;font-family:"Arial";color:#5e6669">Ticket #9
;font-family:"Arial";color:#5e6669"> 1. Features of social cognition, concrete historical approach to social phenomena.
2. State, its features.
;font-family:"Arial";color:#5e6669">1, Cognition is the process of human activity, the main content of which is the reflection of objective reality in his mind, and the result is the acquisition of new knowledge about the world around. In the process of cognition, there are always two sides: the subject of cognition and the object of cognition. In the narrow sense, the subject of cognition usually means a cognizing person, endowed with will and consciousness, in a broad all society. The object of cognition, respectively, is either a cognizable object, or in a broad sense the entire surrounding world within those boundaries in which individuals and society as a whole interact with it.
;font-family:"Arial";color:#5e6669">The main feature of social cognition as one of the types of cognitive activity is the coincidence of the subject and object of cognition. In the course of social cognition, society cognizes itself. Such a coincidence of the subject and object of cognition has a huge impact on how on the process of cognition itself, and on its results.The resulting social knowledge will always be associated with the interests of individualssubjects of cognition, and this circumstance largely explains the presence of different * often opposite conclusions and assessments that arise in the study of the same social phenomena. Cognition begins with the establishment of social facts.There are three types of such facts: 1) actions or deeds of individuals or large social groups; 2) products of material or spiritual activity of people; 3) verbal social facts: opinions, judgments, evaluations of people. Selection and interpretation (i.e., explanation) of these facts largely depend on the worldview of the researcher. el, the interests of the social group to which he belongs, as well as the tasks that he sets for himself. The goal of social cognition, as well as cognition in general, is to establish the truth. Truth is the correspondence of the acquired knowledge to the content of the object of knowledge. However, it is not easy to establish the truth in the process of social cognition, because: 1) the object of cognition, and it is society, is quite complex in its structure and is in constant development, which is influenced by both objective and subjective factors. Therefore, the establishment of social patterns is extremely difficult, and open social laws are of a probabilistic nature, because even similar historical events and phenomena are never completely repeated;
;font-family:"Arial";color:#5e6669">2) the possibility of using such a method of empirical research as an experiment is limited (it is almost impossible to reproduce the studied social phenomenon at the request of the researcher). Therefore, the most common method of social research is scientific abstraction. The main the source of obtaining knowledge about society is social reality, practice.Since social life changes quite quickly, in the process of social cognition, we can talk about the establishment of only relative truths.
;font-family:"Arial";color:#5e6669">Understanding and correctly describing the processes taking place in society, discovering the laws of social development is possible only when using a concrete historical approach to social phenomena. The main requirements of this approach are:
;font-family:"Arial";color:#5e6669">1) the study of not only the situation that has developed in society, but also the causes of which it resulted; 2) consideration of social phenomena in their interconnection and interaction with each other; 3) analysis of the interests and actions of all subjects of the historical process (both social groups and individuals).If in the process of cognition of social phenomena some stable and significant connections are found between them, then they usually talk about the discovery of historical patterns.Historical patterns are called common features, which are inherent in a certain group of historical phenomena.The identification of such patterns on the basis of the study of specific social processes in specific societies in a specific historical period is the essence of the concrete historical approach and, ultimately, is the goal of social cognition.
;font-family:"Arial";color:#5e6669">2. The state is the most important institution of the political system of society. In political science, there is still no consensus on the definition of the concept of the state. Various theories highlight one of the aspects the social essence of the state: either serving the common good, the interests of society and the individual, or organized coercion, suppression by the exploiting classes of the speeches of the exploited One of the most common is the idea of the state as a political-territorial sovereign
;font-family:"Arial";color:#5e6669">organization of power in society, which has a special apparatus for the implementation of its functions and is able to make its decrees binding on the population of the whole country. The state acts as a political, structural and territorial organization of society, as therefore, when it comes to the state, one must have in mind not so much the state as a special apparatus, a kind of “machine”, but rather a state-organized society (or, in other words, a politically, territorially and structurally organized form of society The features of the state that distinguish it from pre-state (primitive communal, tribal) forms of society are:
;font-family:"Arial";color:#5e6669">1) the division of the population according to the territorial principle, which gives rise to such an institution as citizenship (citizenship); 2) the presence of a special public authority, separated from society; 3) the presence of a special layer. category of people "professional comma management (bureaucracy); 4) taxes designed to ensure the implementation of the state of its functions; state attributes (anthem, coat of arms. Flag). Signs of the state that distinguish it from other political organizations of modern society (political parties, trade unions, etc. .), are: 1) sovereignty (i.e., the sovereignty of the state within the country and its independence in the international arena); 2) law-making (only the state can issue legal acts binding on the entire population of the country); 3) monopoly on legal use of violence The functions of the state are the main directions of its activity, expressing the essence of the state and corresponding to the main tasks certain historical stage of development. According to the object of influence, the functions of the state can be divided into internal and external. Internal include: economic (coordination of economic processes, and sometimes economic management),
;font-family:"Arial";color:#5e6669">social (organization of the social security system), cultural (formation of conditions for meeting the spiritual needs of the population), protective (maintaining the stability of existing social relations, protection of human rights and freedoms, law enforcement ) Among the external functions, one can single out the implementation of international cooperation and the organization of defense
;font-family:"Arial";color:#5e6669">states. Attempts to turn the state into a comprehensive system that completely controls the life of society lead to the establishment of totalitarian dictatorships, the enslavement of the individual by an all-powerful state. Therefore, in democratic societies, only activities to protect the foundations of the existing order, protection of the rights and freedoms of the individual.The state cedes many of its functions to a self-governing and self-organizing civil society, "withdrawing" from the economy, social sphere, culture, losing ideological and educational functions.New crisis moments in the development of the country (for example, in years of economic recession, during social unrest and unrest), the state should come to the rescue by exerting a stabilizing external influence on social relations.
