two types of social structure are associated with the concept of cultural structure, and the other two are associated with the concept of societal structure. Normative and organizational structures are considered as a whole, and the elements included in their functioning are considered as strategic ones. The ideal and random structures and their elements, being included in the functioning of the social structure as a whole, can cause both positive and negative deviations in its behavior. This, in turn, results in a mismatch in the interaction of various structures that act as elements of a more general social system, dysfunctional disorders of this system.

The structure of a social system as a functional unity of a set of elements is regulated only by its inherent laws and regularities, and has its own determinism. As a result, the existence, functioning and change of the structure is not determined by a law that is, as it were, “outside it”, but has the character of self-regulation, maintaining - under certain conditions - the balance of elements within the system, restoring it in case of known violations and directing the change of these elements and the structure itself.

The patterns of development and functioning of a given social system may or may not coincide with the corresponding patterns of the societal system, have positive or negative socially significant consequences for a given society.

3. Functional problems of social systems

Interaction relations, analyzed in terms of statuses and roles, have a place in the system. If such a system forms a stable order or is able to maintain an orderly process of changes aimed at development, then certain functional prerequisites must exist within it for this. The system of action is structured according to three integrative starting points: the individual actor, the system of interaction, and the system of cultural standards. Each of them presupposes the presence of others, and, consequently, the variability of each is limited by the need to meet a certain minimum of conditions for the functioning of each of the other two.

When viewed from the point of view of any of these points of integration of an action, for example, of a social system, two aspects of its additional interconnections with each of the other two can be distinguished. First, a social system cannot be structured in a way radically inconsistent with the conditions under which its components, individual actors as biological organisms and as individuals, function, or with the conditions for maintaining a relatively stable integration of the cultural system. Second, the social system requires the minimum "support" it needs from each of the other systems. It must have a sufficient number of its components, actors, adequately motivated to act in accordance with the requirements of its role system, positively disposed towards the fulfillment of expectations, and negatively towards too destructive, i.e. deviant behaviour. On the other hand, it must maintain agreement with cultural patterns that would otherwise either fail to provide the necessary minimum of order, or would make unrealistic demands on people and thus cause deviations and conflicts to a degree that would be inconsistent with the minimum conditions of stability or orderly change. .

The minimum needs of the individual actor form a set of conditions to which the social system must adapt. If the variability of the latter goes too far in this respect, then a "blowback" may arise that will give rise to deviant behavior of the actors included in it, behavior that will be either directly destructive or will be expressed in the avoidance of functionally important activities. Such an inevitability as a functional prerequisite can arise in leaps and bounds. The last type of avoidance behavior occurs in the context of increasing "pressure" in favor of the implementation of certain standards of social action, which limits the use of energy for other purposes. At some point, for some individuals or classes of individuals, this pressure may be too strong, and then a destructive shift is possible: these people will no longer participate in interaction with the social system.

The functional problem for a social system that minimizes potentially destructive behavior and its motivation can be generally formulated as the order motivation problem. There are countless specific acts that are destructive because they interfere with the roles of one or more other actors. But as long as they remain random, they can reduce the efficiency of the system, affecting the level of performance of roles, but not pose a threat to its stability. Danger can arise when destructive tendencies begin to organize themselves into subsystems in such a way that these subsystems collide at strategic points with the social system itself. And precisely such strategically important points are the problems of opportunities, prestige and power.

In the present context of the problem of adequate motivation to fulfill role expectations, the significance for the social system of two fundamental properties of biological human nature should be further briefly considered. The first of these is the hotly debated plasticity of the human body, its ability to learn any of the numerous standards of behavior without being bound by its genetic constitution to only a limited number of alternatives. Of course, only within the limits of this plasticity can the independently determined action of cultural and social factors matter. This clearly demonstrates the fact that genes automatically narrow down the range of relevant factors that are of interest to the action sciences, limiting it only to those associated with the problems of their possible combinations that affect the processes of increase and decrease in genetic directions. The limits of plasticity, for the most part, have not yet been elucidated. Another characteristic of human nature in the biological sense is what may be called sensitivity. Sensitivity is understood as the susceptibility of the human individual to the influence of the attitudes of others in the process of social interaction and, as a result, its dependence on perceived individual specific reactions. This essentially provides the motivational basis for sensitivity to responses in the learning process.

It is not customary to include in the discussion of the functional premises of social systems an explicit statement of questions about cultural premises, but the necessity of this follows from the main position of the theory of action. The integration of cultural standards, as well as their specific content, sets in motion factors that at any given time are independent of other elements of the system of action, and therefore must be correlated with them. A social system that allows too deep destruction of its culture, for example, by blocking the processes of its renewal, would be doomed to social and cultural deintegration.

It can be said with certainty that not only must a social system be capable of maintaining a minimum of cultural action, but conversely, any given culture must be compatible with the social system to some minimal degree so that its standards do not "fade out" but continue. function consistently.

4. Hierarchy of social systems

There is a complex hierarchy of social systems that qualitatively differ from each other. A supersystem, or, according to the accepted terminology, a societal system, is a society. The most important elements of a societal system are its economic, social, political and ideological structures, the interaction of the elements of which (systems of a less general order) institutionalizes them into social systems (economic, social, political, etc.). Each of these most general social systems occupies a certain place in the societal system and performs (well, poorly or not at all) strictly defined functions. In turn, each of the most general systems includes in its structure as elements an infinite number of social systems of a less general order (family, work collective, etc.).

With the development of society as a societal system, other social systems and organs of social influence on the socialization of the individual (upbringing, education), on his aesthetic (aesthetic education), moral (moral education and the suppression of various forms of deviant behavior), physical (health care, physical education) development. This system itself, as an aggregate whole, has its prerequisites, and its development in the direction of integrity consists precisely in subordinating all the elements of society to itself or creating from it the organs that it still lacks. In this way, the system in the course of historical development turns into an integrity.

5. Social connections and types of social systems

The classification of social systems can be based on the types of connections and the corresponding types of social objects.

Relationship is defined as such a relationship between objects, when a change in one object or element corresponds to a change in other objects that make up this object.

The specificity of sociology is characterized by the fact that the connections that it studies are social connections. The term "social connection" denotes the totality of factors that determine the joint activity of people in specific conditions of place and time in order to achieve specific goals. Communication is established for a very long period of time, regardless of the social and individual qualities of individuals. These are the connections of individuals with each other, as well as their connections with the phenomena and processes of the surrounding world, which are formed in the course of their practical activities. The essence of social ties is manifested in the content and nature of the social actions of individuals, or, in other words, in social facts.

The micro- and macro-continuum includes personal, social-group, organizational, institutional and societal connections. The social objects corresponding to these types of connections are the individual (his consciousness and actions), social interaction, social group, social organization, social institution and society. Within the subjective-objective continuum, there are subjective, objective and mixed connections and, accordingly, objective ones (acting personality, law, control system, etc.); subjective (personal norms and values, assessment of social reality, etc.); subjective-objective (family, religion, etc.) objects.

The first aspect that characterizes the social system is associated with the concept of individuality, the second - the social group, the third - the social community, the fourth - the social organization, the fifth - the social institution and culture. Thus, the social system acts as the interaction of its main structural elements.

Social interaction. The starting point for the emergence of a social connection is the interaction of individuals or groups of individuals to meet certain needs.

