Theme "Basic sociological concepts of the development of society"
Performed
Student gr.EMS 07-A
Aliyeva Gulizar
Checked
Kokorskaya O.I.
Society is a unique way of organizing social ties and interaction between people, ensuring the satisfaction of their basic needs; self-sufficient, self-organized and self-reproducing.
There are two main theories of the development of society: the theory of linear development and the theory of cyclic development of society.
Let us consider the basic concepts of the theory of linear development.
- Marxist theory of the change of socio-economic formations.
- Theory of post-industrial society.
However, the very term "post-industrial society" appeared in the United States as early as the 1950s, when it became clear that American mid-century capitalism differed in many ways from the industrial capitalism that existed before the Great Crisis of 1929-1933.
The capitalism of the 50s was no longer similar to the classical American and European capitalism of the beginning of the century, which Marx wrote about - the urban society could no longer be strictly divided into the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, because the well-being of the ordinary worker grew, and, moreover, the average a class consisting of people occupying fairly prestigious positions in society, who, at the same time, could not be attributed to either the ruling or the oppressed class. At the same time, the growth of production caused the expansion of corporations. If at the beginning of the century corporations were engaged only in large-scale production (railroads, oil production and refining), then in the second half of the century they captured even those sectors of the economy that were traditionally occupied by private owners or small firms. The largest transnational corporations also began to appear. At the same time, the technology used in production became more and more complex, which created a need for qualified personnel and increased the value of scientific knowledge.
Since the late 60s, the term “post-industrial society” has been filled with new content - the prestige of education has increased, a whole layer of qualified specialists, managers, and people of mental labor has appeared. The sphere of services, science, education gradually begins to prevail over industry and agriculture, where scientific knowledge is also actively used. In the 1950s and 1970s, it became obvious that humanity was entering a new era.
The transition to a new type of society - post-industrial - takes place in the last third of the 20th century. Society is already provided with food and goods, and various services are coming to the fore, mainly related to the accumulation and dissemination of knowledge. And as a result of the scientific and technological revolution, science turned into a direct productive force, which became the main factor in the development of society and its self-preservation.
Along with this, a person has more free time, and, consequently, opportunities for creativity, self-realization. However, one should not think that in the near future technology will finally free a person from work. With the advent of automation, production has become more efficient, and now, instead of turning the handle of the machine itself, a person stands behind the console and sets a program for several machines at once. This caused changes in the social sphere - to work at an enterprise where automation is used, not workers with secondary education are needed, but less numerous, but qualified specialists. Hence the increased prestige of education and the growing size of the middle class.
At this time, technical developments are becoming more science-intensive, theoretical knowledge is of the greatest importance. The dissemination of this knowledge is ensured by a super-developed network of communications.
Bell formulated the main features of such a society: the creation of a service economy, the dominance of a layer of scientific and technical specialists, the central role of theoretical scientific knowledge as a source of innovation and political decisions in society, the possibility of self-sustaining technological growth, the creation of a new "intelligent" technology. Analyzing the new features in the economy, Bell concluded that the society is undergoing a transition from the industrial stage of development to the post-industrial one, with a predominance in the economy not of the manufacturing sector, but of the service sector.
The theory of post-industrial society was later developed in the works of Z. Brzezinski, J. Galbraith, E. Toffler and others. In the 1990s, many researchers associated the concept of post-industrial society with the concept of the information society, and sometimes these concepts are considered as synonyms.
Considering this concept, it is always necessary to remember two very important details: Firstly, Bell predicted the emergence of a new type of society, and did not explore the ready-made "post-industrial society", and, secondly, the concept of a post-industrial society describes countries with developed economies - the United States, countries west and Japan, and, to be stricter, only the USA.
The theory of post-industrial society has now become the main alternative to the traditional Marxist doctrine of society, so these two opposing concepts will be compared throughout the work.
- The theory of modernization.
