the system of relationships between people, the established forms of their joint activities. Society acts as a historical embodiment of specific types social systems.

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

SOCIETY

society) - 1. The whole sum of human relations. 2. A self-perpetuating association of people occupying a relatively limited area, with its own more or less distinct culture and institutions (eg the Nuer people), or a long-standing or well-known nation-state (such as the UK or the US).

Although this is one of the most important concepts in sociology, its use is fraught with difficulties and disputes, especially in the second sense, which is easily applied to known nation states with their own family, economic and political institutions and clear boundaries. It is much more difficult to identify the boundaries of the societies of the ancient empires, which, as a rule, consisted of relatively free various peoples, peasant communities etc., who did not have the status of statehood (see also Nationalism). As Runciman (1989) has pointed out, the extent of actual "community membership" can be highly variable: "a member of a tribal group living on the border between male and female succession zones; or a separate ethnic and religious community of a country ruled by a colonial power; or a separatist commune based within the state". Where is the point at which a historically changing society should or should not be considered the same? Finally, the ability of members to interact with each other and at what level, as well as historical degree cultural institutional integrity are also a "test" for the acceptability of the concept of "single society". Even in the clearest cases of definition, there will be links to other societies. In view of the increasing globalization of contemporary social relations, some theorists (notably Giddens) have warned of the constant risk of overemphasizing the notion of unitary societies in sociology, which detracts from the importance of intersocietal relations, multinational organizations, and so on. For Durkheim and some functionalists, "society" also exists in a third sense. Durkheim developed sociology as a "science of society" and saw in it a special object, acting according to "sui generis". As a subject of study, it is more than the sum of individual constituent parts and has a "moral force" that holds human individuals together (see Social Facts as Things). This interpretation of the term has become one of the most controversial. In contrast to the "classical" sociological theory, it can be said that modern science is increasingly reluctant to interpret theories of society In a similar way(see Holism; Methodological individualism; Structure and will). See also Social system; functional background.

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

structurally organized level of being in the world, which has its own specific way existence, its form of manifestation and its form of implementation [Kalnoy I.I. Philosophy: Textbook. - Simferopol: Business-Inform, 2002. - S. 328].

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

SOCIETY

it is the interconnection and interdependence of a certain mass of people, based on the mutual satisfaction of interests, jointly leading their economy, practicing the way of life adopted by them; it is a set of historically established forms of joint activity of people; historically candy type of socio-economic system.

People are united in society not by ideas, but primarily by material interests, due to their biological and social nature, the division of labor and the mutual dependence developing on this basis. Theories of the "contractual" origin of society are untenable: a person is originally a public, social being. No matter how high one or another individual puts himself, his birth, existence and development as a person is impossible outside of society. The young Marx, translating Hegel's views on civil society in his own way, wrote that "the egoistic individual of civil society in his insensible representation and lifeless abstraction imagines himself an atom, that is, not standing in relation to anything, self-sufficient, devoid of needs, an absolutely complete, blissful being. The unholy sensory reality does not care about his imagination. Each of his senses makes him believe in the existence of the world and other individuals outside of him, and even his sinful stomach daily reminds him that the world outside of him does not empty, but, on the contrary, there is something that, in fact, fills him.Each active manifestation of his being, each of his properties, each of his vital aspirations becomes a need, a need that makes his self-love a love for other things and other people who are outside of him. And since the need of one individual does not have for another egoistic individual who has the means to satisfy I have no self-evident sense of this need, i.e. is not in any direct connection with the satisfaction of the need, then each individual must create this connection, becoming in turn a pimp between someone else's need and the objects of this need. Thus, natural necessity, the properties of a human being, no matter how alienated they may appear, interest - this is what links members of civil society to each other. (Soch., vol. 2, p. 134).

Man, being both a biological and a social being, contrary to the existing simplisticists, cannot be reduced to "the totality of social relations, therefore, in his individual development and the progress of the whole society, both the biological and social nature of man always manifest themselves. But here it is important to keep in mind the following: a person is the only living being whose satisfaction of needs leads to the emergence of new needs that require their satisfaction. In this constant expansion of human needs is the root cause social progress, the engine of progressive development of society. Labor created man and human society, because, having mediated the exchange of substances between man and nature (and without such an exchange, the very existence of man (society) is impossible, as well as the existence of any living being), labor, production singled out man from nature and formed the material basis a qualitatively new, already social and human, and not just a collective animal slurry. On the foundation of connection with labor activity, language, speech, consciousness arose, which not only consolidated, but also strengthened the social, social nature both the person himself and the way of life of human communities.

If initially nature was for the emerging man both the pantry of the means of labor, and the main source of livelihood, and changes in the natural, geographical environment had a decisive impact on the change in metabolism and the person himself, then with the advent of labor, production, the dependence of a person on the surrounding living conditions qualitatively changes. : it is no longer nature alone, but along with it, to an ever greater extent, labor, production, mediating the exchange of substances with nature, have an ever-increasing impact on the natural and social evolution of man, on the progress of human society.

The absolutization of this indisputable fact led the communists to the conclusion that the only and constant criterion of social progress is the development and multiplication of material means of labor, and its indicator - the change of socio-economic formations (primitive communal system, slavery, feudalism, capitalism and communism) - is main, if not the only indicator of social progress. Such an approach greatly simplifies the problem of the progress of society, the stages of its development. And when it is dogmatized, which took place in life, it simply makes it impossible to understand history in fact, because with such an approach it turned out that the communists complete and "close" history: communism is the peak and end of development that knows qualitative changes.

The main methodological error here was that the means of progress were used as a constant criterion of social progress, which could turn out and turned out to be not only different at different stages of human history (which is not so bad), but also completely incomparable, incomparable among themselves, and this already ruled out the very possibility of using such a criterion.

Another approach seems to be correct: as a constant criterion for the progress of human society, one should take not the means, but the results of development, and comparable, comparable with all the variability of the means used to achieve such results.

Now it can be argued that social progress or the upward development of society, having as its material basis the ever more complete satisfaction of growing human needs (this is achieved within different periods of history by qualitatively different means acting as the main source of social wealth: nature, direct labor, reason), always has as its result, on the one hand, the "humanization of man", i.e. the development of the natural and social forces of the "man" kind, the self-realization of his human potentialities, and on the other hand, the increase in the dominance of social man over the natural and social conditions of his existence, over himself. Both of these are the key criterion of social progress, the height to which society has risen, evidence of the degree of freedom achieved by mankind within the framework of natural and historical necessity.