social phenomenon- an element of social reality, which has the fullness of social properties and features; everything in social reality that reveals itself appears. Objects, people, their relationships, actions, thoughts and feelings (in other words, material and spiritual products of human activity), social institutions, institutions, organizations, needs, interests, certain aspects of processes, etc. can act as a social phenomenon. social phenomena are latent in nature and express not only the obvious characteristics of social reality, but also its deeper processes, the connection of which with this social phenomenon is not directly observed. The discovery of this connection is carried out in social practice, including with the help of sociological research, when certain techniques, procedures and methods for obtaining information about a social phenomenon are used.
There are social phenomena that express secondary, random connections and relationships, and those that testify to the essential characteristics of social objects. From the totality of social phenomena, sociology most often singles out the latter, i.e., those that characterize stable, recurring (mass) and typical connections and relations of social reality. Each social phenomenon is distinguished by certain empirical features that can be recorded in social indicators. Mass (repeating) social phenomena are studied using statistical methods. A quantitative study of the totality of social phenomena and the intensity of the manifestation of their signs contributes to the realization of the probabilistic nature of social ties and relationships, and makes it possible to fix patterns-trends (see Social law).
Any social phenomenon can be considered as a social fact if its recurrence, mass character, typicality, social significance are established, that is, if its signs and properties are fixed. In this case, social phenomena become the starting point of sociological analysis. Thus, a social fact included in the system of sociological knowledge turns into a scientific fact as an element of empirical and theoretical knowledge, becomes a fact of sociological science. In the complex process of studying the social life of society, a social phenomenon acts, on the one hand, as a certain stage on the path of cognition of its essential characteristics, on the other hand, as the simplest and most directly observable element of this process, the starting point for the movement of social cognition from simple to complex, from the variety of properties of the manifestation of social life to its essential characteristics.
No matter how varied the definitions by which sociologists characterize the essence of a social or supraorganic phenomenon, they all have something in common, namely, that a social phenomenon - an object of sociology - is primarily an interaction of various centers or an interaction that has specific features. The principle of interaction lies at the basis of all these definitions, they all agree on this point, and the differences come already in the future - in determining the nature and forms of this interaction. Let's confirm what has been said with examples.
The "permanence of relations", which Spencer points to as a characteristic feature of a society or a supraorganic phenomenon, is obviously just another term denoting the same principle of interaction.
“In “public”, in a social phenomenon, we see nothing else,” says E. V. De Roberti, “as a long, continuous, many-sided and necessary interaction, established in any constant, and not random, aggregation of living beings”2.
A social phenomenon or society "exists there," says G. Simmel, "where several individuals are in interaction"3.
Gumplovich does not look at the matter differently, with the only difference that he takes the group, and not the individual, as an element of interaction. "By social phenomena," he says, "we understand the relations arising from the interaction of human groups and communications"4.
"Any aggregate of individuals who are in constant contact constitutes a society," according to Durkheim. Coercion, a characteristic feature of a social phenomenon, obviously already presupposes interaction5.
The "intermental" process of Tarde and its forms: imitation, opposition and adaptation - are just other words for designating the same principle of interaction and its varieties6.
1 See: Spencer G. Foundations of sociology. SPb., 1898. T. 1. S. 277 et seq.
2 De-Roberti E. V. New formulation of questions of sociology. SPb., 1909. S. 46.
3 Simmel G. A sociological study. SPb., 1901. S. 31-39.
4 Gumplovich L. Fundamentals of sociology. SPb., 1899. S. 105, 106, 113, 116, 265, etc.
3 See: Durkgem E. On the division of social labor. Odessa, 1901. S. 221.
6 Tarde G. Etudes de Psychologie Sociale. P., 1898. P. 59-60.
Stammler wants to say nothing else when he says that the logical premise of social life is the existence of external coercive rules, that "social life is the externally regulated joint life of people." We see the same thing with his associate Natorp.
Novikov, considering "exchange as the main phenomenon of human association", in other words denotes the same process of interaction1.
1 See: Novikov I. L "cchange phenomene foundamental de l" association humaine // Revue international de Sociologie. 1911. Vol. 2.
We see the same thing sharply formulated by Giddings, Dragichesko, Bugle, Espinas, Vaccaro, Fulier, Grassery, Ward, and others.
And it goes without saying that outside of interaction there is not and cannot be any aggregate, association or society, and in general a social phenomenon, since there were no relations there.
But it goes without saying that this unanimity in the generic substratum of any social phenomenon does not in the least predetermine disagreement in the further understanding of interaction. Since it is asserted that the interaction of certain units is the essence of a social phenomenon, and thus the object of sociology, then for a complete understanding of this concept, an answer is also required at least to the following questions:
1) In order for the process of interaction to be considered a social phenomenon, between whom and what should this interaction take place? What are the units or centers of this interaction? In other words, what are the specific properties of social interaction that make it possible to consider it a special category of phenomena.