There are different interpretations of the concept of modernization. P. Sztompka distinguishes three meanings of this concept. According to him, in the first, general sense, modernization is a synonym for all progressive social changes when society moves forward. In this sense, the exit from the caves and the construction of the first shelters is as clear an example of modernization as the arrival of cars to replace horse-drawn carts or computers to replace typewriters. However, he believes that, in relation to the theory of modernization, the following two interpretations of this concept are closer: in the first sense, the concept of "modernization" is identical to the concept of "modernity" and means a complex of social, political, economic, cultural and intellectual transformations that have taken place in the West since the 16th century and reached its apogee in the XIX-XX centuries. This includes the processes of industrialization, urbanization, rationalization, bureaucratization, democratization, the dominant influence of capitalism, the spread of individualism and motivation for success, the establishment of reason and science, etc. Modernization in this sense means the achievement of modernity, "the process of transforming a traditional or pre-technological society, as it transforms, into a society characterized by machine technology, rational and secular relations, and highly differentiated social structures." The classic sociological works on modernization in this sense are those of Comte, Spencer, Marx, Weber, Durkheim, and Tennis.
In the second sense, the term "modernization" refers to backward or underdeveloped societies and describes their efforts to catch up with the leading, most developed countries that coexist with them in the same historical time, within a single global society. In other words, in this case, the concept of "modernization" describes the movement from the periphery to the center of modern society. In its most general form, modernization is characterized as a socio-historical process during which traditional societies become progressive, industrialized.
In general, modernization is defined as a transition from a traditional society to a modern one, which, according to V. Fedotova, includes, first of all, a fundamental difference from the traditional one, i.e. orientation towards innovation, the predominance of innovation over tradition, the secular nature of social life, progressive (non-cyclical) development, a distinguished personality, a predominant orientation towards instrumental values, an industrial character, mass education, an active, active psychological warehouse, etc.
From its inception to the present, modernization theory has evolved and gone through a number of stages. The period of popularity of this theory in their classical, original form falls on the 50s and mid-60s. of the last century in connection with the works of M. Levy, E. Hagen, T. Parsons, S. Eisenstadt, D. Epter and others. The concepts of “tradition” (“traditional society”) and “modernity” became the fundamental categories in the theories of modernization. modern society"). The essence of this theory at the initial stages of its formation was reduced to the interpretation of these categories as absolute opposites. Modernization was presented as a process of displacement of tradition by modernity, or an ascending development from a traditional society to a modern one. In the initial theories of modernization, the process of transition from a traditional society to a modern one was characterized as revolutionary, i.e. it was believed that the transition from tradition to modernity requires fundamental, radical changes in the models of social life; complex, i.e. includes changes in all areas of human thought and behavior without exception; systemic, i.e. changes in one area necessarily cause changes in other areas; global, i.e. having originated in Europe in the 15th-16th centuries, over time it covered all countries of the world; long, i.e. has an extension in time, and the pace of this process is accelerating; phased; generating convergence of social systems: since modern societies, unlike heterogeneous traditional ones, have a number of similar characteristics, the advancement of traditional societies to modernity will be accompanied by the leveling of their cultural systems; irreversible: it was believed that the direction of change for all types of society would be the same; progressive, i.e. contributes to the improvement of the material and cultural well-being of a person, etc. O.A. Osipova notes that at the first stages of the formation of the theory of modernization, scientific views on tradition, in essence, differed little from the interpretation of tradition by scientists of the 19th century. Tradition, with rare exceptions, has been treated as a brake on history, as an exclusively conservative force that opposes innovation and which, therefore, must be overcome and broken in order to provide conditions for the introduction of everything new.
In the late 50s, and especially since the mid-60s. criticism of early modernization theories began to grow, which gradually undermined most of the provisions put forward in them. The main focus of this criticism has been the failure to explain the diversity of transitional societies, their inherent internal dynamics, as well as the possibility of independent development of modern differentiated political and economic complexes.
Criticism of early approaches to modernization was directed against the tradition-modernity dichotomy, including the identification of the non-historical and Western-centric nature of this model.