Interaction is any behavior of an individual or a group of individuals that is significant for other individuals and groups of individuals or society as a whole at the moment and in the future. The category of interaction expresses the nature and content of relations between people and social groups as constant carriers of qualitatively different types of activities, differing in social positions (statuses) and roles (functions). No matter in what sphere of the life of society (economic, political, etc.) interaction takes place, it is always social in nature, as it expresses the ties between individuals and groups of individuals; connections mediated by the goals that each of the interacting parties pursues.

Social interaction has an objective and subjective side. The objective side of interaction is connections independent of individuals, but mediating and controlling the content and nature of their interaction. The subjective side of interaction is the conscious attitude of individuals to each other, based on mutual expectations of appropriate behavior. These are interpersonal relationships, which are direct connections and relationships between individuals that develop in specific conditions of place and time.

The mechanism of social interaction includes: individuals who perform certain actions; changes in the outside world caused by these actions; the impact of these changes on other individuals and, finally, the feedback of individuals who were affected.

Everyday experience, the symbols and meanings by which interacting individuals are guided, give their interaction, and it cannot be otherwise, a certain quality. But in this case, the main qualitative side of interaction remains aside - those real social processes and phenomena that act for people in the form of symbols; meanings, everyday experience.

As a result, social reality and its constituent social objects act as a chaos of mutual actions based on the interpretive role of the individual in determining the situation or on ordinary creation. Without denying the semantic, symbolic and other aspects of the process of social interaction, it must be recognized that its genetic source is labor, material production, and the economy. In turn, everything derived from the basis can and does have an inverse effect on the basis.

Social relations. Interaction leads to the establishment of social relationships. Social relations are relatively stable links between individuals and social groups as constant carriers of qualitatively different types of activities, differing in social status and roles in social structures.

social communities. Social communities are characterized by: the presence of living conditions common to a group of interacting individuals; a way of interaction of a given set of individuals (nations, social classes, etc.), i.e. social group; belonging to historically established territorial associations (city, village, settlement), i.e. territorial communities; the degree of restriction of the functioning of social groups by a strictly defined system of social norms and values, the belonging of the studied group of interacting individuals to certain social institutions (family, education, science, etc.).

6. Types of social interactions between subsystems

The orderliness of social systems is represented in terms of "social structure", "social organization", "social behavior". The connections of elements (subsystems) can be divided into hierarchical, functional, interfunctional, which in general can be defined as role-playing, since in social systems ideas about people are involved.

However, there is also a specific structure of the system and, accordingly, connections. Hierarchical links are described when subsystems of different levels are analyzed. For example, the director - the head of the workshop - the foreman. In the management of this type of connection, they are also called linear. Functional links represent the interaction of subsystems that perform the same functions at different levels of the system. For example, educational functions can be performed by the family, school, public organizations. At the same time, the family, as the primary group of socialization, will be at a lower level of the education system than the school. Interfunctional links exist between subsystems of the same level. If we are talking about a system of communities, then this kind of connection can be between national and territorial communities.

The nature of the connections in the subsystem is also determined by the goals of the study and the specifics of the system that scientists are studying. Particular attention is paid to the role structure of the system - a generalized social indicator, in which both functional and hierarchical structures can be represented. Performing certain roles in systems, individuals occupy social positions (statuses) corresponding to these roles. At the same time, normative forms of behavior can be different depending on the nature of the connections within the system and between the system and the environment.

In accordance with the structure of connections, the system can be analyzed from different points of view. With the functional approach, we are talking about the study of ordered forms of social activity that ensure the functioning and development of the system as a whole. In this case, the units of analysis can be the nature of the division of labor, the spheres of society (economic, political, etc.), social institutions. In the organizational approach, we are talking about the study of the system of connections that form various types of social groups that are characteristic of the social structure. In this case, the units of analysis are teams, organizations and their structural elements. The value-oriented approach is characterized by the study of certain orientations towards types of social action, norms of behavior, and values. At the same time, the units of analysis are the elements of social action (goals, means, motives, norms, etc.).

These approaches can act as complements to each other and as the main directions of analysis. And each of the types of analysis has both theoretical and empirical levels.

From the point of view of the methodology of cognition, when analyzing social systems, we single out a system-forming principle that characterizes relationships, interactions, connections between structural elements. At the same time, we not only describe all the elements and structures of connections in the system, but, most importantly, we single out those that are dominant, ensuring the stability and integrity of this system. For example, in the system of the former USSR, political ties between the union republics were so dominant, on the basis of which all other ties were formed: economic, cultural, etc. The rupture of the dominant connection - the political system of the USSR - led to the collapse of other forms of interaction between the former Soviet republics, for example, economic ones.

When analyzing social systems, special attention should also be paid to the target characteristics of the system. They are of great importance for the stability of the system, since it is through changing the target characteristics of the system that the system itself can change, i.e. its structure. At the level of social systems, target characteristics can be mediated by systems of values, value orientations, interests, and needs. It is with the concept of purpose that another term of system analysis is associated - “social organization”.

The concept of "social organization" has several meanings. Firstly, it is a target group, bringing together people who strive to achieve a common goal in an organized way. In this case, it is this goal that binds these people (through interest) into the target system (organization). A number of sociologists believe that the emergence of a large number of such associations with a complex internal structure is a characteristic feature of industrial societies. Hence the term "organized society".

In the second approach, the concept of "social organization" is associated with the way people are led and managed, with the appropriate means of action and methods of coordinating functions.

The third approach is connected with the definition of social organization as a system of patterns of activity of individuals, groups, institutions, social roles, a system of values ​​that ensure the joint life of members of society. This creates for people the prerequisites for the comfort of life, the ability to satisfy their many needs, both material and spiritual. It is this functioning of entire communities in an orderly manner that J. Szczepański calls social organization.

Thus, we can say that an organization is a social system with a specific purpose, which unites individuals, groups, communities or societies on the basis of a common interest (or interests). For example, the NATO organization binds a number of Western countries on the basis of military and political interests.

The largest of this kind of target systems (organizations) is society and its corresponding structures. As the American functionalist sociologist E. Shils notes, society is not just a collection of people, original and cultural groups interacting and exchanging services with each other. All these collectives form a society by virtue of the fact that they have a common power that exercises control over the territory marked by boundaries, maintains and promotes a more or less common culture. These factors transform a set of relatively specialized initially corporate and cultural subsystems into a social system.

Each of the subsystems bears the stamp of belonging to a given society and to no other. One of the many tasks of sociology is to identify the mechanisms and processes by virtue of which these subsystems (groups) function as a society (and, accordingly, as a system). Along with the system of power, society has a common cultural system, which consists of dominant values, beliefs, social norms, and beliefs.

The cultural system is represented by its social institutions: schools, churches, universities, libraries, theaters, etc. Along with the subsystem of culture, one can single out the subsystem of social control, socialization, etc. When studying society, we see the problem from a "bird's eye view", but in order to really get an idea about it, we need to study all its subsystems separately, look at them from the inside. This is the only way to understand the world in which we live and which can be called the complex scientific term “social system”.

7. Societies and social systems

It is easy to see that in most cases the term society is used in two main meanings. One of them interprets society as a social association or interaction; the other as a unit with its own boundaries separating it from neighboring or neighboring societies. Some uncertainty and ambiguity of this concept is not as problematic as it might seem. The tendency that society as a social whole is an easily interpretable unit of study is influenced by a number of pernicious social-scientific assumptions. One of them is the conceptual correlation of social and biological systems, understanding the former by analogy with parts of biological organisms. Today, there are not many people left who, like Durkheim, Spencer and many other representatives of the social thought of the nineteenth century, use direct analogies with biological organisms in describing social systems. However, hidden parallels are quite common even in the writings of those who speak of societies as open systems. The second of these assumptions is the prevalence of deployable models in the social sciences. According to these models, the main structural characteristics of society, which provide stability and change at the same time, are internal to it. It is quite obvious why these models are related to the first point of view: it is assumed that societies have qualities similar to those that make it possible to control the formation and development of the organism. Finally, we should not forget about the well-known tendency to endow any form of social organization with features characteristic of modern societies as nation-states. The latter are distinguished by clearly marked territorial boundaries, which, however, are not characteristic of most other historical types of societies.