2) If this question is resolved in one way or another, then the next question is, is the duration of this interaction indifferent or not for the concept of a social phenomenon? Is it supposed that only in a long and constant interaction can one see a social phenomenon, or does it arise in every interaction, no matter how short and accidental it may be?
Without precise answers to these questions, especially to their first category, the concept of "interaction" (and thus a social phenomenon) becomes an empty phrase, and here's why. As is known, the process of interaction is not a process specific to any particular category of phenomena, but a global process, inherent to all types of energy and manifesting itself at least in the form of the "law of gravitation" or the law of "equality of action against reaction." Therefore, it is clear that since they want to make interaction a special object of social science, then it is necessary to indicate such specific features of this global and, in this sense, generic process that would separate this type of interaction from its other types and thereby constitute a social phenomenon as a special type. world being, and therefore as an object of a special science.
To our deep regret, however, many sociologists do not even raise this question - as if it were something taken for granted. But along with this, we have numerous attempts one way or another to answer the questions posed. The main types of these answers are reduced to three types: a) either special centers of this interaction are singled out that are not available in other types of it, or b) special properties of social interaction are indicated that separate it from other categories of the latter, or, finally, c) both are combined simultaneously reception, that is, social interaction is distinguished as a special kind from the generic concept both by indicating its specific properties and by indicating its interacting units (centers). Thus, by means of each type, one can single out a special category of social interaction and thereby determine the object of sociology. Let's illustrate each type.
Type A. It can be said, for example, that social interaction will be only where the interacting centers (units) will be biological indivisibles - individuals. In this case, the field of sociology would cover not only the world of people, but also animals and plants ("zoosociology" and "phytosociology"). In this case, its task would be to study all forms of interaction between these centers.
It is possible, following the same type, to act differently, taking only people as such centers. This is, in fact, what most representatives of social science do. In this case, the task of sociology would be to study all forms of communication between people. Simmel's concept of "social phenomenon" can serve as a concrete example of this kind. "Society," he says, "exists wherever several individuals are in interaction, whatever the latter." From his point of view, war is also a social fact. "I am really inclined to consider war as the limiting case of socialization"1.
Type B. Along with the indicated method of defining a social phenomenon, another one is possible, based on the principle of indicating the specific properties of the interaction process itself. A common feature of all constructions of this type is the definition of social interaction as the interaction of the mental. It is not the nature of the centers of interaction that serves in this case as the constitutive principle of social interaction, but precisely its psychic nature, regardless of which centers the interaction takes place between. "Every interaction that has a psychic nature is a social interaction" - such is the formula of this type.
On this general principle, shared by an enormous number of sociologists, we have a number of theories that differ from one another in details. That social interaction is mental interaction is equally shared by Espinas, and Giddings, and Ward, and Tard, and DeRoberti, and Petrazhitsky, and Tennis, etc. But some of them see social interaction in any mental interaction, while others - only in mental interaction, which has some specific features.
"Societies," says Espinas, "are the essence of the group, where individuals are normally, being separated, united by psychic bonds, that is, by representations and mutual impulses." To this feature, he adds another sign of "mutual exchange of services" as a characteristic feature of society2. And since these signs are also given in animal societies, this gives him the right to include the world of animals in the field of sociology.
1 Simmel G. A sociological study. pp. 34-37.
2 Espinas A. Etre ou ne pas etre // Revue philosophique. 1904. P. 466-468.
Close to the above views are the concepts of societies (or social interaction) of such persons as Giddings, who sees "true association" where "kind consciousness" is given, which then passes "into the love of fellowship."
From the point of view of Tarde, social interaction will be an intermental (mental) interaction, representing, in essence, an imitative character1, the further links of which are opposition and adaptation ...
Without giving further illustrations, let us turn to the third type of social interaction separation, which consists in combining both of the previous techniques.
Type B. There are also a great many modifications of this type. Some, like, for example, Durkheim and Stammler, under the object of social science understand the interaction of people (centers - people), but not any, but only where external coercion is given. "A social fact," says Durkheim, "is any course of action, sharply defined or not, but capable of exerting external coercion on the individual"2. In this, Stammler converges with him with his "external regulation of the life of people together."
Others, like Spencer, understand society as the interaction of people, revealing the constancy of relationships. Still others, like Makarevich, Gumplovich, Letourneau and Tennis, understand a social phenomenon as the interaction of people that reveals a desire either for a "common goal" or where a "common interest" is given (society is "a group centered around some common interest" - Gumplovich ). Some people, like Makarevich and Tennis, distinguish between Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft (commimaute et societe), understanding the latter as groups of people striving either for a common goal, or groups built on a contractual basis, etc.3. As Gemeinschaft, the family is usually cited, as Gesellschaft, a commercial company, etc.
1 See: Tarde G. Laws of imitation. SPb., 1892. S. 68, 89 and others.
2 Durkheim E. Les regies de la methode sociologique. P., 1895. P. 19.
3 Tunnies F. Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft. Jena, 1887.
Numerous definitions of a social phenomenon, such as the definitions of Ward, de Greef, Palant, Novikov, Worms, Poole, Ostwald, and others, should also be attributed to this type.
The next question that we need to resolve is the question: which of the three types given above should we give preference to in determining the object of sociology or a social phenomenon?