Such an approach should make it possible to exclude one-sidedness, when the progress of society was measured by one level of development of the productive forces, material production, and at the same time, the social conditions for the development of society and human life were not taken into account. Another one-sidedness is also excluded, when the progress of society, the superiority of one social structure over another were measured only by the quality of social relations under complete disregard what level of well-being, what quality of life this system offers for its citizens.

Society. This is within any social order the sphere of activity of the totality of various organizations, the research of which is carried out by sociologists, is much wider than the activity of "government" in the narrow sense of the word. It must be clearly understood that, even in a liberal political system, organs such as the press, economic institutions, youth organizations, professional associations, religious organizations and all other public institutions are also part of the political system.

The author focuses on two opposite types political structure- totalitarian and "open" society. The totalitarian political system, to which the author refers the former USSR, "if we consider it as a huge, complex bureaucratic organism, is similar in structure and functions to giant corporations, armies, government apparatus and other institutions of the West. Like all giant organizations, wherever they are However, a totalitarian society seeks to rationally organize all human life, from professional activities to regulation of consumption and leisure activities.Like the bureaucratic systems listed above, a totalitarian society has an extremely authoritarian political structure in which the ruling elite is not subject to any control by ordinary members organizations, although most of the gigantic bureaucracies of the modern world claim that their rank and file members participate in public life organizations. In such systems, individuals find themselves in a position where invisible and uncontrollable authorities constantly bring about some changes in society that are undesirable to the members of this society. All people are forced to live in a world that was not created by them and that someone is constantly trying to change.

The term " open society" is now used very widely, but the meaning is given to it incorrectly or inaccurately. Nevertheless, we can point out some of the main features that those who use this term have in mind. For example, one should mention the lack of uniformity in such a society and the presence of contradictions. Speaking of "open society", everyone believes that it is characterized by a pluralistic structure and conflicting interests of individuals and groups that make it up. Therefore, in an "open society" there must be constant conflict of interests, despite the fact that in a well-functioning society there are appropriate ways to reconciling conflicts, reaching compromises and maintaining commonality Since, however, the lack of uniformity and the presence of conflicts can undoubtedly be found in any society, one who speaks of "open societies" is forced to add that pluralism must be free and spontaneous, that struggle for personal and group interests should not be limited by any and frameworks and that there should be no despotic power taking over the resolution of conflicts, imposing their decisions on rival groups. Anyone who uses the term "open society" will no doubt agree that the outcome of a conflict of interests ultimately depends on the relative power of the various groups (this power may depend on the wealth of the group, its numbers, prestige, ease of access to policy makers, her economic role in society and other factors), but the concept of "open society" suggests that, as a rule, different interests tend to balance, as a result of which the "open society" is in a state of ever-changing equilibrium. Therefore, conflicts are usually resolved through compromise. And finally, the idea of ​​freedom as the most important condition for the existence of an "open society" is closely connected with the postulate of dynamic equilibrium. Upon closer examination, freedom in this sense turns out to be nothing more than the absence of a system of values ​​that is mandatory for all (perhaps, with the exception of a unanimous decision to comply with this particular last condition). "Open society" implies the denial of any moral absolutes. It is a relativistic, individualistic and, perhaps, in some sense, immoral society. But this moral relativism, again, can be characterized in a positive sense as a commitment to freedom, individualism and anti-authoritarianism, and therefore as an expression in the highest degree humanistic moral principles, which citizens do not forget, because they always turn to these high ideas when they assert their freedom and protect it from the encroachments of despotic power.

This is not the place to speculate whether the picture of the "open society" that has been painted corresponds to any political system that actually existed in the past or exists at the present time. However, we can justifiably assert that centralized control, a uniform system of organization, and a system of values ​​and priorities binding on all dominate a totalitarian society and distinguish it from the industrial societies of the West. True, within the broad framework of a totalitarian political system, there is some freedom, elasticity, and diversity, as in any gigantic bureaucratic system. However, the entire system as a whole is united under a single command, its activity is coordinated by one set of goals, binding on all, directed and coordinated by one central hierarchy.

The bureaucratic features in this system are immeasurably stronger than the elements of freedom. The bureaucracy in the form in which it is known to us in Western societies, in the totalitarian system, is undergoing significant changes: it becomes virtually omnipotent. In the West, bureaucracy usually exists within a larger society that limits its effective functioning in some way. In a totalitarian system, however, it permeates the entire society and, as a result, is beyond any control. None of the Western corporations, no organization, army or bureaucratic system has such power over literally all aspects of human life as a totalitarian regime has.

Although I deeply appreciate many of the benefits of Western constitutionalism, I still beware of showing complacency, because there is still too much evil around us. I seek to draw the reader's attention to the many manifestations of this evil, without "rehabilitating" Soviet system while pointing to the beam in our own eye. It is also useful to recall that researchers in other countries of the world may well construct a different scheme of classifications and assessments, in which the USSR and the USA will be on one end, and other political systems on the other. At the same time, I reserve the right to assert that the actual political systems that exist often become nothing more than caricatures of the utopia for which they were created, and that Soviet socialism discredits the idea of ​​socialism no less than the reality of the West discredits the ideas of free enterprise and constitutional democracy.

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

The human community is called society. It is characterized by the fact that members of the community occupy a certain territory, conduct joint collective productive activities. There is a distribution of the jointly produced product in the community.

Society is a society that is characterized by the production and social division of labor. Society can be characterized by many features: for example, by nationality: French, Russian, German; state and cultural; by territorial and temporal; according to the method of production, etc. .

Yet this society is not reduced either to its material carriers, which is characteristic of naturalism (vulgar sociological interpretation of society) or to mentalities and forms of communication (“societies”), which is characteristic of its phenomenological interpretations. Society in the phenomenological sense is mens intensas (mind, thought as if in itself) - a set of social worlds of our mentalities, worlds imprinted in our consciousness. Society with a naturalistic approach is res extensas (extended things) - a set of bodies, physical and biological, that are in real objective relations to each other.

In a number of species of living organisms, individual individuals do not have the necessary abilities or properties to ensure their material life (consumption of matter, accumulation of matter, reproduction). Such living organisms form communities, temporary or permanent, to ensure their material life. There are communities that actually represent a single organism: a swarm, an anthill, etc. In them, there is a division between members of the community of biological functions. Individuals of such organisms outside the community die. There are temporary communities - flocks, herds, in them, as a rule, individuals solve this or that problem without forming strong ties. common property of all communities is the task of preserving this type of living organism.

Closed society - according to K. Popper - a type of society characterized by a static social structure, limited mobility, inability to innovate, traditionalism, dogmatic authoritarian ideology (there is a system when most members of society willingly accept the values ​​that are intended for them, usually it is a totalitarian society ).