These assumptions can be countered by recognizing the fact that societal communities exist only in the context of intersocietal systems. All societies are social systems and are simultaneously generated by their intersection. In other words, we are talking about systems of domination, the study of which is possible through an appeal to the relations of autonomy and dependence that have been established between them. Thus, societies are social systems that stand out against the background of a number of other systemic relations in which they are included. Their special position is due to clearly defined structural principles. This kind of grouping is the first and most essential characteristic of society, but there are others. These include:

1) the connection between the social system and a certain locality or territory. The localities occupied by societies are not necessarily fixed, stationary areas. Nomadic societies roam along changing spatio-temporal paths;

2) the presence of normative elements that determine the legality of using locality. The tones and styles of claiming compliance with laws and principles vary widely and can be challenged to varying degrees;

3) the feeling by members of society of a special identity, regardless of how it is expressed or manifested. Such feelings are found at the level of practical and discursive consciousness and do not imply "unanimity in views." Individuals may be aware of their belonging to a certain community, not being sure that this is right and just.

We emphasize once again that the term "social system" should not be used only to refer to clearly defined sets of social relations.

The tendency to regard nation-states as typical forms of society against which all other varieties can be judged is so strong that it deserves special mention. The three criteria behave in changing societal contexts. Consider, for example, traditional China of a relatively late period, around 1700. When discussing this era, Sinologists often talk about Chinese society. In this case, we are talking about state institutions, the petty nobility, economic and economic units, family structure and other phenomena that are united in a common, rather specific social system called China. However, China thus defined is only a small patch of territory that a government official declares to be a Chinese state. From the point of view of this official, there is only one society on earth, the center of which is China as the capital of cultural and political life; at the same time, it expands to include the numerous barbarian tribes living in close proximity on the outer edges of this society. Although the latter acted as if they were independent social groupings, the official point of view regarded them as belonging to China. At that time, the Chinese believed that China included Tibet, Burma and Korea, since the latter were connected in a certain way with the center. Western historians and social analysts approached its definition from a more rigid and limited position. However, the very recognition of the fact of existence in the 1700s. a special Chinese society, isolated from Tibet and others, involves the incorporation of several million ethnically diverse populations of southern China. The latter considered themselves independent and had their own government structures. At the same time, their rights were constantly violated by representatives of the Chinese officials, who believed that they were closely connected with the central state.

Compared to vast agrarian societies, modern Western nation-states are internally coordinated administrative units. Moving back into the depths of the centuries, we consider China as an example in the form in which it was in the fifth century. Let us ask ourselves what social ties could exist between the Chinese peasant from Honan province and the ruling class of Toba (tobacco). From the point of view of the representatives of the ruling class, the peasant stood at the lowest rung of the hierarchical ladder. However, his social connections were completely different from the social world of Toba. In most cases, communication did not go beyond the nuclear or extended family: many villages consisted of related clans. The fields were arranged in such a way that during the working day, clan members rarely encountered strangers. Usually a peasant visited neighboring villages no more than two or three times a year, and even less often the nearest town. On the market square of a nearby village or city, he encountered representatives of other classes, estates and strata of society - craftsmen, artisans, handicraftsmen, merchants, lower government officials, to whom he was obliged to pay taxes. In all his life, a peasant might never meet Toba. Local officials visiting the village could supply grain or cloth. In all other respects, however, the villagers strove to avoid contact with the highest authorities, even when they seemed to be inevitable. Either these contacts foreshadowed interactions with the courts, imprisonment or forced military service.

The boundaries officially established by the Toba government may not have coincided with the scope of the economic activity of a peasant living in certain areas of Honan province. During the Toba Dynasty, many villagers made contact with members of kindred clans living across the border in the southern states. However, the peasant, deprived of such connections, tended to regard individuals outside the frontier as representatives of his own people rather than outsiders. Assuming that he met with someone from the province of Kansu, located in the northwest of the state of Toba. This person will be considered by our peasant as an absolute stranger even if they cultivated nearby fields. Or he will speak a different language, dress differently and adhere to unfamiliar traditions and customs. Neither the peasant nor the guest may even realize that both are citizens of the Toba Empire.

The position of the Buddhist priests looked different. However, with the exception of a small minority directly called to perform services in the official temples of the Toba petty nobility, these people did not often associate with the ruling class. Their life proceeded in the locality of the monastery, while, however, they had a developed system of social relationships, stretching from Central Asia to the southern regions of China and Korea. In the monasteries, people of different ethnic and linguistic affiliations lived side by side with each other, brought together through a common spiritual quest. Against the background of other social groups, priests and monks stood out for their education and erudition. Without any restrictions, they traveled around the country and crossed its borders, not paying attention to those to whom they nominally obeyed. Despite all this, they were not perceived as something external to Chinese society, as was the case with the Arab community of Canton during the era of the Tang Dynasty. The government believed that the said community was under its jurisdiction, demanded the payment of taxes, and even established special services responsible for maintaining mutual relations. However, everyone understood that the community is a special type of social structure, and therefore is not comparable with other communities that exist on the territory of the state. Here's a final example:

In the nineteenth century In Yunan province, the political power of the bureaucracy was established, which was controlled by Beijing and personified the Chinese government; on the plains there were villages and cities inhabited by the Chinese, who interacted with representatives of the government and, to a certain extent, shared its views. On the slopes of the mountains there were other tribes, theoretically subordinate to China, but, despite this, they lived their own lives, had special values ​​and institutions, and even had an original economic system. Interaction with the Chinese living in the valleys was minimal and limited to the sale of firewood and the purchase of table salt and textiles. Finally, high in the mountains lived a third group of tribes, which had their own institutions, language, values, religion. If we wish, we will ignore such circumstances, calling these people a minority. However, the earlier periods are studied, the more often one will meet imaginary minorities, which are in reality self-sufficient societies, sometimes connected with each other by economic relations and periodic interactions; the relationship of such societies with the authorities, as a rule, resembled the relationship between the vanquished and the winner at the end of the war, while both sides tried to minimize possible contacts.

Arguments about units larger than imperial states should not fall into ethnocentrism. So, today we tend to talk about Europe as a special socio-political category, however, this is the result of reading history in reverse. Historians who explore perspectives beyond individual nations note that if the totality of societies occupying the space of Afro-Eurasia were divided into two parts, the division into Europe (West) and East would lose all meaning. The Mediterranean Basin, for example, was a historical alliance long before the formation of the Roman Empire and remained so hundreds of years later. The cultural disunity of India increased as one moved east and was more significant than the differences between the states of the Middle East and the countries of Europe; China was even more heterogeneous. Often the differences between the main areas of culture are no less noticeable than those that exist between the compounds known to us as societies. Large-scale regionalization should not be perceived only as a set of complex relations between societies. This point of view has a right to exist if we use it in the context of the modern world with its internally centralized nation-states, but it is completely unsuitable for previous eras. Thus, in certain cases, the entire Afro-Eurasian zone can be considered as a single whole. Starting from the VI century. BC, civilization developed not only by creating centers scattered in space and different from each other; in some way there has been a process of constant and continuous expansion of the Afro-Eurasian region as such.