There is hardly any need to prove that the successful completion of this task depends little on which of the indicated methods we use, because, in the end, any of these methods will be reduced to type B. It will be reduced for the simple reason that the nature of the centers of interaction and the nature The process of interaction itself is not something separate from each other, but inextricably linked one with the other. We can say that the nature of the process of interaction is explained by the nature and properties of its centers (the "substantial" point of view). It can also be said conversely that the nature of the centers is a function of the properties of the processes of interaction ("the logic of relations"), that the centers are only nodes in which the flows of interacting processes cross...
Therefore, in the end, the point is not in this or that type of isolation of social interaction from its general generic substratum, but in how this type is used, or in how this device is used ...
Approaching from this point of view the most common application of technique A, which consists in indicating people as centers of interaction, one cannot fail to note the advantageous side of such an application, namely, the clarity and sharpness of the boundaries of a social phenomenon (“all types of interaction between people are social phenomenon"), but, on the other hand, it is impossible not to point out a number of major shortcomings of it, which make this method, and thus the definition of a social phenomenon, unacceptable. The main of these shortcomings is as follows. Indeed, suppose that a social phenomenon is represented by all kinds of interaction between people. What is the result of a consistent implementation of this definition? Something rather strange. Since a person is not only a person, but also an organism, the forms of interaction that are studied by biology and which are formulated by it for all organisms will also be a social phenomenon.
Phenomena of reproduction, struggle for existence, symbiosis, etc. - phenomena usually attributed to biology, in this case become the sphere of study of the sociologist. Consequently, sociology will only repeat in its application to man those provisions and laws that already exist in other sciences and, in particular, in biology, formulated for the entire class of phenomena. But not only that. After all, a person is not only an organism, but in the future an analysis and a complex of certain molecules and atoms, that is, a certain "mass" (an object of physics and chemistry). And from this it follows that between people there can and must be known physical and chemical interactions. If this is so, then it turns out that a sociologist must be both a physicist and a chemist.
Thus, consistently pursuing this point of view, we eventually get, on the one hand, a science, only new in name, but essentially repeating the provisions of biology and the physical and chemical sciences, and on the other hand, a science very similar to that "science" "about cigars weighing ten lots", which was so brilliantly described by L. I. Petrazhitsky as a parody of science. The main sin of this construction lies in its inadequacy.
The same applies to a large extent also when we take for "centers" not people, but, for example, animals or "organisms" in general.
It is obvious that type A in these formulations is not suitable, not economical and does not lead to the goal. If it is possible, then only with the following proviso: social interaction should be understood only as such types of interaction (between people or between organisms) that are not available anywhere except for the human hostel or the hostel of organisms.
But this reservation gives a purely negative solution to the social phenomenon, and is therefore empty; this time; secondly, it is already a transition to type B, since here the interaction is distinguished into a special form not depending on the centers, but depending on the nature and properties of the interaction itself; and thirdly, it may turn out that such properties are not found in humans at all, or, if they are found, they will only be the most striking expression of what animals already have in a weak form. And it is known that phenomena should not be classified according to indefinitely quantitative characteristics2.
In view of all that has been said, it cannot be denied that those definitions of the field of a social phenomenon that proceed from the properties of the interaction process itself (type B), and in particular, those theories that define social interaction as a mental interaction, are much more acceptable. The essence of these theories is reduced in general to the following. All types of world energy or world being, these theories say, can be abstractly divided into certain categories, of which each category has its own specific properties. There are three main types of energy: 1) energy (and, accordingly, interaction) inorganic (physico-chemical); 2) energy (and interaction) organic (life); 3) energy (and interaction) psychosocial (society). In accordance with this, the sciences can also be divided into three groups: 1) physical and chemical, 2) biological and 3) social, and therefore the field of sociology can be defined and is defined as follows: "All interaction processes that have a mental nature, completely independent of between whom or what they are performed, represent social interaction and thus are the object of sociology "(G. Tarde, M. M. Kovalevsky, E. V. De-Robergi, L. Ward, etc.).
This definition of a social phenomenon and sociology is, from the formal point of view, logically flawless and does not lead to the shortcomings that are characteristic of type A in its usual formulations.
However, for many sociologists, this definition has the disadvantage that the very basic concept of the mental remains completely unclear to them. It will not be a big mistake if we say that the concept of the mental at the present time resembles one of Bacon's idola, which is used by almost everyone, but the majority does not even try to give an exact definition, as if it were something quite understandable and definite. . Meanwhile, is it necessary to prove that the “mental” concept is extremely obscure and poorly defined. I’m not talking about epistemological differences regarding the concept of the mental. It is enough for my argument to point out the differences of opinion in this regard among representatives of the so-called exact sciences, in particular psychologists, biopsychologists and biologists. The usual definition of psychology as the science of "states of consciousness," says Wundt, "does a circle, for if we ask after what is consciousness, the states of which psychology should study, then the answer will read: consciousness is the sum of the states"1. "The description or definition of them (consciousness and its elements), says Gefding, is impossible"2.