In an open society, each participant is responsible for his own life and takes care primarily of himself, while the society respects the right to private property and personal dignity. In a closed society, the “sacred duty” is to take care of others, and private property is a dubious (reprehensible) or even criminal, unworthy matter.

Notes:

• The above reasoning about the types of closed and open society can only be valid for societies in the size of the state. If a person in an open society, unlike a closed one, finds the core values ​​on his own, then he can then coexist with other like-minded people who also form a society with him, which can have common values, but which cannot be classified as closed on this basis.
• There are universal values ​​that are common to all mankind, otherwise it would not be possible to call it a human society.

The functioning and development of a social system necessarily implies a change of generations of people and, consequently, social inheritance - members of a society pass on knowledge and culture from generation to generation. See "education" and "socialization".

Modern society

Undoubtedly, the key issue of any civilized society is the issue of its organization. Modern society is organized exclusively on capital, which gives it the right to be called capitalist.

Society in literature and cinema

In the novel Fahrenheit 451 by R. Bradbury, a totalitarian society is described that relies on mass culture and consumer thinking, in which all books that make you think about life are to be burned.

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010 .

Synonyms:

See what "Society" is in other dictionaries:

society society, and... Russian spelling dictionary

AT broad sense detached part of nature material world, which is a historically developing form of human life. In a narrow sense, human stage. history (social economic formations, interformational ... Philosophical Encyclopedia

Society, society (society, society wrong.), cf. 1. The set of certain industrial relations, forming a special stage of development in the history of mankind. “... Marx put an end to the view of society as a mechanical unit ... ... Explanatory Dictionary of Ushakov

State * Army * War * Elections * Democracy * Conquest * Law * Politics * Crime * Command * Revolution * Liberty * Navy Power * Administration * Aristocrat ... Consolidated encyclopedia of aphorisms

Community, community, artel, association, gang, conversation, brotherhood, brethren, gang, group, community, caste, clique, coalition, conglomerate, corporation, circle, bunch, camp, league, world, party, galaxy, sect, council, assembly, union, sphere, ... ... Synonym dictionary

- (society) The meaning of the English word society (society) can be expanded or narrowed, can denote almost any form of association of people with common interests, values ​​and goals. In the 19th century society meant the upper class; now… … Political science. Dictionary.

Society- Society ♦ Société “A human or animal society is an organization,” writes Bergson. “It implies subordination, and also, as a rule, subordination of some elements to others” (“Two Sources of Morality and Religion”, Chapter I). Society -… … Philosophical Dictionary of Sponville

This concept has two main meanings. In the broadest sense, society can be defined as system of all existing methods and forms of interaction and unification of people(for example, in the expressions " modern society" or " feudal society"). In a narrower sense, the word "society" is used to refer to any types or kinds of social groups, the number and characteristics of which are determined by the diversity of people's life activities ("Russian society", "scientific community", etc.). Both of these approaches are united by the understanding that a person is a "social being" and can fully live only within a certain team, feeling his unity with other people. These collectives form a hierarchy - from the largest, from humanity as a whole as the most big system interactions, to professional, family and other small groups.

The development of scientific ideas about society.

The study of society is special group scientific disciplines, which are called so - social (humanitarian) sciences. Among the social sciences, the leading one is sociology (literally, “social science”). Only she considers society as a single integral system. Other social sciences (ethics, political science, economics, history, religious studies, etc.) study individual aspects of the life of society without claiming to have a holistic knowledge.

The concept of "society" involves the awareness of objective patterns collective life of people. This idea was born almost simultaneously with the birth of scientific thought. Already in antiquity, all the main problems in understanding the essence of society were recognized:

how different society is from nature (some thinkers generally blurred the line between society and nature, while others absolutized the differences between them);

what is the ratio of the collective and individual principles in the life of society (some interpreted society as a sum of individuals, while others, on the contrary, considered society as a self-sufficient integrity);

how conflict and solidarity are combined in the development of society (some consider its internal contradictions to be the engine of the development of society, others - the desire for harmony of interests);

how society changes (is there improvement, progress, or society develops cyclically).

The thinkers of ancient societies usually considered the life of people as part of a general order, "cosmos". In relation to the "arrangement of the world", the word "cosmos" was first used by Heraclitus. The idea of ​​the unity of man with nature was reflected in the universalistic ideas of the ancients about society. This idea has become an integral feature of Eastern religions and teachings (Confucianism, Buddhism, Hinduism), which retain their influence in the East today.

In parallel with the development of naturalistic concepts, anthropological concepts began to develop, emphasizing not the unity of man with nature, but fundamental differences between them.

For a long time in social thought, society was considered from a political science point of view, i.e. identified with the state. So, Plato characterized, first of all, through the political functions of the state (protecting the population from external enemies, maintaining order within the country). State-political ideas about society, interpreted as relations of domination and subordination, were developed after Plato by Aristotle. However, he singled out purely social (not political) ties between people, considering, for example, friendship and mutual support of free, equal individuals. Aristotle emphasized the priority of individual interests and believed that “what should require the relative, and not the absolute unity of both the family and the state”, that “every person is his own friend and should love himself most of all” (“Ethics”). If from Plato there is a tendency to consider society as an integral organism, then from Aristotle - as a set of relatively independent individuals.

The social thought of the new time in the interpretation of society proceeded from the concept of " natural state"and the social contract (T. Hobbes, J. Locke, J.-J. Rousseau). Referring to "natural laws", the thinkers of modern times gave them, however, a completely social character. For example, the statement about the initial "war of all against all", which is being replaced by a social contract, absolutizes the spirit of individualism of the new time. According to the point of view of these thinkers, society is based on rational contractual principles, formal legal concepts, and mutual utility. Thus, the anthropological interpretation of society won over the naturalistic one, and the individualistic one over the collectivist (organistic) one.

This meta-paradigm (general picture) of understanding the life of society formed the basis of Western European civilization and, as it expanded, began to be perceived as the most “correct”. However, in the 19th and 20th centuries many attempts have been made to create an alternative meta-paradigm. Socialist and nationalist ideologies tried to establish the primacy of collectivist principles over individualistic ones. Many philosophers (including Russians - N.F. Fedorov, K.E. Tsiolkovsky, A.L. Chizhevsky and others) proved the unity of the cosmos, the biosphere and human society. However, today these approaches remain on the periphery of public life, although their influence is growing.