8. Social and cultural systems

In the most significant intellectual trend of all, common in English-speaking countries, i.e. in a tradition rooted in utilitarianism and Darwinian biology, the independent position of the social sciences was the result of a special area of ​​interest that did not fit within the boundaries of general biology. First of all, the heading of Spencer's social heredity, Taylor's culture, turned out to be in the center of the selected sphere. Considered in terms of general biology, this sphere obviously corresponded more to the field of environmental influence than to heredity. At this stage, the category of social interaction played a subordinate role, although it was clearly implied by Spencer when he emphasized social differentiation.

Common to modern sociology and anthropology is the recognition of the existence of a sociocultural sphere. In this area, a normalized cultural tradition is created and preserved, shared to one degree or another by all members of society and transmitted from generation to generation through the process of learning, and not through biological heredity. It includes organized systems of structured, or institutionalized, interaction between a large number of individuals.

In the United States, anthropologists tend to emphasize the cultural aspect of this complex, and sociologists the interaction aspect. It seems important to them that these two aspects, although empirically related to each other, are analytically treated as separate. The focus of the social system is the condition for the interaction of human beings, who make up specific collectives, with a defined membership. The focus of the cultural system, on the contrary, is in semantic models, in other words, in models of values, norms, organized knowledge and beliefs, expressive forms. The main concept for the integration and interpretation of both aspects is institutionalization.

Thus, an essential part of the tactic is to distinguish the social system from the cultural one and to consider the former as the sphere in which the analytical interests of sociological theory are primarily concentrated. However, these two types of systems are closely related.

As noted, the provision on an analytically independent socio-cultural sphere was a through line in the history of scientific ideas that had the most direct bearing on the emergence of modern sociological theory. The development of such an analytical view was very important, but its supporters went too far, trying to deny both the existence of social interaction at subhuman levels of the biological world, and the existence of subhuman prototypes of human culture. But once the fundamental theoretical boundaries have been established, restoring the required balance is no longer difficult, and we will try to do this in a more detailed presentation of the material. Ultimately, a single current emerged most clearly, consisting in an increasingly insistent assertion of the significance of motivated social interaction throughout the scale of biological evolution, especially at its upper steps.

9. Social systems and the individual.

Another set of problems arose in parallel with the basic distinction between the sociocultural and individual spheres. Just as in sociology there was no clear differentiation between social and cultural systems, so in psychology there was an even more pronounced tendency to interpret the behavior of the organism as a single object of scientific analysis. The problem of education was placed at the center of psychological interests. Recently, an analytical distinction has also appeared here, analogous to the distinction between social and cultural systems, opposing, on the one hand, the organism as an analytical category, concentrated around its genetically determined structure (to the extent that this latter is relevant to the analysis of behavior), and, on the other hand, the personality, the system, which is made up of the components of the organization of behavior acquired by the organism in the course of learning.

10. Social systems analysis paradigm

The concept of interpenetration implies that, whatever the meaning of the logical closed as a theoretical ideal, from an empirical point of view, social systems are considered as open systems involved in complex processes of interaction with the systems that surround them. The environmental systems in this case include cultural and personal systems, behavioral and other subsystems of the organism, and also, through the latter, the physical environment. The same logic applies to the internal structure of the social system itself, considered as a system differentiated and divided into many subsystems, each of which, from an analytical point of view, should be interpreted as an open system interacting with surrounding subsystems within a larger system.

The idea of ​​an open system interacting with the systems around it implies the existence of boundaries and their stability. When a certain set of interrelated phenomena exhibits a sufficiently definite order and stability over time, then this structure has a structure and it would be useful to treat it as a system. The concept of a boundary expresses only the fact that a theoretically and empirically significant difference between structures and processes internal to a given system and processes external to it exists and tends to persist. As soon as there are no such boundaries, a certain set of interdependent phenomena cannot be defined as a system: this set is absorbed by some other, larger set that forms a system. It is important, therefore, to distinguish between a set of phenomena that are not supposed to form a system in the theoretically significant sense of the word, from a genuine system.

Conclusion

A system is an object, phenomenon or process consisting of a qualitatively defined set of elements that are in mutual connections and relationships, form a single whole and are capable of changing their structure in interaction with the external conditions of their existence. A social system is defined as a set of elements (individuals, groups, communities) that are in interactions and relationships forming a single whole. The types of social structure are: an ideal structure that links together beliefs, beliefs; normative structure, including values, norms; organizational structure that determines the way positions or statuses are interconnected and determines the nature of the repetition of systems; a random structure consisting of elements included in its functioning.

The social system can be represented in five aspects:

1) as an interaction of individuals, each of which is a carrier of individual qualities;

2) as a social interaction, resulting in the formation of social relations and the formation of a social group;

3) as group interaction, which is based on certain general circumstances (city, village, labor collective, etc.);

4) as a hierarchy of social positions (statuses) occupied by individuals included in the activities of a given social system, and the social functions that they perform on the basis of these social positions;

5) as a set of norms and values ​​that determine the nature and content of the activities of the elements of this system.

Bibliography

1. Ageev V.S. Socio-psychological problems. M.: MSU, 2000.

2. Andreeva G.M. Social Psychology. 4th ed. M.: MGU, 2002.

3. Artemov V.A. Introduction to social psychology. M., 2001.

4. Bazarov T.Yu. Personnel Management. Moscow: Unity, 2001.

5. Belinskaya E.P. Social psychology of personality. M., 2001.

6. Bobneva M.I. Social norms and regulation of behavior. M., 2002.

7. Budilova E.A. Philosophical problems in secular psychology. M., 2000.

8. Giddens E. Organization of society. M., 2003.

9. Grishina N.V. Psychology of conflict. St. Petersburg: Peter, 2000.

10. Zimbardo F. Social impact. St. Petersburg: Peter, 2000.

11. Ivchenko B.P. Management in economic and social systems. SPb.: St. Petersburg. 2001.

12. Quinn V. Applied psychology. St. Petersburg: Peter, 2000.

13. Kon I.S. Sociology of personality. Moscow: Politizdat, 2000.

14. Kornilova T.V. Experimental psychology. Moscow: Aspect Press, 2002.

15. Kokhanovsky V.P. Philosophy of Science. M., 2005.

16. Krichevsky R.L. Psychology of a small group. Moscow: Aspect Press, 2001.

17. Levin K. Field theory in the social sciences. Moscow: Speech, 2000.

18. Leontiev A.A. Psychology of communication. Tartu, 2000.

19. Mudrik A.V. Social Pedagogy. Moscow: Inlit, 2001.

20. Pines E. Workshop on social psychology. SPb., 2000.

21. Parsons T. About social systems. M., 2002.

22. Parygin B.D. Fundamentals of socio-psychological theory. M.: Thought, 2002.

23. Porshnev B.F. Social psychology and history. M.: Nauka, 2002.

24. Kharcheva V. Fundamentals of sociology. M., 2001.

25. Houston M. Prospects for social psychology. M.: EKSMO, 2001.

26. Sharkov F.I. Sociology: theory and methods. M., 2007.

27. Shibutani T. Social psychology. Rostov-on-Don.: Phoenix, 2003.

28. Yurevich A.V. Social psychology of science. M., 2000.

29. Yadov A.V. Sociological research. Moscow: Nauka, 2000.

30. Yadov A.V. Social identity of the individual. Moscow: Dobrosvet, 2000.

31. Sociology. Fundamentals of the general theory. M., 2002.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Introduction

1 General characteristics of the social system

1.1 The concept of a social system. Structure and typology of society

1.2 Social institutions and their role in society

2 Trends in the development of the social system

2.1 The functional aspect of the development of the social system

2.2 Problems of development of social systems

Conclusion

Literature

INTRODUCTION

All social phenomena and processes are considered as systems with a certain internal structure. The most general and complex social system is society, and its elements are people whose social activity is determined by a certain social status that they perform, social functions (roles) that they perform, social standards and values ​​adopted in this system, as well as individual qualities (social qualities of a person, motives, value orientations, interests, etc.).