Reading courses in psychology, we often come across how the "mental" is first identified with consciousness, and then right there, through the page, the author, without hesitation, speaks of "unconscious mental processes", etc. In view of this state of affairs, it is not surprising that that this obscurity makes itself felt especially sharply in the field of sociology and biopsychology, it is also not surprising that it also entails different understandings of a social phenomenon, despite the same definitions of it as a mental phenomenon. Some, such as, for example, Haeckel, Le Dantec, Perty and others, find consciousness and mentality not only in higher animals, but also in plants, and in every cell ("cellular consciousness", "atomic soul", etc.) . Moreover, the same Haeckel, and the other day De Grasserie find it possible to speak even about the psyche of molecules, atoms and the "psychology of minerals." Similarly, others, such as Wundt, Romain, Letourneau and Espinas, talk with great enthusiasm about "patriotism", "love", "consciousness of duty", "aesthetics", "sense of ownership", etc. among ants, bees, spiders , worms, etc. It turns out that almost the whole world is the psyche. In this state of affairs, it is hardly possible to speak of a special and autonomous category of social phenomenon, for the area of "mental" relations in this case coincides with almost the area of all phenomena in general (organic and inorganic); the whole cosmos becomes a social phenomenon, and sociology turns into a universal science embracing all sciences, that is, into an empty word.
Along with these "monists from above" we also have "monists from below" (V. A. Wagner's terminology), who with the same right expel consciousness and the psyche not only from the world of plants and animals, but, perhaps, from the world of people, reducing all "mental phenomena" to physical and chemical reactions - tropisms, taxises, gravitation, etc.
No wonder that even in this case we cannot talk about a social phenomenon, since the very existence of the psyche becomes problematic.
Such are the sad results of the unceremonious handling of the term psychic. Since, however, the formal definition of a social phenomenon as a psychic interaction is logically flawless, and since all the indicated errors and conclusions follow only due to the absence of attempts to more or less accurately describe and characterize the content invested in the term "psychic", the first task of a sociologist who has embarked on this way of defining the object of sociology comes down to delineating, if not the very concept of the mental, then at least some of its features, and secondly, to outline approximately those specific “centers” in the interaction of which an element of the mental is already given.
Without going into details of solving these problems, we will try to briefly answer them.
Taking into account the usual division of the elements of mental life into three main headings: 1) knowledge (sensations, perceptions, ideas and concepts), 2) feeling (suffering and pleasure) and 3) will, or Professor L. I. Petrazhitsky’s two-term division into 1) one-sided elements (cognition, feeling and will) and 2) two-sided (emotions), we can characterize mental interaction as follows: by mental interaction we understand such a process, the “matter” of which is sensations, perceptions, ideas and concepts, suffering and enjoyment and acts of will, in the exact sense of these terms, which obliges us always to regard these elements as conscious; obliges because a sensation or idea not conscious of someone is not sensation and idea, not conscious will is not will, not conscious suffering and pleasure is not suffering and pleasure. It is difficult to convey in words the specific meaning that we put into the term "conscious"; we can only hint at it; but this hint is sufficient to properly understand what has been said. Indeed, since I experience a volitional act (and not an emotional impulse or reflex), then the concept of a volitional act as an act consciously set and performed already implicitly presupposes consciousness. Similarly, suffering - "a specific sensual tone of experiences" - presupposes its "perceivability", "consciousness", "sensibility"; otherwise - not "perceived" or not "conscious suffering" - is tantamount to the absence of suffering. As for representations, concepts and perceptions, these terms themselves already imply "consciousness". Consequently, all "unconscious experiences", in particular "physiological acts", unconscious experiences and the simplest emotions, as well as reflexes, instincts, automatic acts, cannot serve as the "matter" of mental interaction. This is the "matter", if you like, of biological processes (physiology and "psychophysics"), and not mental ones. From what has been said follows our answer to the first question, and thus also the answer that determines the social phenomenon: it will be any mental interaction in the above sense of the word. This is the specific kind of energy that serves as the field of study of sociology. Since genetically these elements of the psyche have developed from the above-mentioned emotions or "reflexes", then a directly close area adjacent to the field of sociology is precisely psychophysics - a branch of biology that studies the corresponding unconscious emotions, impulses or even "instincts", "reflexes" and automatic movements. . Accordingly, it is possible, for didactic purposes in the genetic formulation of the question, to divide the interaction of organisms into two categories, similar to the division proposed by Professor De Roberti, namely: into the psychophysical stage and the psychological stage. The latter is a specific area of sociology.
Thus, a social phenomenon is a social connection that has a psychic nature and is realized in the minds of individuals, while at the same time acting beyond its limits in content and duration. This is what many call the "social soul", this is what others call civilization and culture, this is what still others define by the term "world of values", as opposed to the world of things that form the object of the natural sciences. Any interaction, no matter who it takes place between, since it has a mental character (in the above sense of the word) will be a social phenomenon.
The next question that the sociologist needs to resolve is to outline that world of specific "centers" or "things" in whose interaction a mental character is already evident, in other words, it is necessary to indicate some external signs that would allow one to say: "Here we are we are dealing with psychic, and here not with psychic interaction." This problem arises because the "psyche" itself is "non-material", "non-objective" and "non-substantial", and therefore it is not directly perceptible to the observer. We can always observe it not directly, but only in symbolic manifestations. Using the method of self-observation, in each individual case we can always clearly decide which of our own actions or acts is conscious and which is unconscious, but the whole further question lies not in our acts, but in the acts of others, where the method of self-observation is powerless, the method of analogy is not always guarantees the truth. In view of this, there is an urgent need to find such external criteria that could show where we are dealing with a conscious and where with an unconscious act and interaction.