From the undifferentiated unity characteristic of ancient and medieval societies scientific knowledge about society and nature, European thinkers of the modern era moved to a differentiated system of independent sciences. The social sciences have become rigidly separated from the natural sciences, and humanitarian knowledge disintegrated into several independent sciences, for a long time weakly interacting with each other. First of all, back in the 16th century, political science became isolated (thanks to the works of N. Machiavelli), then, in the late 18th - early 19th centuries - criminology (starting with C. Beccaria), economic theory(with A. Smith) and ethics (with I. Bentham). This fragmentation continued in the 19th and 20th centuries (the formation of cultural studies, linguistics, religious studies, psychology, ethnology, ethology, etc. as independent sciences).

The desire for a holistic knowledge of the life of society, however, has not disappeared. It led to the formation of a special "science of society", sociology, which took shape in the 1830s and 1840s thanks primarily to the works of O. Comte. The idea he developed of society as a progressively developing organism became the foundation of all subsequent development not only of sociology, but also of other social sciences.

Within the framework of the social sciences of the 19th century, two main approaches to the study of the mechanisms of development of society were clearly identified, emphasizing its opposite aspects - conflict and solidarity (consensus). Supporters of the first approach believed that society is best described in terms of a conflict of interests, supporters of the second approach preferred the terminology of shared values. Created in the 1840s–1860s, the Marxist theory of social development, which explains all the phenomena of society "in the long run" by economic processes and the internal contradictions of the life of society, served as the foundation for the development of conflict (radical) theories and still remains one of the most influential areas of social thought. The consensus view of the life of society is more typical of liberal thinkers.

In the second half of the 20th century, there was a tendency to converge with each other not only different social sciences, but all of them with natural and exact sciences. This trend was reflected, first of all, in the formation and growth of the popularity of synergetics founded by I. Prigogine - the science of the most general patterns development and self-organization of complex systems (including society). Thus, at a new stage in the development of science, there is, as it were, a return to the ideas of the ancients about a single "cosmos".

Properties of society as a system.

Although the methodological approaches of representatives of various modern scientific schools of social science are largely different, there is still some unity of views on society.

First, society has consistency- it is considered not as a mechanical collection of individuals, but as united by stable interactions or relationships (social structures). Each person is a member of various social groups, performs prescribed social roles, commits social action. Falling out of his usual social system, the individual experiences severe stress. (One can recall at least the literary Robinson Crusoe, who suffered on a desert island not so much from a lack of livelihoods how much from the inability to communicate with other people.) Being an integral system, society has stability, a certain conservatism.

Second, society has versatility- creates the necessary conditions to meet the various needs of individuals. Only in a society based on the division of labor can a person engage in narrow professional activities, knowing that he can always satisfy his needs for food and clothing. Only in society can he acquire the necessary labor skills, get acquainted with the achievements of culture and science. Society provides him with the opportunity to make a career and rise through the ranks. social hierarchy. In other words, society has the universality that gives people forms of life organization that facilitate the achievement of their personal goals. The progress of society is seen precisely in increasing its universality - in providing the individual with an ever greater range of opportunities. From this point of view, modern society is much more progressive, for example, primitive. But the primitive society also possessed universality, since it allowed people to satisfy elementary needs not only in food, clothing and housing, but also in explaining the world around them, in creative expression etc.

Third, society has high level internal self-regulation, ensuring the constant reproduction of the entire complex system of social relations. This is reflected in the creation of special institutions (such as morality, ideology, law, religion, state) that ensure compliance with generally accepted "rules of the game". There are different opinions about which institutions play a more important role in the processes of self-regulation. Some social scientists consider formal institutions to be the basis for the stability of society (for example, "general power", like E. Shils), others - informal ones (for example, "fundamental values" that prevail in society, like R. Merton). Apparently, at the initial stages of the development of society, its self-regulation rests mainly on informal institutions (taboos in primitive society, the code of honor medieval knights), but then formal institutions begin to play a greater role (the norms of written law, state institutions, social organizations).

Fourth, society has internal self-renewal mechanisms– inclusion of new social formations into the existing system of interconnections. It seeks to subordinate newly emerging institutions and social groups to its logic, forcing them to act in accordance with previously established social norms and rules (this is what happens during the evolution of society). But new norms and rules, gradually accumulating, can lead to qualitative changes in the entire system of social relations (this is what happens when social revolution). Deviations from the rules and norms accepted in society encourage the system to find new means to maintain balance and stability. Driving forces can be not only contradictions internal development, but also “drawing non-systemic elements into the orbit of systemicity” (Yu. Lotman) - this was the case, for example, with the capitalism of the 1930s, which actively used some of the principles of socialism. At the same time, the degree of openness of social systems is very important - the desire to actively learn from the experience of other systems (open society) or, on the contrary, the desire to self-close, fencing off from external influences(closed society).

Thus, society is a universal way of organizing the social interaction of people, ensuring the satisfaction of their basic needs, self-regulating, self-reproducing and self-renewing.

The structure of society.

Society has a certain structure. What are the criteria for identifying structural parts - subsystems of society? There are several of these criteria: some of them are based on the allocation of social groups, others - spheres of society's life, and others - ways of interconnecting people (Table 1).

Table 1. STRUCTURE OF SOCIETY
Criteria for the selection of elements of society	Basic elements of society
Social groups (“mini-societies”) that make up a “big” society	Groups that differ in natural and social characteristics (socio-territorial, socio-demographic, socio-ethnic). Groups that differ in purely social characteristics (according to the criteria of attitude to property, income level, attitude to power, social prestige)
Spheres of life of society	Material production (economics). Regulatory activity - communicative and managerial (policy). Spiritual production (culture).
Ways of interrelation of people	Social roles performed by individuals. Social institutions and social communities that organize social roles. culture and political activity organizing the reproduction of social institutions and social communities.

1) Typology of social groups.

The primary grounds for distinguishing social groups that differ from each other lie, first of all, in the natural (natural) factors that divided people by sex, age, racial characteristics. It is possible to single out socio-territorial communities (residents of the city and villagers, citizens of the United States and citizens of Russia), gender (men, women), age (children, youth, etc.), socio-ethnic (clan, tribe, nationality, nation , ethnos).

Any society is also structured according to purely social parameters associated with vertical stratification. For K. Marx, the main criterion was the attitude to the means of production, to property (the classes of the haves and the have-nots). M. Weber included in the main criteria for the typology of social groups, in addition to attitudes towards property and income levels, also attitudes towards power (singling out groups of managers and ruled) and social prestige.