The social system can be represented in three aspects. The first aspect is as a set of individuals whose interaction is based on certain general circumstances (city, village, etc.); the second - as a hierarchy of social positions (statuses) that individuals occupy, and social functions (roles) that they perform based on these social positions; the third - as a set of norms and values ​​that determine the nature and content of the behavior of the elements of this system. The first aspect is connected with the concept of social organization, the second - with the concept of social organization, the third - with the concept of culture. The social system, thus, acts as an organic unity of three sides - social community, social organization and culture.

Usually, a system is understood in a certain way as an ordered set of elements interconnected and forming some integral unity. In particular, any social group is a complex system, not to mention a society, etc.

Society as a natural-historical integral system is an organic unity of four spheres of social life - economic, social, political and ideological. Each of the spheres of public life performs certain functions: economic - the function of material production, social - socialization, political - social management, ideological - spiritual production. Each social system (social formation) differs from the previous one by the nature of its systems of forming elements and the way they are interconnected.

A social system is a phenomenon or process consisting of a qualitatively defined set of elements that are in mutual connections and relationships and form a single whole, capable of changing its structure in interaction with external conditions. Social structure is usually understood as a stable connection of elements in a social system.

The essential features of any system are the integrity and interconnectedness (integration) of all elements of its structure. Even the ancient Greek philosophers drew attention to the fact that the whole "is greater than the sum of its parts." This means that each whole has new qualities that are not mechanically reducible to the sum of its elements. The elements of the social system are people and their activities, which they carry out not in isolation, but in the process of interaction with other people, united in various communities in a given social environment. In the process of this interaction, people and the social environment have a systematic impact on this individual, as well as he has an impact on other individuals and the environment. As a result, this community becomes a system, an integrity with qualities that are not found in any of the elements included in it separately. Social life appears as a set of interrelated and interdependent social systems, which, in the final analysis, are based on material production, but which are not reducible to it alone.

The structure, acting as a unity of a set of elements, is controlled by its own laws and regularities. The existence, functioning and change of the structure are not determined by the law, which is, as it were, “outside it”, but is in the nature of self-regulation, maintaining, under certain conditions, the balance of elements within the structure.

1 GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SOCIAL SYSTEM

1.1 The concept of a social system. Structure and typology of society

Scientists interpret the concept of "society" in different ways. This largely depends on the school or trend in sociology they represent. Thus, E. Durkheim considered society as a supra-individual spiritual reality based on collective ideas. According to M. Weber, society is the interaction of people, which is the product of social, that is, actions oriented towards other people. The prominent American sociologist Talcott Parsons defined society as a system of relations between people, the connecting beginning of which are norms and values. From the point of view of K. Marx, society is a historically developing set of relations between people that develop in the process of their joint activities.

All these definitions express an approach to society as an integral system of elements that are closely interconnected. This approach to society is called systemic.

A system is a set of elements ordered in a certain way, interconnected and forming some integral unity.

Thus, the social system is a holistic formation, the main elements of which are people, their connections, interactions and relationships. These connections, interactions and relationships are stable and are reproduced in the historical process, passing from generation to generation.

Social interactions and relations are of a supra-individual, transpersonal nature, i.e. society is some independent substance, which is primary in relation to individuals. Each individual, being born, finds a certain structure of connections and relationships and is gradually included in it.

Thus, society is a certain set (association) of people. But what are the limits of this collection? Under what conditions does this association of people become a society?

Signs of society as a social system are as follows:

The association is not part of any larger system (society);

Marriages are concluded (mainly) between representatives of this association;

It is replenished mainly at the expense of the children of those people who are already its recognized representatives;

The association has a territory which it considers its own;

It has its own name and its own history;

It has its own system of governance (sovereignty);

The association exists longer than the average life span of an individual;

It is united by a common system of values ​​(customs, traditions, norms, laws, rules, mores), which is called culture.

To imagine society from the point of view of the subject of sociology, it is necessary to distinguish between three initial concepts - country, state, society.

A country is a part of the world or territory that has certain boundaries and enjoys state sovereignty.

The state is a political organization of a given country, including a certain type of political power regime (monarchy, republic), bodies and structure of government (government, parliament).

Society - the social organization of a given country, the basis of which is the social structure.

What are the main elements of the structure of society?

First of all, society can be represented as a system of interconnected and interacting social communities. Each community is characterized by the allocation of one or another leading feature: gender, age, nationality, profession, role, status, etc. This common feature is dominant and should belong to all members of the community, determining its specificity and remoteness from other communities. On the other hand, a common feature is that consolidating principle, thanks to which a disparate mass of people acquires the character of a holistic formation. This common feature may be natural (gender, age) or social (religious affiliation, status, etc.) character.

Social communities can be divided into types, the most common of which are classes, layers and groups.

The idea of ​​dividing society into classes belongs to the French social scientists of the 18th-19th centuries, but K. Marx and M. Weber paid the most attention to the analysis of the class division of society. They laid the foundation for the tradition of defining classes in economic terms. M. Weber, for example, divided the population into classes in accordance with unequal life chances. And the classical Marxist definition of classes was given by V.I. Lenin: “Classes are large groups of people who differ in their place in a historically defined system of social production, in their relationship (for the most part fixed and formalized in laws) to the means of production, in their role in the social organization of labor, and, consequently, in ways obtaining and the size of the share of social wealth that they have. An alternative tradition, according to which class is not an exclusively economic phenomenon, is developed by some American sociologists. In particular, social status and prestige are called independent factors of class.

The concept of the social stratum was introduced into science initially as an alternative to the Marxist interpretation of classes and was more ideological (against the theory of class struggle) than scientifically developed. However, at present, the consideration of society from the point of view of its division into layers has become an important subject of sociological research.

Now we can say that the concept of a social stratum significantly complements the class model of social structure. Indeed, a social class cannot be regarded as a homogeneous social community. By highlighting several layers in each class, it is possible to reflect the objective differences between different groups of the population within a single class.

A social group is the most general and special concept of sociology, meaning a certain set of people who have common natural and social characteristics, united by common interests, values, norms and traditions.

Social groups can be divided depending on the presence or absence of an official socio-legal status into formal and informal. Depending on the number of members and the conditions of intra-group interaction, social groups are divided into small, medium and large.

Speaking about the social structure, it is imperative to single out and take into account the characteristics of the subjects of the social system, i.e. those elements of the social system that act as relatively independent "actors". Such subjects of the social system are, first of all, individuals of the community and social institutions (about them - the second question).

The subjects of the social system enter into various kinds of social relations with each other. Social activity includes a conscious goal, a means, the process of activity itself and its result. Thus, the action of an individual or group receives the status of social only if it is meaningful and socially oriented towards other people.

The most general division of social relations into types traditionally includes economics, politics, and ideology.