In the first half of the 60s. A number of regional sociological and political studies were published on various aspects of modernization in the countries of the East. Among the works it is necessary to mention the studies of K. Geertz, M. Singer, M. Levy, D. Epter and others. called into question the basic provisions of the initial theories of modernization. This circumstance made it possible to say that the modernization of a traditional society can proceed within the framework of a national tradition and should not inevitably and in all cases be accompanied by its radical breaking, as previously stated. The attention of scientists was attracted by the question of what exactly in a particular tradition hinders and what contributes to the process of modernization. An important consideration that significantly enriched the scientific ideas of that period was the thesis about the systemic viability of the so-called transitional systems. Tradition, under the pressure of the forces of modernity, did not give up its positions, as expected; it has shown considerable adaptive capacity, giving rise to specifically national forms of modernization. This idea was confirmed by the works of F. Riggs, M. Singer, D. Levin, K. Geertz, who showed how traditional institutions and social groups, being reorganized, effectively adapt to changing conditions.
In the 60-70s. the idea of modernization continues to be criticized both from an empirical point of view, since many of its statements contradicted obvious historical facts, and from a theoretical point of view. It was noted that attempts to modernize society most often do not lead to the promised results. Poverty in the backward countries has increased, but there have been many other side effects. The destruction of traditional institutions and ways of life often led to social disorganization, chaos and anomie, the growth of deviant behavior and crime. Critics have pointed out the fallacy of direct opposition between tradition and modernity and have cited examples of advantages in some areas. Not only do modern societies include many traditional elements, but traditional societies, in turn, often have features that are usually considered modern. In addition, modernization can strengthen tradition (S. Huntington, Z. Bauman). Traditional symbols and forms of leadership can be a vital part of the value system on which modernization is based (J. Gasfield). Opponents of the theory of modernization and noted the great role of the external, global context and internal causes. The strict sequence of stages of modernization was also questioned: “Those that came later can modernize quickly thanks to revolutionary means, as well as the experience and technologies that they borrow from their predecessors. Thus, the whole process can be shortened. The assumption of a strict sequence of phases (preliminary state, initial phase, transition to maturity, etc.) that all societies must go through seems to be wrong ”(S. Huntington, D. Bell).
Thus, in the second half of the 80s. the concept of “modernization bypassing modernity” is finally taking shape - modernization, while preserving the national culture without rigidly imposing Western values on society (A. Abdel-Malek, A. Touren, S. Eisenstadt). As A. Touraine noted, the real course of modernization has recently been refuted by liberal-rationalist universalism, which believed that modernization is promoted by Reason itself, science, technology, through the development of the education system. But it is not particularism - "belief in a special way" for each country - that is being replaced, but a synthesis of universalism and particularism. The search for such a synthesis is becoming the main problem in the development strategy of many countries, since the imbalance between modernity and traditionalism leads to the failure of transformations and acute social conflicts. According to Touraine, the fate of the world depends on whether a bridge will be built between Reason and cultures, modernity and the national and cultural identity of peoples, between development as a universal goal and culture as a value choice, economic development and social transformations.
Seemingly somewhat outdated, the theory of modernization since the 80s. is reborn again. Interest in it intensifies with the collapse of the communist bloc and their transition to the capitalist path of development. In response to the call to revive modernization studies (Sh. Eisenstadt, M. Levy), "theories of neomodernization"(E. Tirikyan), "theories of postmodernization"(J.Alexander), theories of ecological modernization(E. Giddens, W. Beck). The reanimated and revised theory of modernization took into account the experience of the post-communist world and really modified and softened its key concepts. (P. Sztompka).
From the point of view of neo-modernization, modernization is seen as a historically limited process that legitimizes the institutions and values of modernity: democracy, the market, education, sound administration, self-discipline, work ethic, etc. .
R. Inglehart, noting industrialization, urbanization, the growth of professional specialization and an increase in the levels of formal education in any society as key aspects of modernization, believes that in recent decades, mature industrial societies have reached a turning point in their development and began to move in a new direction, which can be called "postmodernization". According to him, postmodernization changes the nature of the basic norms of political, labor, religious, family, and sexual life. “Nevertheless, this term is important,” he writes, “because it contains a certain conceptual meaning, according to which the process called modernization is no longer the most recent event in the modern history of mankind and social transformations are developing today in a completely different direction. ". According to scientists, postmodernization provides for the abandonment of the emphasis on economic efficiency, bureaucratic power structures and scientific rationalism, which were characteristic of modernization, and marks the transition to a more humane society, where the autonomy, diversity and self-expression of the individual is given great scope.