Psychic interaction can only exist where units or organisms endowed with a developed nervous system interact. Because of this, those forms of interaction between people among themselves, as well as between animals, which have nothing to do with mental forms, do not enter the sphere of social phenomena. For example, all people, according to Newton's law, are subject to the law of gravity and there is an attraction between them that is directly proportional to the mass
1 De-Roberty E. Sociologie de Faction. P., 1908. P. 15-21.
and inversely proportional to the square of the distance - however, no sociologist will say that this form of interaction is an object of sociology, that is, a social phenomenon. Further, between people, as organisms, there are a number of purely biological forms of interaction, however, according to the definition, they will not be studied by a sociologist as a sociologist. The study of these forms is the business of the biologist, not the sociologist. But, it will be said, are not the phenomena of interaction on the basis of sexual relations, the phenomena of the struggle for existence, the numerous social relations on the basis of nutrition, the provision of food, housing, etc., not biological phenomena? After all, reproduction, nutrition, the struggle for existence, etc., are the specific objects of biology, but can you point out at least one sociologist who would ignore these phenomena and would not consider them objects of sociology? Aren't such theories like the theories of M. M. Kovalevsky and U. Costa built in their main part precisely on the principle of reproduction? Do not all theories talk about the struggle for existence, and perhaps a number of very reasonable theories, for example, the theory of Marx, Engels. Bak-caro, Gumplovich, Lapuzh. Ammon, etc., is not based on the struggle for existence? Isn't the "sexual question" a sociological topic? How can you exclude them from the sphere of sociology and from the sphere of social phenomena?
Yes, no doubt, I can answer, they would have to be excluded from the sphere of sociology if "struggle for existence", "reproduction", "nourishment", etc., were the same in the sociological sense. as in biology. Should have been excluded for the simple reason that there is no need to invent an empty word for the study of those phenomena that are already studied in their entirety by biology. And there is no need to create an extra category of social phenomena when they are excellently studied as biological phenomena. In this case, instead of science, we would have the empty word "sociology".
However, these phenomena cannot be excluded from the field of sociology, because the struggle for existence, for example, of plants and man are profoundly different things. The same applies to reproduction and nutrition. And they are different because in the world of people and higher animals these biological functions acquire a new, namely mental character, which makes them new social phenomena and objects of special science. It is this addition of the psyche, and nothing else, that makes them consider them social phenomena and gives the right to study them not only to a biologist who studies the purely vital forms of these relations, but also to a sociologist who studies their conscious, social forms. If the "sexual question" consisted entirely in "conjugation" and in purely biological sexual acts, then sociology, of course, would have nothing to do with it, and the question would not be "social", but purely biological. But, I think, no one has ever raised this question as a social question, on this plane, but always, speaking of the “sexual question”, he meant by it not the sexual acts themselves, but mainly those mental relations that are connected with this biological function; namely: the admissibility or inadmissibility of sexual relations in general (asceticism) between certain persons, their time, place, certain forms of marriage, etc. - from the point of view of religion, law, morality, aesthetics and science. This is what constituted and constitutes the essence of the "sexual question" as a social question, and this shows that here, too, mental forms, and not biological ones, were and are meant. The same applies to nutrition as a "social" issue. Moreover, even those persons who considered the world of human coexistence to be the field of social sciences exclusively, and those consciously or unconsciously took for human coexistence not a simple cohabitation of biological individuals (indivisible), but precisely the cohabitation of representatives of homo sapiens as carriers of "psychic energy". If If it weren’t for this feature, there would be no other reason to distinguish the world of human community life from other animal communities and even from such prefabricated units as “forest.” In this case, perhaps, “society” could be considered, if not an organism, then something - something very close to it. For better or worse, however, the so-called social sciences have always studied various aspects of the activity of human communities precisely as communities united by psychological, and not only biological ties. Not to mention such sciences as the sciences of religion, law , ethics, aesthetics, psyche, dealing specifically with mental forms of being, even such sciences as economics and history of m material life, interpreted about the same mental forms of human activity. Indeed, what are the basic categories of political economy like "economy", "values", "capital", "labor", etc.? Aren't these purely psychosocial categories? In exactly the same way, does the description of certain objects of material life treat these objects as simple physical and chemical things? When describing a painting by Raphael, or a statue of Venus, or an Egyptian pyramid, or an Eskimo hut, do we mean their chemical composition, or their specific gravity, or temperature and other physical and chemical properties? The answer is clear and requires no comment. To put it in Kantian terms, one could say that the psyche is an a priori premise of social phenomena.
1. Features of social cognition, a concrete historical approach to social phenomena.
2. State, its features.
1, Cognition is the process of human activity, the main content of which is the reflection of objective reality in his mind, and the result is the acquisition of new knowledge about the world around him. In the process of cognition, there are always two sides: the subject of cognition and the object of cognition. In a narrow sense, the subject of cognition usually means a cognizing person endowed with will and consciousness, in a broad sense - the whole society. The object of cognition, respectively, is either a cognizable object, or, in a broad sense, the entire surrounding world within the boundaries in which individuals and society as a whole interact with it.