In the scientific analysis of the social system of a particular society, it is necessary to take into account its socio-ethnic, socio-demographic, socio-territorial, socio-professional and socio-cultural characteristics.

All conceivable and real diversity of societies that existed before and exist now, sociologists divide into certain types. Several types of societies, united by similar features or criteria, make up a typology. It is customary to distinguish the following typologies:

By the presence of writing - pre-written and written;

By the number of management levels and the degree of social differentiation (stratification) - simple and complex;

According to the method of production, i.e. way of obtaining means of subsistence - hunting and gathering; cattle breeding and gardening; agricultural; industrial; post-industrial;

According to the mode of production and form of ownership (K. Marx and his doctrine of socio-economic formation) - primitive, slave, feudal, capitalist and communist.

Modern sociology uses all typologies, combining them into a kind of synthesized model. The American sociologist Daniel Bell (b. 1919) is considered its author.

He divided world history into three stages - pre-industrial, industrial and post-industrial. Pre-industrial society is also called traditional. Here, the determining factor is agriculture with the church and the army as the main institutions, in an industrial society - industry with a corporation and a firm at the head, in a post-industrial society - theoretical knowledge with the university as the place of its production and concentration.

The transition from an industrial society to a post-industrial one is accompanied by the transformation of a commodity-producing economy into a service economy (the superiority of the service sector over the production sector). The social structure is changing - class division is giving way to a professional one. Property as a criterion of social inequality loses its significance, the level of education and knowledge becomes decisive.

1.2 Social institutionsmulberries and their role in society

Social institutions (from lat. Institutum - establishment, institution) are historically established stable forms of organizing joint activities of people. These are the state, political parties, the army, the court, the family, law, morality, religion, education, etc. Their emergence is due to the objective need of society for special regulation in the areas of social relations and social activity.

Each more or less established institution has its own purpose, i.e. the range of group or social needs to which the activity of the institute is directed.

The variety of social institutions is determined by the differentiation of social activity into various types: economic, political, ideological, cultural, etc. Hence, depending on their social and functional role, social institutions are divided into types:

Regulating reproductive behavior (family, family ties, etc.);

Upbringing, education, training, production;

Providing the preservation of the organization of society (power, politics);

Regulating activities in the field of culture.

According to the nature of the organization, formal and informal institutions are distinguished.

The activities of formal institutions are based on strictly established regulations (law, charter, job descriptions). Formal institutions play a huge and growing role in modern society.

An equally important role, especially in the field of interpersonal communication in small groups, is played by informal institutions (yard company, company of friends). However, the goals, methods, means of solving problems in such a group are not strictly established and not fixed in the form of a charter.

What are the elements of a social institution?

Each institute includes:

specific area of ​​activity;

A group of persons authorized to perform certain public, organizational or managerial functions on the basis of established rights and obligations;

Organizational norms and principles of relations between officials (leader - subordinate, teacher - student);

Material resources (public buildings, equipment, etc.) necessary to solve the tasks.

Social institutions differ from each other in their functional qualities.

1. Economic and social institutions - property, exchange, money, banks, various economic associations - provide the entire set of production and distribution of social wealth, at the same time connecting economic life with other areas of social life.

2. Political institutions - the state, parties, trade unions and other public organizations pursuing political goals aimed at establishing and maintaining a certain form of political power. Their totality constitutes the political system of a given society. Political institutions ensure the reproduction and sustainable preservation of ideological values, stabilize the social class structures that dominate in society.

3. Sociocultural and educational institutions aim at the development and subsequent reproduction of cultural and social values, the inclusion of individuals in a certain subculture, as well as the socialization of individuals through the assimilation of stable sociocultural standards of behavior and, finally, the protection of certain values ​​and norms.

4. Normative-orienting - mechanisms of moral and ethical orientation and regulation of the behavior of individuals. Their goal is to give behavior and motivation a moral argument, an ethical basis.

5. Normative-sanctioning - carry out social regulation of behavior on the basis of norms, rules and regulations enshrined in legal and administrative acts. The binding nature of the norms is ensured by the coercive power of the state and the system of appropriate sanctions.

6. Ceremonial-symbolic and situational-conventional institutions. These institutions are based on the more or less long-term adoption of conventional (by agreement) norms, their official and unofficial consolidation. These norms govern everyday contacts, various acts of intragroup and intergroup behavior. They determine the order and method of mutual behavior, regulate the methods of transmission and exchange of information, greetings, addresses, etc., the course of meetings, the activities of some associations.

Violation of the normative interaction with the social environment, which is the society or community, is called the dysfunction of a social institution. This problem is especially acute in times of revolutions or rapid social changes, when many traditional social institutions either stop their activity or adapt to solving new social problems. But the formation of public institutions takes time. As a result, people face serious difficulties in the unsettledness of emerging new social relations and the maintenance of social order in traditional areas of life. E. Durkheim called such transitional periods, when society is faced with the disorganization of traditional institutions, anomie.

Sociologists have always attached great importance to the study of this problem. The Polish sociologist Jan Szczepanski points out the following basic conditions for the effective functioning of social institutions.

1. A clear definition of the purpose and range of actions performed or the scope of functions. If the functions of an institution are not clearly defined, it cannot join the global system of institutions of a given society without conflicts and encounter various oppositions.

2. Rational division of labor and its rational organization.

3. Depersonalization of actions. It is assumed that officials will perform their functions in strict accordance with the instructions, and not depending on individual interests and representations of their rights and duties. Otherwise, the institution loses its public character, prestige and trust on the part of society, turns into an institution dependent on private interests. Of course, no institution can get rid of the influence of personal interests and, in general, of the individual characteristics of officials, but such influence should be controlled by society and reduced to a minimum. The use of the resources of public institutions, in the selfish interests of the people working in them, is a very common phenomenon, which sociologists call "bureaucratization".

4. Recognition and prestige, which the institution should have in the eyes of the whole group or its predominant part.

5. Conflict-free inclusion in the general system of institutions. It is impossible, for example, to mechanically transfer the political institutions of Western democracy into a society with strong ancestral or clan social ties.

The institutions of any society are a complex integrated system with its own social inertia. That is why deep institutional reforms tend to run into serious difficulties and often fail. History knows not so many examples of effective and painless reform of public institutions. More often such reforms ended with stormy revolutionary events. Thus, internal consistency in the activities of institutions is a necessary condition for the normal functioning of the whole society.

2 TRENDS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SOCIAL SYSTEM

social system society institute

2.1 The functional aspect of the development of the social system

Each of the components of society (social ties and relationships, social organizations, values, norms, social roles) introduces an organizing principle into social life and can be considered as the initial link in logical constructions. Each element performs a certain function in society, serves to satisfy a certain group of needs of individuals. Functional dependency is what gives the system properties that the elements do not have. T. Parsons tried to start the analysis of a social system not with the identification of structural elements, but with the definition of basic functional requirements, without which the system cannot exist.

Parsons believes that the system can only function if the following requirements (functions) are met:

Must have the ability to adapt, adapt to changing conditions and the increased material needs of people, be able to rationally organize and distribute internal resources;

Must be goal-oriented, able to set the main goals and objectives and to support the process of achieving them;

Must maintain stability on the basis of common norms and values ​​that are assimilated by individuals and relieve tension in the system;

Must have the ability to integrate, to be included in the system of new generations.

Having identified the main functions, Parsons is looking for real performers of these functions in society. At the beginning, he identifies 4 subsystems (economy, politics, culture, kinship) responsible for the performance of each function. Further, he indicates those social institutions that regulate within the framework of the subsystem (factories, banks, parties, the state apparatus, church, school, family, etc.).