An important place in the study of the theory of modernization is the theory of ecological modernization, which originated in the 80s. and is currently developing in Western science within the framework of the socio-ecological tradition. In the post-Soviet space, this theory is represented by the works of O. Yanitsky and I. Kulyasov. One of the first to develop this theory was the Dutch sociologist A. Mol, who argues that this theory aims to understand and interpret how a modern industrial society copes with the environmental crisis.
The most important theories of this kind are the theory of late modernity by E. Giddens and the theory of reflexive modernization and the risk society of W. Beck. In their works, the environmental factor is shown as currently playing a decisive role in social development. Both authors consider the interaction of nature and society, first of all, as producing constant risks. E. Giddens argued with those who believed that modern society is a postmodern or other “post”, considering the modern era as a radicalized or universalized modernity, which may be followed by postmodernity, which will be something different from how it was represented by scientists before Giddens. E. Giddens identifies three main features that determine the nature of modern society from the pre-modern one: 1) it is the many times increased rate of change in social processes, especially the rate of change in technology; 2) it is the involvement of socially and informationally different regions of the world into interaction with each other, which ultimately resulted in the process of globalization; 3) changing the internal nature of modern institutions. According to the theories of ecological modernization, the change in technology and technology causes not only the acceleration of social processes, but also environmental ones. Globalization promotes the spread of ecological modernization. The views of W. Beck, who paid special attention to environmental risks, are close to Giddens's views on the place of risk in modern society. Both of these researchers emphasized that nature ceases to be a natural frame for social systems, i.e. can no longer be considered as an “environment”, turning into a “created environment” for human habitation and life. The modern era is coming to the “end of nature” in the sense that it is losing the property of appearance in relation to man and society, and is increasingly turning into a system structured by man and subordinated in its development to the requirements of social organization and social knowledge. Thus, according to Giddens and Beck, in the context of late modernity, the division into natural and social environments loses its meaning. Society with all its systems - economic, political, family cultural - cannot be perceived as autonomous from the environment. Ecological problems do not become environmental problems, but in their genesis and consequences, they are entirely social problems.
Since the emergence of the theory of modernization, its creators have adopted an interdisciplinary approach to explaining and justifying social development. Within the framework of this theory, representatives of various sciences - sociologists, economists, ethnologists, political scientists, social psychologists, ecologists - tried to unite. It was this union that allowed this theory to become a very influential trend in socio-theoretical thought.
Modernization involves social, economic, political, environmental, demographic, psychological changes undergone by a traditional society in the process of its transformation into a modern society.
There are a number of criteria for modernization in various sectors of public life. For example, in the social sphere, the individual rather than the group is increasingly becoming the basic social unit; differentiation occurs - the transfer of individual functions that previously belonged to the family to specialized social institutions; formalization - an approach to social institutions as acting on the basis of abstract and universal laws and rules, assuming the dominant position of science and experts; separation of spheres of private and public life; weakening family ties; growth of professional specialization; the growth of formal education, the improvement of the quality of life; in demographic terms - a decrease in the birth rate, an increase in the continuation of life, an increase in the urban population and a decrease in the rural one. In the economic sphere - technological development based on the use of scientific (rational) knowledge, the emergence of secondary (industry, trade) and tertiary (services) sectors of the economy, deepening the social and technical division of labor, developing markets for goods, money and labor, ensuring sustainable economic growth ; in the political - the formation of centralized states; separation of powers; an increase in the political activity of the masses; formation, development and dissemination of modern institutions and practices, as well as a modern political structure. The experience of modernizing countries has shown that institutions and practices can either correspond to modern Western models or differ from them. Thus, modern political institutions should be understood not as a cast from the political institutions of developed democracies, but as those political institutions and practices that are most capable of ensuring an adequate response and adaptation of the political system to the changing conditions and challenges of our time.
In the spiritual field, there are changes in the value orientations of social groups, there is a need to master new values that correspond to modern realities, the secularization of education and the spread of literacy, the diversity of trends in philosophy and science, religious pluralism, the development of means of disseminating information, familiarizing large groups of the population with the achievements of culture.