As society develops, the importance of typology of social groups according to natural factors decreases and the importance of social criteria grows. Moreover, the old natural factors are being transformed, being filled with social content. For example, racial conflict remains a burning problem in America today, not so much because a few racists continue to view African Americans as “inferior people,” but because of the culture of poverty typical of black neighborhoods, which is why the typical black is perceived as a dangerous marginal.

2) Typology of spheres of life of society.

The decisive moments that determine the structure of society are the factors that made possible the very birth of human society - work, communication and knowledge. They underlie the allocation of three main spheres of the life of society - respectively, material production, regulatory activity, spiritual production.

The main sphere of life of society is most often recognized as material production. Its influence on other spheres can be traced in three directions.

First, without products of material production, neither science, nor politics, nor medicine, nor education are possible, which require means of labor in the form of laboratory equipment, military equipment, medical instruments, school buildings etc. It is material production that creates the necessary means of life for people in the sphere of everyday life - food, clothes, furniture, etc.

Secondly, the mode of material production (“productive forces”) largely determines the methods of other types of activity. People, producing the things they need, create, unwittingly, a certain system of social relations (“relations of production”). Everyone knows, for example, the economic consequences of the use of machines in modern Europe. The result of the industrial revolution was the emergence and establishment of capitalist relations, which were created not by politicians, but by workers in material production as a “by-product” of their labor activity. The dependence of "relations of production" on "productive forces" is the main idea of ​​the social teachings of K. Marx, which has become more or less generally accepted.

Thirdly, in the process of material production, people create and consolidate certain type mentality arising from the very nature of labor operations. Thus, material production ("basis") solves the main tasks that determine the development of spiritual production ("superstructure"). For example, the work of a writer as a producer of spiritual goods is ineffective without printing.

Social life involves a complex system social connections connecting people and things together. In some cases, such connections may develop spontaneously, as a by-product of activities pursuing very different goals. However, most of them are created consciously and purposefully. This is precisely what regulatory activity.

The regulatory type of activity covers many specific types labor, which can be divided into two subtypes. One of them is communicative activity- establishing links between various elements of society (market exchange, transport, communications). Another subtype of regulatory activity is social management, the purpose of which is to regulate the joint behavior of subjects (politics, religion, law).

The third area of ​​public life is spiritual production. Its main product is not objects in which information is embodied (books, film), but the information itself, addressed to the human mind - ideas, images, feelings. If, before the scientific and technological revolution, the production of information was regarded as relatively secondary, secondary to the production of things, then in modern era the most important is the production of ideas. Due to the high importance of spiritual production, modern society is increasingly called the "information society".

To understand the relationship between various spheres of society in modern social science, they continue to use the proposed by K. Marx logic diagram"base - superstructure" (Fig. 1). However, scientists emphasize that this scheme cannot be absolutized, since there are no rigid boundaries between its various components. For example, management (management of people) is both the most important factor in material production, and regulatory activities, and the production of values ​​(for example, corporate culture).

Rice. one. The structure of the life of society, according to the theory of K. Marx.

3) Typology of ways of interrelation of people.

The main concepts that explain the ways in which people are interconnected in society are social roles, social institutions and social communities.

social role defined as expected behavior in a typical situation. It is social roles that make interactions of people in society stable, standardizing their behavior. It is the roles that are the primary elements into which the fabric can be decomposed. social interactions in society. Social roles are diverse, and the larger their set, the harder society. In modern society, one and the same person can alternate in a dozen social roles throughout one day (husband, father, son, brother, passer-by, friend, boss, subordinate, colleague, buyer, scientist, citizen ...).

Different social roles are interconnected by countless threads. There are two main levels of organization and orderliness of social roles: social institutions and communities. Social institutions- these are the "rules of the game" in society (the rule of shaking hands at a meeting, elections political leaders, contract work for a predetermined wages…). Social communities- this is organized groups who develop these rules and monitor their observance (government, scientific community, family...). Thanks to them, roles are interconnected, their reproduction is ensured, guarantees of their stability are created, sanctions are developed for violation of norms, complex systems social control.

The diversity of institutions and communities requires the development of two special mechanisms for organizing social life that complement each other - culture and political power.

culture accumulates the experience of previous generations (traditions, knowledge, values). Thanks to it, in the minds and behavior of people united by historical fate and the territory of residence, patterns of behavior that are valuable for society (“patterns,” as T. Parsons called them) are constantly reproduced. Culture, thus, as it were, sets the general tone for the development of society (). However, its ability to reproduce stable social ties is limited. Innovation processes in society often become so intense that as a result social education opposing the previously established value-normative order (as happened, for example, in our country on the eve of the revolutionary 1917). Purposeful efforts are required to restrain disintegration processes, and institutions take on this function. political power.

Thanks to culture and political power, society manages to maintain a single normative order, which, providing the interconnection of institutions and communities, organizes them into a systemic integrity, “creates society”. Only culture supports and reproduces mainly established norms tested by the experience of many generations, and politics constantly initiates the creation new laws and legal acts, strives for a rational search for optimal ways for the development of society (but, unfortunately, is often mistaken in his choice).

Rice. 2. INTERCONNECTIVITY SYSTEM people in society.

Thus, society can be represented as a multi-level system. The first level is social roles. Social roles are organized into various institutions and communities that make up the second level of society. Differences in the functions performed, discrepancies, and sometimes opposition of the goals of institutions and communities require a third level of organization of society. It is a subsystem of mechanisms that maintain a single order in society - the culture of society and state regulation.

The functioning of society.

The functioning of society is its constant self-reproduction.

The prevailing point of view in modern science, revealing the mechanism of the functioning of society, is the concept of T. Parsons. In his opinion, main element society is a person with his needs, aspirations, knowledge, skills and preferences. It is the source of the strength of society as a system, it depends on it whether it will exist at all. That is why the most complex set of mechanisms for the functioning of society is primarily focused on controlling a person. The basis of this complex is socialization("introduction" of a person into society). In the course of socialization, individuals learn to fulfill the roles prescribed by society and are formed as full-fledged personalities (cm. PERSONALITY), which ensures the constant reproduction of established social ties. The more developed a society, the more difficult the processes of socialization proceed in it. Previously, the family played a decisive role in the socialization of new generations; now this function has largely passed to the system.

But not all individuals fit into the established system of status-role relations. Individual properties of individuals, as a rule, turn out to be wider and more diverse than the socializing force of society. These properties constantly generate people's desire to change the existing order, provoke the appearance of deviations from the norm (deviation), the critical level of which can unbalance the system. In this case, the "insurance mechanism" is activated - the state, which assumes the task of curbing deviant behavior, using the means in its arsenal for this, including the use of direct violence.