The more consistently the functional division of activities is carried out at the level of institutions and social roles, the more stable the system itself is. And vice versa, the performance by any institution of functions unusual for it generates chaos, increases the internal tension of the system. The social order, which refers to the orderliness and organization of social ties and interactions, testifies to the mutual consistency and predictability of people's actions. Any social system, and above all society, must have a sufficient level of internal order, which is achieved mainly due to the functional expediency of the actions of individuals and social institutions.

In our domestic science, it is customary to single out an economic subsystem that ensures the production of goods necessary to meet the material needs of individuals; spiritual and cultural, allowing a person to realize his spiritual needs and contributing to the normative regulation of society as a whole; social, regulating the consumption and distribution of all goods; and political, carrying out the general leadership and management of society.

Parsons favored the economic system as defining. According to his views, it is the mode of production that determines the social, political and spiritual processes of life in general. However, the revolution in Russia in 1917 was not the result, but the beginning of a change in the economic basis. The impact of politics on social life was so strong that soon all spheres of society were under its total control.

The idea of ​​the primacy of politics in the works of Plato and Aristotle has more ancient roots. Modern studies of such a phenomenon as totalitarianism also confirm the huge role of the method of organizing the political life of society. Politics, the state, under certain conditions, can become a decisive factor that completely controls all social spheres.

Proponents of technological determinism tend to see material production as the determining factor in social life. The nature of labor, technique, technology, in their opinion, determine not only the quantity and quality of material goods, but also the cultural needs of people. Comparing technologically primitive societies with highly developed ones, they note fundamentally different needs, aspirations, values ​​of people, a different culture of behavior, interpersonal communication, and other forms of self-expression.

Proponents of cultural determinism believe that the core of society is generally accepted values ​​and norms, the observance of which ensures the stability and uniqueness of society itself. Differences in cultures predetermine differences in the actions and actions of people, in their organization of material production, in the choice of forms of political organization. In all the differences in the approaches of sociologists, it is clear that a society can function normally if each subsystem consistently performs its function.

Noting sustainability as the most important characteristic of its underlying causes. E. Durkheim saw the fundamental basis of stability in the unity of society in the "collective consciousness", in the presence of a common will that prevents the development of the destructive power of human egoism. R. Merton believes that society is preserved thanks to the "fundamental values" that are assimilated by the majority of the norms of the population and orient each individual towards the observance of the norms of joint life. E. Shils is convinced that society as such exists only under the influence of "general power", which ensures control over the entire territory and promotes a common culture.

Apparently, it is impossible to unambiguously determine the factors of society's stability. In the early stages of human history, it was achieved primarily through interpersonal interaction. People were bound by ties of kinship and neighborhood, built on an emotional, semi-instinctive basis, on mutual attraction, on habit, on the fear of losing help. F. Tennis called a society based on such principles a community. However, as the population grew, the stability of ties could no longer be maintained only by the system of interpersonal interaction. Social structures become the main stabilizing factor.

2.2 Problems of development of social systems

It can be considered that the characteristic state of the socio-social system is disequilibrium, instability, fluctuations between chaos and order, organization and disorganization, and the key parameters are those that characterize disequilibrium, differentiation, instability, heterogeneity. In this regard, economic and social inequality, conflicts and confrontations of a very different nature are generated.

Such a picture is not for the weak, but for the strong, who have common sense and penetrating abilities. This is a world of permanent social inequality (in social and economic status, abilities, experience, opportunities, social recognition, etc.). Such differentiation, in fact, gives rise to the dynamics of the development of society, not only due to material and natural limitations, but also due to the synergistic laws of processes in society as a system. In this context, utopian ideas of the destruction of social, social inequality can lead to chaos and death of society.

The existence and non-uniqueness of structures-attractors, peculiar "goals" of the evolution of the system raises the question of finding the spectrum of these C-attractors and their areas of attraction. It is necessary to understand the mechanisms of self-organization of a complex system. An essential role is played here by chaos, “free will”, disordered behavior at the micro level, leading to the appearance of dissipative processes at the macro level. It is dissipative processes that unite the constituent parts of the system into a single whole and contribute to their joint development. This is the transfer of information, the migration of people, the spread of diseases and market relations. Without such phenomena, each part of the system closes in on itself, falls out of the overall structure.

It is necessary to purposefully manage the development process of both humanity as a whole and individual countries. The popular belief that only the internal mechanisms of the system (for example, the market) will "carry" us to a stable final state does not take into account that such a state is not unique. What structure-attractor will evolution take us to? It is possible that it will be a state of complete chaos, anarchy, or, on the contrary, a tough authoritarian regime. To prevent this from happening, you need to know what structures can be built on the environment, which is a modern society.

It is necessary to identify the tendencies of the system that meet the aspirations and needs of a person and society, and purposefully develop them, and not spend money, resources, energy on creating a structure that is alien to the environment, inevitably subject to destruction.

It is also important to consider the current state of the system. The same system, under different initial conditions, can show completely different, even opposite development trends, strive for different "goals" - C-attractors, and act in one case by analogy with another inefficiently or even pointlessly. Therefore, it is impossible, for example, to directly transfer the experience of the development of Western countries to the Israeli or Russian "environment", the initial conditions (and possibly the environments themselves) are too different.

It is even more difficult to change the path of evolution for a system that has already approached the asymptotic stage of development, to its C-attractor. Threshold impact plays a paramount role here. The former C-attractor “does not let go” of the system, and significant efforts must be made to overcome existing trends, to get out of its area of ​​attraction (perhaps, a striking example is the fight against Palestinian terror - a terrorist attack - Israel's reaction - a terrorist attack ...).

A long-term, but too weak or topologically incorrect impact will be just a waste of time and energy, the system will return to its previous path again.

The pace of development of civilization near the moment of exacerbation is so great that microscopic accidents reach the macro level. A small group of terrorists is able to threaten the existence of all mankind, not to mention the politics of entire states.

In this situation, humanity must inevitably know and use the principles of co-evolution of complex systems, the laws of their coexistence and joint development. First of all, it is necessary to abandon the principle of leveling, "homogenization" of the system. Structures of the most different levels of development can be combined into a complex structure.

What to do, how to avoid decay, how to activate the “relaxation” mechanisms that prolong the life of the system?

To do this, you need to raise the level of complexity, the degree of nonlinearity of the environment.

This kind of "nurturing the environment" is also common in self-organizing systems. Isn't that what people do every day when raising their children? If we liken the brain of a child to a tabula rasa, a clean page, then education is not just filling it with knowledge and skills, but, above all, improving the very material of this page so that it can generate ideas and ideas on its own, build models of the internal and surrounding on its environment. peace.

In recent years, the so-called “science of complexity” has been rapidly developing in the West. At present, it has not yet become a sufficiently rigorous discipline, but rather a collection of techniques, metaphors, intellectual techniques and philosophical views on modeling and studying complex systems. The central point in this complex is the need to predict the behavior of systems that cannot be accurately described and modeled - for example, economic, social, natural.

Recent studies in the field of mathematics have shown that not only the “trajectories” of the movement of such complex systems, which are more complex than the systems modeling them, can be unpredictable, but also very simple systems that act according to certain recurrent mechanisms, for example, fractals. However, it turns out that the behavior of such systems can be described as a bunch of possible trajectories in the phase space.