The main feature of social cognition as one of the types of cognitive activity is the coincidence of the subject and object of cognition. In the course of social cognition, society cognizes itself. Such a coincidence of the subject and object of cognition has a huge impact on both the process of cognition itself and its results. The resulting social knowledge will always be associated with the interests of individuals - subjects of knowledge, and this circumstance largely explains the presence of different * often opposite conclusions and assessments that arise in the study of the same social phenomena. Social cognition begins with the establishment of social facts. There are three types of such facts: 1) actions or deeds of individual individuals or large social groups; 2) products of material or spiritual activity of people; 3) verbal social facts: opinions, judgments, assessments of people. The selection and interpretation (i.e., explanation) of these facts largely depend on the worldview of the researcher, the interests of the social group to which he belongs, and also on the tasks that he sets for himself. The goal of social cognition, as well as cognition in general, is to establish the truth. Truth is the correspondence of the acquired knowledge to the content of the object of knowledge. However, it is not easy to establish the truth in the process of social cognition, because: 1) the object of cognition, and it is society, is quite complex in its structure and is in constant development, which is influenced by both objective and subjective factors. Therefore, the establishment of social patterns is extremely difficult, and open social laws are of a probabilistic nature, because even similar historical events and phenomena are never completely repeated;
2) the possibility of using such a method of empirical research as an experiment is limited (it is practically impossible to reproduce the studied social phenomenon at the request of the researcher). Therefore, the most common method of social research is scientific abstraction. The main source of knowledge about society is social reality, practice. Since social life changes rather quickly, in the process of social cognition one can speak of the establishment of only relative truths.
Understanding and correctly describing the processes taking place in society, discovering the laws of social development is possible only when using a concrete historical approach to social phenomena. The main requirements of this approach are:
1) the study of not only the situation that has developed in society, but also the reasons that resulted from it; 2) consideration of social phenomena in their relationship and interaction with each other; 3) analysis of the interests and actions of all subjects of the historical process (both social groups and individuals). If in the process of cognition of social phenomena some stable and essential connections are found between them, then one usually speaks of the discovery of historical patterns. Historical regularities are common features that are inherent in a certain group of historical phenomena. The identification of such patterns on the basis of the study of specific social processes in specific societies in a certain historical period is the essence of the concrete historical approach and, ultimately, is the goal of social cognition.
2. The state is the most important institution of the political system of society. Political science has not yet reached a consensus on the definition of the concept of the state. Various theories bring to the fore one of the aspects of the social essence of the state: either serving the common good, the interests of society and the individual, or organized coercion, suppression by the exploiting classes of the speeches of the exploited. One of the most common is the idea of the state as a political-territorial sovereign
organization of power in society, which has a special apparatus for the implementation of its functions and is able to make its decrees obligatory for the population of the whole country. The state acts as a political, structural and territorial organization of society, as its original outer shell. Therefore, when it comes to the state, one must keep in mind not so much the state as a special apparatus, a kind of “machine”, but rather a state-organized society (or, in other words, a political, territorially and structurally organized form of society). The features of the state that distinguish it from pre-state (primitive communal, tribal) forms of society are:
1) the division of the population according to the territorial principle, which gives rise to such an institution as citizenship (citizenship); 2) the presence of a special public authority, separated
from society; 3) the presence of a special layer. category of people "professional comma controlled (bureaucracy); 4) taxes intended to ensure the implementation by the state of its functions; state attributes (anthem, coat of arms, flag). The features of the state that distinguish it from other political organizations of modern society (political parties, trade unions, etc.) are: 1) sovereignty (that is, the sovereignty of the state within the country and its independence in the international arena); 2) law-making (only the state can issue legal acts binding on the entire population of the country); 3) monopoly on the legal use of violence. The functions of the state are the main directions of its activity, expressing the essence of the state and corresponding to the main tasks of a certain historical stage of development. According to the object of influence, the functions of the state can be divided into internal and external. Internal include: economic (coordination of economic processes, and sometimes economic management),
social (organization of the social security system), cultural (formation of conditions for meeting the spiritual needs of the population), protective (maintenance of the stability of existing social relations, protection of human rights and freedoms, law enforcement). Among the external functions are the implementation of international cooperation and the organization of defense
states. Attempts to turn the state into a comprehensive system that completely controls the life of society lead to the establishment of totalitarian dictatorships, the enslavement of the individual by the all-powerful state. Therefore, in democratic societies, only the activities to protect the foundations of the existing order, the protection of the rights and freedoms of the individual should remain in the hands of the state. The state yields many of its functions to a self-governing and self-organizing civil society, "withdrawing" from the economy, social sphere, culture, losing its ideological and educational functions. New crisis moments in the development of the country (for example, during the years of economic recession, during social unrest and unrest), the state should come to the rescue, having a stabilizing external impact on social relations.
Ticket number 10
1. Spiritual production and spiritual consumption.
2. The political system of society, its structure.
1. Spiritual production is usually understood as
production of consciousness in a special social form, carried out by specialized groups
mi of people who are professionally engaged in skilled mental labor. Product
spiritual production are ideas, theories,
concepts, laws, spiritual values, as well as the in-
dividends and the social
connections. The hallmark of the spiritual
production lies in the fact that its product is
there are ideal formations that cannot be
alienated from their direct producer.
Scientists distinguish three types of spiritual productions
1) science; 2) art; 3) religion.
Some philosophers tend to add to them
also morality, politics and law. However, morality
given by society itself, and not invented by the profession
sionals. and public relations arising from me-
waiting for individuals as a result of political and legal
howling activities of individual members of society, hardly
can be called spiritual. However, this
pros is still debatable*
The most important type of spiritual production is
there is science. Science is called theoretically
systematic view of the world around
reproducing its essential aspects in the abstract
logical form and data-based
scientific research.