Culture is one of the important points in the study of modernization processes. It pervades every aspect of social life. Equally important in the process of modernization is the replacement of obsolete cultural habits and customs with new and productive cultural value systems. A.P. Manchenko proposes the concept of “culture shock”, which he defines as a rapid and deep process of changes in economic, social, political and ideological structures and relations, during which most of the previously established values, concepts, norms of behavior and lines of thought suddenly become obsolete and unnecessary . One of the widely studied problems of modernization is the problem of the conflict of values. It is recognized that many values of Western culture do not fit and therefore do not coexist in some cultural environments. Individualism is in some cases recognized as a purely Western product. In this regard, it is of interest to study the problem of "modern personality" by Western scientists.
The impact on a person of the processes of modernity is also formed in him by personal attitudes, qualities, values, habits, which are prerequisites for the effective functioning of modern society. Some authors tried to highlight the "personality syndrome", "modern mentality" (R. Bella) or the model of "modern man" (A. Inkeles). The classic study on this issue was carried out in the 70s. under the auspices of the Harvard Project on Social and Cultural Aspects of Development. A comparative study of six countries - Argentina, Chile, India, Israel, Nigeria and Pakistan - made it possible to build an analytical model of the modern personality. The following qualities were identified: openness to experimentation, innovation and change; readiness for pluralism of opinions and even for the approval of this pluralism; focus on the present and future, not on the past; saving time, punctuality; confidence in the ability to organize life in such a way as to overcome the obstacles it creates; planning future actions to achieve the intended goals in both public and private life; belief in the controllability and predictability of social life (economic laws, trade rules, government policies) that allow actions to be calculated; a sense of fair distribution, i.e. belief that reward does not depend on chance, but, where possible, corresponds to skill and contribution; the high value of formal education and training; respect for the dignity of others, including those of lower status or less power.
“For modernization theorists,” writes V. Rukavishnikov, “modern man” is, in fact, none other than a representative of Western culture - an independently thinking, socially and politically active individualist who independently achieves success in life (“ self-made man") and recognizing the right of others to act in a similar way, competing with them for a place at the pinnacle of income and power.
There are various typologies of modernization. In the most general terms, experts distinguish between two main types of modernization: organic and inorganic
etc.................
In modern sociology, there are various approaches to the study of society: determinism, functionalism , interactionism, conflict paradigm .
Deterministic methodology proposed by K. Marx. Society, according to K. Marx, is a special social form of the movement of matter, subject to the objective laws of functioning and development. The social essence of man lies in the fact that he is the totality of all social relations. K. Marx developed the doctrine of socio-economic formations as steps in the social progress of mankind. The backbone element of the social formation is the mode of production. It determines the functioning of other subsystems. Economics, law, politics, ideology are interconnected. Society is constantly changing and is in continuous progressive development.
Functionalists consider society as a stable and orderly system, the stability of which is achieved through common values, beliefs, and social expectations (D. Kendall). The main ideas of this school were formulated by O. Comte, G. Spencer and E. Durkheim and developed by A. Radcliffe Brown, R. Merton and T. Parsons.
G. Spencer represented society as an organism that includes various "organs" - politics, religion, economics, culture. Each part performs a clearly defined function. Their harmonious functioning ensures social needs, the consistency of the interaction of subsystems of society, which contributes to the preservation of its value and the reproduction of the human race. Violations are possible in the life of social systems. To eliminate them, institutions of social control are needed: the state, the church, morality, education, upbringing.
Modern functionalists interpret society not as an organism, but as a system, but also focus on the functions of various elements of the social system.
R. Merton introduces the concept of "explicit" and "latent" functions of a social phenomenon. "Explicit" - those that are known to the participants, "latent" - not realized by them. A sociological study of society, a social phenomenon or process should pay special attention to revealing the hidden, implicit functions of social relations and institutions. R. Merton introduced the concept "dysfunction" to determine the disintegrating processes and trends characteristic of modern society that threaten the unity, stability and normative order of society.
According to T. Parsons , any system contains two fundamental “orientation axes”: “internal – external” and “instrumental – consummatory”. Superimposing them on each other allows us to build a theoretical matrix that includes the categories of adaptation, goal achievement, integration and reproduction of the structure.