The mechanism of socialization, even multiplied by the power of state coercion, cannot for a long time restrain innovation processes. Therefore, in the conditions of the growth of such processes, the fate of society begins to depend on the work of another important mechanism – institutionalization, the birth of new institutions. Thanks to it, new structural formations are created, new status-role relations are formed, which did not find a place for themselves in pre-existing institutions and communities.

Institutionalization can be natural in the form of a gradual standardization of the emerging types of interaction, the normative formalization of the corresponding roles (an example can be the formation of serfdom in medieval Russia - from the gradual restriction of the right of peasant transitions to the complete abolition of St. George's Day). It can also be artificial, as if inverted, when norms and rules are first created, and then real participants in the interaction appear. A typical example of artificial institutionalization is structural reforms (such as the radical economic reforms in Russia in the early 1990s). Artificial institutionalization is, as it were, proactive, channeling possible, but not yet fully manifested types of interaction. Because of this, it is possible only through state support, because it requires elements of coercion, without which the development of new roles by individuals can be too long or even fail. Therefore, the main conductor of structural reforms in society is the state, which has the necessary resources for this.

However, state intervention in the processes of institutionalization has its limits. Society cannot allow, for example, the ruling elite, relying on violence, at its own discretion, based only on its own ideas and interests, to reshape the fabric of social interactions. Therefore, there is a third mechanism for the functioning of society - legitimation. Thanks to him, there is a constant comparison of the results of socialization and institutionalization with the generally accepted value models of the culture of a given society. As a result, there is a kind of "culling" of those neoplasms that do not correspond to the established system of values. Thus, the integrity of society is maintained while developing its internal diversity. For example, Protestantism played in the era of modern times the role of a mechanism for legitimizing the desire for enrichment, encouraging an honest desire for wealth and "rejecting" the desire for "profit at any cost."

Development of society: formational approach.

In the modern world there are different types societies that differ sharply from each other in many respects. A study of the history of society shows that this diversity existed before, and many years ago such types of society prevailed (slave-owning society, polygamous families, community, caste ...), which are extremely rare today. In explaining the diversity of types of society and the reasons for the transition from one type to another, two conceptual approaches collide - formational and civilizational (Table 2). Adherents formational approach see in the development of society progress (qualitative improvement), the transition from lower to higher higher types society. On the contrary, supporters civilizational approach emphasize the cyclicity and equivalence of different social systems in the development of society.

Table 2. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN FORMATIONAL AND CIVILIZATIONAL APPROACHES
Criteria	Formative approach	Civilization approach
Long-term trends in the history of society	Progress - qualitative improvement	Cycle - periodic repetition
Main public systems	Sequential formations	Coexisting Civilizations
Defining features of a social system	Organization of material production	Spiritual values
Ways of development of society	The existence of the main (“main”) path of development	Plurality of equivalent development paths
Comparing social systems to each other	Some formations are better (more progressive) than others	Different civilizations are fundamentally equivalent
Influence of social systems on each other	The more developed formation destroys the less developed ones.	Civilizations can exchange cultural goods to a limited extent

The idea that society in its progressive development goes through some universal stages was first expressed by A. Saint-Simon. However, the formational approach received a relatively complete form only in the middle of the 19th century. in the social doctrine of K. Marx, explaining the process of human development as a progressive ascent from one form of society (formation) to another. In the 20th century The Marxist approach was dogmatized by Soviet social science, which entrenched the idea of ​​the concept of five modes of production as the only correct interpretation of Marx's theory of formations.

The concept of "socio-economic formation" in the teachings of Marx occupies a key place in explaining the driving forces of the historical process and the periodization of the history of society. Marx proceeded from the following premise: if humanity progressively develops naturally as a whole, then all of it must go through certain stages in its development. He called these stages socio-economic formations". According to Marx, the socio-economic formation is "a society that is at a certain stage historical development, society, with peculiar distinctive characteristics ”(Marx K., Engels F. Works. Vol. 6. P. 442).

The basis of the socio-economic formation, according to Marx, is one or another mode of production, which is characterized by a certain level and nature of the development of productive forces and corresponding to this level and nature of production relations. The totality of production relations forms its basis, over which political, legal and other relations and institutions are built, which in turn correspond to certain forms. public consciousness(morality, religion, art, philosophy, science, etc.). Thus, a specific socio-economic formation is the whole diversity of the life of a society at a historically certain stage of its development.

Within the framework of “Soviet Marxism”, the opinion was entrenched that from the point of view of the formational approach, humanity in its historical development necessarily goes through five main formations: primitive communal, slave-owning, feudal, capitalist and coming communist (“real socialism” was considered as the first phase of the communist formation). It was this scheme, which took hold in the 1930s, that later received the name among critics. concepts - "five-membered"(Fig. 3).

Rice. 3. DOGMATIZED MARXIST SCHEME OF PUBLIC FORMATIONS

The transition from one social formation to another is carried out by means of a social revolution. The economic basis of the social revolution is the deepening conflict between, on the one hand, new level and the productive forces of society that have acquired a new character and, on the other hand, the outdated, conservative system of production relations. This conflict in the political sphere is manifested in the intensification of antagonistic contradictions and the intensification of the class struggle between the ruling class, which is interested in preserving the existing system, and the oppressed classes, who demand an improvement in their position.

The revolution leads to a change in the ruling class. The victorious class carries out transformations in all spheres of social life. This creates the prerequisites for the formation new system socio-economic, legal and other social relations, new consciousness, etc. This is how a new formation is formed. In this regard, in the Marxist social concept, a significant role was given to the class struggle and revolutions. The class struggle was declared the most important driving force in the development of society, and political revolutions were declared the "locomotives of history."

The main long-term trend in the development of society in Marx's theory is considered to be a "return" to a classless and non-exploitative society, but not a primitive one, but a highly developed one - a society "beyond material production". Between primitiveness and communism are social systems based on private property exploitation (slavery, feudalism, capitalism). After the achievement of communism, the further development of society will not stop, but the economic factor will cease to play the role of the main "motor" of this development.

Marx's concept of the formational development of society, as recognized by most modern social scientists, has undoubted strengths: it clearly names the main criterion of periodization (development of the economy) and offers an explanatory model of the entire historical development, which makes it possible to compare different social systems with each other in terms of their degree of progressiveness. But she also has weaknesses.