In the early stages of its existence, science
did not have any significant effect on
development of society / However, over time,
the stance has changed. Around the 19th century science begins
play a significant role, ahead of the development of material
industrial production, which in turn changes
nyatsya in accordance with the logic of the development of science.
Science becomes a special kind of spiritual production
stva. whose products predetermine the appearance
new branches of material production (chi-
missions, radio engineering, rocket science, electronics,
nuclear industry, etc.). a huge role
acquire the so-called scientific models of general
natural development, through which society
gets the opportunity without resorting to such methods
knowledge as an experiment, to determine goals and
control of its development.
Another important type of spiritual production
wa is art. Art is specific"
some form of social consciousness and human
activity, which is a reflection
understanding of the surrounding reality in art
images. Creating artistic images * co-
which, with a certain degree of conventionality, can be
equal to scientific models, experimenting with
we use our own imagination, people
can better understand themselves and the world in which they live
wut. Through art, artists, writers,
sculptors often reproduce hidden, imperceptible
nye, but very significant aspects of the surrounding
reality.
As far as religion is concerned as a kind of spiritual pro-
production, then the theories created with its help and
ideas played a big role in the development of society before
de all in the early, pre-scientific stages of its development,
shaping people's abstract thinking * way-
the ability to isolate the general and the special in the surrounding
the world. However, emerging within the framework of religious
views of spiritual values and developing on
based on them, public relations play an important role in
life of many societies and individuals.
Spiritual consumption is a satisfaction
meeting the spiritual needs of man:
cognitive, aesthetic need to exchange
ideals and values.
The main property of spiritual consumption, from
that distinguishes him from the material, is his universal
shchy character. In contrast to tangible
stei, the size of which is limited, spiritual values
do not decrease in proportion to the number of
Trubetskoy, P.A. Florensky, S.L. Frank...) who made up the course of God-seeking with its characteristic irrationalism, personalism and mystical understanding of freedom and creativity. It is impossible not to mention GV Plekhanov Ticket 8 1. Philosophy of Hegel. The first expounded the principle of the dialectical method. The true significance and revolutionary character of Hegelian philosophy consisted in the fact that it dealt with...
The social contract of T. Hobbes, J. Locke, J.-J. Rousseau, the economic doctrine of A. Smith, the theories of utopian socialists, the sociological doctrine of O. Comte, Marxist theory). e) Social science of the 20th century (M. Weber's theory of values, technocracy, existentialism). 2. Social sciences: a) sociology, b) political science, c) cultural studies, d) history, e) religious studies, f) economics and ...
Cognition is the process of human activity, the main content of which is the reflection of objective reality in his mind, and the result is the acquisition of new knowledge about the world around him. In the process of cognition, there are always two sides: the subject of cognition and the object of cognition. In a narrow sense, the subject of cognition usually means a cognizing person endowed with will and consciousness, in a broad sense - the whole society. The object of cognition, respectively, is either a cognizable object, or, in a broad sense, the entire surrounding world within the boundaries in which individuals and society as a whole interact with it.
The main feature of social cognition as one of the types of cognitive activity is the coincidence of the subject and object of cognition. In the course of social cognition, society cognizes itself. Such a coincidence of the subject and object of cognition has a huge impact on both the process of cognition itself and its results. The resulting social knowledge will always be associated with the interests of individuals - the subjects of knowledge, and this circumstance largely explains the presence of different, often opposite conclusions and assessments that arise in the study of the same social phenomena. Social cognition begins with the establishment of social facts. There are three types of such facts:
1) actions or deeds of individuals or large social groups;
2) products of material or spiritual activity of people;
3) verbal social facts: opinions, judgments, assessments of people.
The selection and interpretation (i.e., explanation) of these facts largely depend on the worldview of the researcher, the interests of the social group to which he belongs, and also on the tasks that he sets for himself.
The goal of social cognition, as well as cognition in general, is to establish the truth. Truth is the correspondence of the acquired knowledge to the content of the object of knowledge. However, it is not easy to establish the truth in the process of social cognition, because:
1) the object of knowledge, and it is society, is quite complex in its structure and is in constant development, which is influenced by both objective and subjective factors. Therefore, the establishment of social patterns is extremely difficult, and open social laws are of a probabilistic nature, because even similar historical events and phenomena are never completely repeated;
2) the possibility of using such a method of empirical research as an experiment is limited (it is practically impossible to reproduce the studied social phenomenon at the request of the researcher). Therefore, the most common method of social research is scientific abstraction.
The main source of knowledge about society is social reality, practice. Since social life changes rather quickly, in the process of social cognition one can speak of the establishment of only relative truths.
Understanding and correctly describing the processes taking place in society, discovering the laws of social development is possible only when using a concrete historical approach to social phenomena. The main requirements of this approach are:
1) the study of not only the situation that has developed in society, but also the reasons that resulted from it;
2) consideration of social phenomena in their relationship and interaction with each other;
3) analysis of the interests and actions of all subjects of the historical process (both social groups and individuals).
If in the process of cognition of social phenomena some stable and essential connections are found between them, then one usually speaks of the discovery of historical patterns. Historical patterns are called common features that are inherent in a certain group of historical phenomena. The identification of such patterns on the basis of the study of specific social processes in specific societies in a certain historical period is the essence of the concrete historical approach and, ultimately, is the goal of social cognition.