Interactionism(the concept of action) studies the micro-level of social life, the role of specific interpersonal interactions and the functioning of the structures of the social world. J. Homans and P. Blau developed the theory of social exchange. J. Mead and G. Bloomer - the concept of symbolic interactionism.
According to theories of social exchange , individuals enter into social relationships because they need various types of rewards - social approval, respect, status, authority, etc. They can get them only by interacting with other people. Often in the process of interaction, relations are unequal: those who have the means to satisfy the needs of others can use them to gain power over them.
Representatives of symbolic interactionism believe that human behavior is determined by society as a set of interindividual relations, and not by the needs, interests, individual inclinations and drives of the individual. They consider the whole variety of human connections with things, nature, other people, groups of people and society as a whole as connections mediated by symbols. They define social activity as a set of social roles fixed in a system of linguistic and other symbols.
Supporters conflict paradigm recognize the role and influence of social structures, but it is the conflict, and its cohesion is considered to personify the relationship between different groups in society. The struggle for power, for the redistribution of power and authority, not necessarily manifested openly, is inevitable, constant and inherent in any society (R. Dahrendorf) . Society is characterized by inequality not only in the political, but also in the economic and social spheres. Social life is a constant struggle between different social groups for resources, against inequality.
In a society as a social system, many complex processes must take place in order for it to continue to function as before. These processes lead to its change and development. Evolutionism - as a system of views, recognizing the objective nature of social development, originating in the studies of Charles Darwin. The main problem in evolutionism as an approach to understanding the phenomena of the development of society was the identification of the determining factor, the modification of which leads to a change in the entire image of society. Auguste Comte introduced the term "sociology" (the study of society) into science. Comte posed and solved the problem of the functioning and development of society as an integral social organism. he formulated "the great basic law of the intellectual evolution of mankind". human history has passed through three stages of its development: theological, metaphysical and positive. On the first, religious mythological consciousness dominates, on the basis of which people's attitude to the outside world was formed, their morality was formed. On the metaphysical, human consciousness operates with concepts that reflect the real processes of people's lives. At the positive stage, human consciousness proceeds in its judgments and conclusions primarily from scientific observations. An important place in Comte's social philosophy is occupied by solving the problems of harmonization "between the whole and parts of the social system", in the development of society and achieving its stability. L. Ward("Dynamic Sociology", "Psychic Factors of Civilization", "Essays on Sociology" and others), he tries to reveal the psychological causes of people's activities and behavior and thereby substantiate the psychological mechanisms of the development of society. In his opinion, his desires act as the initial cause of the activity of any subject. highlights primary desires (satisfaction of people's needs for food, warmth, procreation). On their basis, more complex desires of people are formed (in creative activity, civil freedom, as well as moral, aesthetic and religious desires). main task P. Lavrov and N. Mikhailovsky seen in the study of the motives of the activities of individuals and their moral ideals. Sociology, in their opinion, studies and groups recurring facts
solidarity between people and seeks to discover the laws of their solidarity actions. It is important that society in its development creates the necessary conditions for the development of all individuals. This is the criterion of social progress, which is fair and moral. Windelband and Rickert (Neo-Kantians). The essence of social philosophy was seen in exploring the methods of cognition and interpretation of historical events that make up the cultural life of the peoples of different countries and historical eras. values are of a suprahistorical nature and in their totality form an ideal, independent of people, eternal transcendent (other) world. Social philosophy acts as a doctrine of values, revealing their nature and essence, as well as their meaning and embodiment in the life and activities of people. The spiritual principle is proclaimed to be the main one in the history of society. M. Weber ("Economy and Society") believed that social philosophy should primarily study the behavior and activities of people, whether it be an individual or a group, designed to explore the relationship of all spheres of human activity - economic, legal, moral, religious, etc. Society appears as the interaction of individuals and social groups based on the coordination of their interests, language, religion, morality. The most important place in Weber's social philosophy is occupied by the concept of ideal types (a certain ideal model of what is most useful to a person, objectively meets his interests). G. Spencer sees the essence of the evolution of society in its complication, strengthening its differentiation. E. Durkheim considered evolution as a transition from mechanical solidarity, based on the underdevelopment and similarity of individuals and their social functions, to organic solidarity, arising on the basis of the division of labor and social differentiation, which leads to the integration of people into a single social organism and is the highest moral principle of society . K. Marx considered the productive forces of society as the determining factor of social development, the growth of which leads to a change in the mode of production. The progress of society is possible only on the basis of a radical renewal of the mode of production, and new economic and political structures can only appear as a result of a social revolution. Spengler and Toibi - the theory of cyclic development.