Firstly, the formational approach of the “five-term” concept assumes a unilinear nature of historical development. The theory of formations was formulated by Marx as a generalization of the historical path of Europe. Marx himself saw that some countries do not fit into this pattern of alternating five formations. These countries he attributed to the so-called "Asiatic mode of production." He expressed the idea that on the basis of this mode of production, a special formation is formed, however detailed analysis he did not answer this question. Meanwhile most of pre-capitalist societies developed precisely in the countries of the East, and neither slaves nor feudal lords were typical for them (according to at least, in the Western European sense of these classes). Later historical research showed that in Europe, too, the development of some countries (for example, Russia) is quite difficult to "adjust" to the pattern of changing the five formations. Thus, the formational approach in its traditional form creates great difficulties for understanding the diversity, multivariate development of society.

Secondly, the formational approach is characterized by a rigid binding of any historical phenomena to the mode of production, the system of economic relations. The historical process is considered, first of all, from the point of view of the formation and change of the mode of production: decisive importance in explaining historical phenomena is assigned to objective, non-personal factors, and a person is assigned a secondary role. Man appears in this theory only as a cog in a powerful objective mechanism. Thus, the human, personal content of the historical process is belittled, and with it the spiritual factors of historical development.

Thirdly, the formational approach absolutizes the role of conflict relations, including violence, in the historical process. The historical process in this methodology is described mainly through the prism of the class struggle. Opponents of the formational approach point out that social conflicts, although they are a necessary attribute of social life, spiritual and moral life plays an equally important role, as many believe.

Fourthly, the formational approach contains, according to many critics (for example, K. Popper), elements of providentialism (predetermination). The concept of formations presupposes the inevitability of the development of the historical process from a classless primitive communal formation through class formations (slave-owning, feudal and capitalist) to a classless communist formation. Marx and his students spent a lot of effort to prove in practice the inevitability of the victory of socialism, where market self-development is replaced by state regulation of all parameters of society. Establishment after World War II socialist camp" was considered confirmation of the formation theory, although " socialist revolutions" in Eastern Europe reflected not so much the advantages of "communist ideas" as the geopolitical expansion of the USSR. When, in the 1980s, the overwhelming majority of the countries of the "socialist camp" abandoned the "building of communism", this was considered as evidence of the fallacy of the formation theory as a whole.

Although Marx's formation theory is subject to strong criticism, but the dominant paradigm of social development in modern social science, the concept of post-industrial society, shares almost all the basic principles of Marx's theory, although it identifies other stages in the development of society.

According to this theory (it is based on the ideas of O. Toffler, D. Bell and other institutionalist economists), the development of society is seen as a change in three socio-economic systems - pre-industrial society, industrial society and post-industrial society (Table 3). These three social systems differ in terms of the main factors of production, the leading sectors of the economy and the dominant social groups(). The boundaries of social systems are socio-technological revolutions: neolithic revolution(6-8 thousand years ago) created the prerequisites for the development of pre-industrial exploitative societies, the industrial revolution (18-19 centuries) separates industrial society from pre-industrial, and the scientific and technological revolution (since the second half of the 20th century) marks the transition from industrial to post-industrial society. Modern society is a transitional stage from the industrial to the post-industrial system.

Marxist theory social formations and the institutional theory of post-industrial society are based on similar principles common to all formational concepts: the development of the economy is considered as the fundamental basis for the development of society, this development itself is interpreted as a progressive and staged process.

The development of society: a civilizational approach.

The methodology of the formational approach in modern science is to some extent opposed by the methodology civilizational approach. This approach to explaining the process of social development began to take shape as early as the 18th century. However, its most full development he received only in the 20th century. In foreign historiography, the most prominent adherents of this methodology are M. Weber, A. Toynbee, O. Spengler and a number of major modern historians who have united around the French historical journal Annals (F. Braudel, J. Le Goff, etc.). AT Russian science his supporters were N.Ya.Danilevsky, K.N.Leontiev, P.A.Sorokin, L.N.Gumilyov.

The main structural unit of the process of development of society, from the point of view of this approach, is civilization. Civilization understood as social system, connected by common cultural values ​​(religion, culture, economic, political and social organization, etc.), which are coordinated with each other and are closely interconnected. Each element of this system bears the imprint of the originality of this or that civilization. This originality is very stable: although certain changes occur in civilization under the influence of certain external and internal influences, their certain basis, their inner core remains unchanged. When this core is eroded, the old civilization perishes and is replaced by another one with different values.

Along with the concept of "civilization", supporters of the civilizational approach widely use the concept of "cultural-historical types", which are understood as historically established communities that occupy a certain territory and have their own, characteristic only for them, features of cultural and social development.

The civilizational approach has, according to modern social scientists, a number of strengths.

First, its principles are applicable to the history of any country or group of countries. This approach is focused on the knowledge of the history of society, taking into account the specifics of countries and regions. True, the reverse side of this universality there is a loss of criteria for which features of this specificity are more significant, and which are less.

Secondly, emphasizing the specifics necessarily implies the idea of ​​history as a multi-linear, multi-variant process. But the awareness of this multivariance does not always help, and often even makes it difficult to understand which of these options is better and which are worse (after all, all civilizations are considered equal).

Thirdly, the civilizational approach assigns a priority role in the historical process human spiritual, moral and intellectual factors. However, emphasizing the importance of religion, culture, mentality for the characterization and evaluation of civilization often leads to abstraction from material production as something secondary.

The main weakness of the civilizational approach lies in amorphous criteria for identifying types of civilization. This allocation by supporters this approach carried out according to a set of signs, which, on the one hand, must be worn enough general character, and on the other hand, would allow us to designate specific features characteristic of many societies. As a result, just as there is a constant discussion among supporters of the formational approach about the number of main formations (their number most often varies from three to six), different adherents of the civilizational approach name a completely different number of main civilizations. N.Ya.Danilevsky counted 13 types of "original civilizations", O.Spengler - 8, A.Toynbee - 26 (Fig. 4).

Most often, when distinguishing types of civilizations, a confessional criterion is used, considering religion as a concentrate of cultural values. So, according to Toynbee, in the 20th century. There are 7 civilizations - Western Christian, Orthodox Christian, Islamic, Hindu, Confucian (Far Eastern), Buddhist and Jewish.

Another weak side of the civilizational approach, which reduces its attractiveness, is the denial of progress in the development of society (or at least the emphasis on its homogeneity). For example, according to P. Sorokin, society constantly rotates within the cycle “ideational culture – idealistic culture – sensual culture” and is unable to go beyond it (Fig. 4). Such an understanding of the development of society is quite organic for the societies of the East, in which cultural traditions the image of cyclic time dominates, but is hardly acceptable for Western societies, in which Christianity has accustomed to the image of linear time.

Rice. four. TYPOLOGY OF CIVILIZATIONS(according to A. Toynbee).