Complex systems almost always behave this way. Depending on small perturbations, their behavior at certain points (bifurcation points) can branch out and go further along divergent branches. In the case of complex systems, it is easy to prove that with any computational capabilities available using the amounts of matter and energy available in the solar system, it is impossible to achieve the accuracy necessary to unambiguously predict their behavior.

Social systems seem to behave in a similar way.

In most cases, there is a limited number of trajectories along which the evolution of the system can be directed, and the prediction of these trajectories is quite realistic.

Apparently, the construction of structural, meaningful models of human communities and their elements should play a big role. The practical role of sociology should increase enormously if it can predict various variants of the course of social processes depending on the behavior of society. Too expensive are insufficiently developed social experiments.

The future is open and not unique, but it is not arbitrary. There is a limited set of possibilities for future development; for any complex system there is a discrete spectrum of structures-attractors of its evolution. This spectrum is determined solely by its own properties.

In non-linear situations of instability and branching of evolutionary paths, a person plays a decisive role in choosing the most favorable - and at the same time feasible in a given environment - future structure, one of the spectrum of possible structures-attractors.

Due to the inevitable elements of chaos, fluctuations, the presence of strange attractors, there are certain limits to our penetration into the future, there is a horizon for our vision of the future. At the same time, the synergetic approach allows us to see the real features of the future organization by analyzing today's spatial configurations of complex structures that arise in a certain type of rapid evolutionary regimes.

Finding your bearings in changing social situations and adapting to the cascades of environmental, political, scientific changes in the world is very difficult. This leads to the growth of chaotic elements in the public consciousness and culture.

It is not clear how to live today and what awaits us tomorrow. Landmarks have been lost, it is not clear what to prepare for and what moral rules should be followed in their activities. The question arises as to why we should live at all.

The dark depths of animal instincts restrained by culture and historical tradition begin to dictate their natural survival policy. This stage of increasing uncertainty and chaos is reflected in contemporary art, mass culture, and philosophy.

The world is predetermined by causal relationships. Causal chains are linear, and the effect that is not identical to the cause is at least proportional to it. By causal chain-paths, the course of development can be calculated indefinitely into the past and into the future. Development is retro-predicable and predictable. The present is determined by the past, and the future is determined by the present and the past.

It turns out that is not the case. The future states of complex systems elude our control and prediction. The future is ambiguous. It is not given to anyone, starting from a certain specific moment in the development of the system, to predict exactly which path of evolution the system will choose.

CONCLUSION

Self-organization in social systems testifies to the impossibility of establishing strict control over them. These systems cannot be forced to develop. Managing them can only be seen as contributing to their inherent development trends.

And at the same time, there are certain ranges of "goals" of development, available in any open and non-linear environment (system). If we choose an arbitrary path of evolution, we must be aware that this path may not be feasible in a given environment with its certain internal properties. Not any structures can be self-supported as metastable stable in a given system. Only certain structures from the spectrum of potentially possible ones can arise, because they are "allowed" by the system's own properties, correspond to them. This is a kind of evolutionary rule of prohibition.

Due to the inherent elements of chaos and the presence of strange attractors in the behavior of complex systems, there are certain limits to our penetration into the future. There is a horizon of our vision of the future even for fairly simple physical and chemical evolving systems, and even more so for ecological, social, and human systems.

The existence of strange, or chaotic, attractors is one of the fundamental facts in the theory of self-organization of complex systems. Strange attractors have been discovered by now almost everywhere, in various areas of the natural and human world, from meteorology and plasma physics to neurophysiology, the study of various types of human brain activity.

Some human actions are doomed to failure. Actions will not succeed when and because they are not aligned with the internal development trends of a complex system. If these actions are not appropriate, resonant, they will certainly be in vain.

A person must either look for ways to change the properties of the corresponding complex system, or completely abandon attempts to forcibly direct the system onto an unusual, alien path of evolution.

The solution of most key problems is connected, in our opinion, with interdisciplinary research. These studies allow us to avoid situations in which the pursuit of local gains offered by specialists in a particular field turns into a global loss, for which everyone has to pay.

It becomes clear that the path of technological civilization, along which humanity has confidently walked for the past four centuries, has come to an end, that we simply cannot survive with such stereotypes of mass consciousness. It is not difficult to assume that in the XXI century. many familiar things will have to be abandoned, both in the field of technology and in the field of ideology, morality, fundamental ideas about a person. “Perhaps the 21st century. will go down in history as the beginning of the era of the Great Refusal, for we are approaching the dead end of "sustainable development" and are already moving away from equilibrium with increasing speed.

LITERATURE

1. Kravchenko A.I. Sociology: General course: Textbook for universities. - M.: PERSE; Logos, 2002. - 271 p.

2. Averyanov L.Ya. Sociology: the art of asking questions. 2nd edition, revised and enlarged. - M., 1998. - 357 p.

3. Andrey Ermolaev Selective method in sociology Methodical manual Moscow 2000. - 25 p.

4. Devyatko I.F. Methods of sociological research. - Yekaterinburg: Publishing House Ural, un-ta, 1998. - 169 p.

5. Fundamentals of Sociology: A Course of Lectures / Ed. Efendieva V. - M.: Knowledge, 1993.

6. Attitude towards ketchup is more serious than the class struggle // Moscow News, September 4-11, 1994.

7. Smelzer N. Sociology - M.: Phoenix, 1994.

8. Sociology / Ed. Osipova M. - M.: Thought, 1990.

9. S.P. Kapitsa, S.P. Kurdyumov, G.G. Malinetsky, Synergetics and Future Forecasts, Moscow, 2001.

Hosted on Allbest.ru

Similar Documents

social system. Structure and typology of society. Signs of society as a social system. social communities. The idea of ​​dividing society into classes. Social institutions and their role in the life of society. Social stratification, its sources and factors.

abstract, added 01.10.2008


The concept of the social structure of society, the characteristics of the individual as its main element. Personal and group social status. Social communities and groups that determine the social structure of society. Social institutions and social organizations.

abstract, added 02/13/2016


The main social problems of Russian society. The social structure of society. Ways to implement the social policy of the state. State social policy in relation to the specific interests of demographic and social groups of society.

abstract, added 02/19/2012


The concept of society, spheres of public life, human activity and its diversity. The social structure of society and trends in its change. Social status and social roles of the individual. The political system of society, its structure and ways of development.

cheat sheet, added 12/16/2009


Characterization of society as a complex self-developing system. spheres of society. The social structure of society. Driving forces of social development. Sources of social dynamics. The problem of unity and diversity of the historical process.

abstract, added 03/31/2012


The study of the social system of society: characteristics and development trends. The main functions of social stratification. Analysis of contradictions in society. The concept of social structure. Features and signs of a social group. Types of social mobility.

term paper, added 03/05/2017


The political system, its content, structure, functions in the life of society, the influence of society on its construction. Social institutions of political socialization and attracting people to participate in the political life of society. legitimacy of the political regime.

test, added 05/23/2009


Society as a social system. Structure and forms of social interaction. Institutionalization and its stages. Types and functions of social institutions. Social communities, groups and organizations. The social structure of society and the basis for its classification.

abstract, added 12/22/2009


Subject, functions and structure of modern sociology. Society as a subject of historical development, the social structure of society. The political system of society as a regulator of social life. Social regulators of personality behavior. Sociology of the family.

course of lectures, added 05/11/2012


Groups, layers, classes are the most important elements of the social structure of society. Correlation between the class theory of the social structure of society and the theory of social stratification and mobility. Types of social communities of people, their features and characteristics.