Question 40. Institute of public opinion, its functions.
Public opinion- this is the attitude of social communities to the problems of public life, manifested first in emotions and judgments, and then in actions.
The following functions of public opinion as a social institution are distinguished:
1) regulatory- Public opinion regulates not only relations between individuals, individuals and collectives, collectives and society, but also economic, political, moral and other relations in society;
2) control- Supervises the activities of government and administration.
3) protective Public opinion "takes under its protection" individuals or official institutions
4) advisory Public opinion can give advice, recommendations to various social institutions on the choice of ways to solve certain problems;
5) directive Through a referendum or through direct pressure, public opinion indicates the way in which policies can be carried out with respect to certain issues that are at the center of public attention.
Question 41. The social structure of society.
The social structure of society is a set of interconnected and interacting social communities and groups, social institutions, social statuses and relations between them. All elements of the social structure interact as a single social organism.
Elements of social structure:
1) Ethnic structure (clan, tribe, nationality, nation)
2) Demographic structure (groups are distinguished by age and gender)
3) Settlement structure (urban, rural)
4) Class structure (bourgeoisie, proletariat, peasants)
The essence of the social structure of society is most fully expressed in its general features, which include:
The variety of social elements that form the social structure of society (social institution, social group, social community, etc.);
Different degree of influence of each constituent element of the social structure of society on social processes and phenomena, the difference in their social roles;
The presence of relatively stable links between the constituent elements of the social structure of society.
Multifunctionality and stability - each element of the social structure of society performs its own specific functions, which are different from the roles of other social elements.
Question 42. Object and subject of sociology, its mission.
Sociology- it is a science that studies society as a whole, trends and patterns, the formation, functioning and development of various social formations.
The object of sociology - society as a whole.
The subject of sociology - concept, a scheme of social reality, in which its main elements are brought into the system and logically derived from each other.
Functions of sociology:
1) Theoretical-cognitive - allowing to expand and concretize knowledge about the essence of society
2) Practical-political - allow to develop recommendations and proposals for policy and practice.
3) Ideological and educational - manifested in the fact that sociology studies the spiritual world of society, its value and behavioral guidelines, the transformation of which directly affects the historical process.
4) Prognostic - is to determine the state of society and predict its future development, which is especially important in the modern dynamic era, characterized by a rapid change in paradigms, values, ideals, etc.
Question 43. Sociological concepts of society and their creators.
Representatives organic school, which arose at an early stage of the existence of sociology as an independent science (G. Spencer, A. Scheffle, A. Espinas and others), interpreted social reality as a kind of organism that works by analogy with the biological. They argued that in society, as in the body, each element performs its necessary and irreplaceable function.
Functionalism- the direction, the foundations of which were laid by the French sociologist E. Durkheim. Durkheim proposed his own paradigm of understanding society as a powerful special reality standing above the individual, irreducible to any other - be it physical, psychological or economic - and possessing an irresistible force of coercion in relation to the individual. The basis of society, according to Durkheim, is irreducible, i.e. indecomposable into simpler elements, a social fact.
In the future, the ideas of functionalism were developed within the framework of structural functionalism T. Parsons, who considered society as a system consisting of subsystems. The essence of the functionalist paradigm is the vision of society as a self-reproducing whole, asserting itself in this capacity, resisting the destructive influence of the external environment.
Integrative understanding of society P. Sorokin adjoins the functional approach, but Sorokin bases his vision of society on the concept of social interaction, defining it through the concept of functional dependence: “... When a change in the mental experiences or external acts of one individual is caused by the experiences or external acts of another individual, when between there is a functional connection between the two, then we say that these individuals interact. Social interaction for Sorokin acts as an initial social cell from which one can begin the study of social reality. But social reality as a whole is made up of the presence of individuals, the mutual conditioning of their actions, and the transmission of stimuli and reactions to them from one individual to another. All this forms the structural elements of interaction.