Rice. 5. CYCLE OF CROPS in the development of Western European society, according to P. Sorokin.

Like formational concepts, the civilizational approach also allows for a “simplified” interpretation, and, in this form, can become the basis for the most odious ideologies and regimes. If formational theories provoke social engineering (forced imposition by some countries on others of their own, “more progressive” model of development), then civilizational theories provoke nationalism and xenophobia (cultural contacts allegedly lead to the destruction of original cultural values).

Both approaches - formational and civilizational - make it possible to consider historical process from different angles of view, therefore they do not so much deny as complement each other. Probably, in the future, social scientists will be able to synthesize both of these approaches, avoiding the extremes of each of them.

Vukolova Tatiana, Latov Yuri

Literature:

Momjyan K. Kh. Society. Society. Story. M., Nauka, 1994
Giddens E. Sociology. M., 1999
Kazarinova N.V. . Ed. G.S. Batygin. M., 2000
Volkov Yu.G., Mostovaya I.V. Sociology: Textbook for universities. Ed. V.I. Dobrenkov. M., 2001
Semenov Yu.I. Philosophy of history. (General theory, main problems, ideas and concepts from antiquity to the present day). M., 2003



Any newly born baby instantly becomes a member of society with the appropriate rights and rules. But what is this society that we all belong to? This concept is quite broad and includes many aspects. Society is a kind of system in which people interact and communicate, and are also divided into different groups depending on the feature that unites them.

Origins

The first community arose back in primitive times, when people united in order to survive together. In this way, entire clans were created with their hierarchy, who were engaged in a common cause and were often at war with other communities. In order to develop successfully, it was necessary to fight for food and territory, and then share them. In addition, differences in religion or interracial prejudices could serve as reasons for conflicts.

From this distant primitive community and so much different, at first glance, modern society took place.

Definition in dictionaries

Society is such a broad concept that completely different groups of people can be called this word. So, it can be called children who are engaged in a macrame circle, and at the same time, the entire population of the whole planet is also united under this broad concept. The thing is that all members of society are united by their interaction. So, people who are completely different in worldview, skin color, character, are forced to support social relations and peacefully get along with each other.

And it’s not for nothing that “society” is the same root as the word “communicate”. It could not have formed without this simple action. If people were deprived of the need to talk to each other, everyone could live alone, but this is completely inefficient. Every person in society has a role to play. A striking example That's the difference between professions.

Another example is an organization, firm or company, since people working in any production are united by a common goal - the release of quality products. That is why each institution is assigned the names of forms of economic activity that characterize the property from a legal point of view and indicate the nature of the relationship of people working there.

The most famous and complete dictionary was created by V. I. Dalem. In addition, there is a special dictionary dedicated to the interpretation of social science terms, the author of which is N. E. Yatsenko. So, what interpretation of society do these authors give?

Dictionary N. E. Yatsenko

Dictionary of V. I. Dahl

Oddly enough, but in this popular explanatory dictionary there is no definition of society as such. His lexicographer interpreted the verb "to communicate" - that is, to connect, unite something or someone, as well as to communicate and interact with oneself. You can also watch with another person. on the same thing from different points of view and yet unite into one whole unification.

Society structure

Society cannot exist without society and social interactions. It can be imagined as a single organism, for the normal functioning of which the coordinated work of all members is necessary. . And that means, it can be distinguished individual systems and structures that include the following categories:

• institutions;
• segments of society;
• community;
• social groups.

All these categories are affected by external factors. In every society, the appearance of an individual who will develop and change the views of a group of people is quite natural. This can lead both to minor deviations from the original foundations, and to a change in the history of entire nationalities.

They play a very important role in the development of any association, as they establish connections and interactions not only within one group, but also between several communities.

Characteristic features

Society has characteristic features and features that distinguish it from other organizations of groups of people. These characteristics include fundamental features, which will be described below.

Relationships and connections

So , society in the simplest sense- this is the interaction of its members with each other, leading to the emergence of a social structure. This interaction is carried out both between individuals and between groups, cells and similar elements of society.

At birth, a person enters the society of people, as well as the group of his family. Then he begins to enter the society of his peers in kindergarten and school. Over time, the number of such groups increases. A person enters society on the basis of interest in a common cause, profession, favorite business. Moreover, these groups do not always meet the needs individual person, so that the association of people in which we are not always suits us and satisfies our needs. So, it happens due to the imperfection of the division of the general flow of people into smaller groups.

Nevertheless, a person communicates in his group according to certain rules. They can be both open and not vowels. However, this does not mean that a person cannot influence or change them. In the group, you can take a lower position than you would like, or a higher position compared to the rest. This leads to a certain inequality of group members.

To achieve the same position of all members of the group is not possible. It is only before the law that everyone should be equal, but, for example, in an interest group, someone will still occupy a leading position due to greater talent or a stronger character. Such positions can be identified in any society - family, political party, work team.

Types of society depending on science

There is a special science - social science, aimed at studying the concept under consideration. But besides it, there are other sciences (psychology, philosophy, and the like) that actively use the term society. Wikipedia considers the meaning these definitions are also for interdisciplinary and sub-disciplines of anthropology.

Social science

No matter how broad the concept considered here, it is possible to distinguish several historical types as a classification. They will be discussed next:

social anthropology

Social society is the main form of human existence, which includes self-regulation mechanisms. Most often in sociology it is divided into types based on the level of their development. Sociologist D. Lenski compiled the following classification:

• hunting and gathering group - a community in which responsibilities were first divided;
• an agrarian simple society is a group of people that does not have a separate leader to manage it;
• agrarian complex - a group of people in the political structure of which there are people involved in management activities;
• industrial - a society engaged in production activities;
• special, which cannot be attributed to any of the above types.

Also in sociology they use the term virtual society, it functions on the Internet, which is typical for the modern age of technology.

Since society also call the totality of all people on the planet, it is important to understand how they represent its development. It is assumed that the first tribes, who rallied for the sake of survival, chose the territory in which they led a settled life. Developing, they turned into villages, and then cities. Whole states grew out of the latter. Subsequently, people developed laws and certain norms of behavior that a group of individuals had to follow. People could deserve a certain status and improve your position in the team.

Political anthropology

This subdiscipline classifies There is a society according to the political structure into the following types:

• tribe;
• chiefdom;
• state.

Moreover, the strength of these types will primarily depend on the environment of other groups of people who can be friendly or hostile. Usually a more isolated society is more secure from encroachment and lives more peacefully.

Based on the foregoing, it can be concluded that that society is a living organism where each member plays an important role and influences the development of other individuals and the life of the organization as a whole.