Conflict approach to the understanding of society is based on the idea of the dynamic nature of social reality. If functionalists consider society to be a closed system, which in itself strives for peace and balance and has the ability to spontaneously restore them, then for conflictologists the essence of the social is a struggle, an ongoing conflict, as a result of which society never comes to a calm state, but is always riddled with conflicts of different significance and scale - from individual to class.
Methods of social differentiation in the study of society, they are guided by the primacy of individuals and social interaction over the whole. G. Simmel, who completely reduced society to the interaction of individuals, should be mentioned as one of the predecessors of the founders of this approach. In Simmel's view, social action is conditioned by individual motivation - personal interests, drives and needs of individuals.
VITEBSK STATE PEDAGOGICAL UNIVERSITY NAMED AFTER P.M. MASHEROV
abstract
Topic: "Basic sociological concepts of personality"
Prepared by a 5th year student of FFKiS group 55 Kremenevskaya O.V.
INTRODUCTION
CONCLUSION
INTRODUCTION
The psychological trend in Russian sociology began to develop in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, being an expression of the general interest in the social sciences of that time in the problems of motivation and mechanisms of human behavior. The main principle shared by all supporters of this trend is the desire to reduce social phenomena to mental ones, to look for the key to explaining social phenomena and processes in the psychology of a person, groups and communities.
Scientists saw the main task of sociology in the study of personality in all its manifestations (biological, psychological, social) and, on this basis, in establishing the factors that contribute to the formation of its social image and ideal. All this they designated by the term "struggle for individuality". A comprehensive scientific analysis of personality problems led sociologists to the psychological foundation of sociology.
The formation of the views of scientists was influenced by the democratic ideas of Russian thinkers - the revolutionary democrats of the 60s. Of the founders of positivism, G. Spencer is especially famous with his concept of personality and the doctrine of evolution. It was Spencer's ideas that influenced the development of the psychological foundations of sociology by sociologists.
1. SOCIOLOGICAL CONCEPTS OF THE PERSON
Personality in sociology is considered as the integrity of the social properties of a person. It is a product of social development and develops in the process of including the individual in the system of social relations. The inclusion of the individual in this system occurs through active communication. A person, doing something, always enters into some kind of relationship with other people. Communicating, a person always satisfies some needs, does something. In other words, in the process of activity, relations are always formed that require the manifestation of certain qualities from a person. The totality of these inherently social qualities is defined as a personality.
Thus, the qualities that make up a person reflect the structure of society. Some qualities reflect the social order as a whole. Others - the class structure of society, the place that a given individual occupies in this structure. Still others - the professional structure of society, etc.
Sociological analysis singles out the socio-typical in the individual. There are three levels of such analysis.
Firstly, we can talk about the typical behavior of this or that person for some social group: a typical worker, a typical student, a typical Tatar, etc. Here, the criterion for determining personality is the presence of qualities necessary for successful functioning from the point of view of the group (Soviet human).
Secondly, sociologists are interested in the attitude of the individual to the group, its requirements. The criterion for determining personality is already different: how a person decides for himself the question of the relationship between the individual and society. It is possible to single out a normative type of personality, always trying to do the right thing, the right way, the way it is customary. Another type is a modal personality, acting according to circumstances, sometimes breaking the rules. There are deviant (deviant) personalities for whom the violation of the rules, social norms has become an end in itself, allowing this person to stand out, to show himself, opposing himself to the "crowd". The asocial type of personality is characterized by a sincere misunderstanding that, for a successful life among people, one must follow some norms. Such people do not seek to break norms in order to prove something to others or to themselves. But they do not violate the norms, justifying it with necessity. The asocial type simply does not notice the existence of norms that reflect the structure of society, the group in which he lives. He is "above it".
Thirdly, sociology pays much attention to how a person builds his relationship with society. In this regard, one can distinguish an authoritarian type of personality, which is characterized by individualism, the desire to oppose oneself to the "crowd". At the same time, communication, the desire to achieve your goals does not make it possible to ignore other people. Therefore, an authoritarian personality builds its relations with society, with other people on the principle of "domination - submission." If she cannot suppress, then she submits, not missing the opportunity, at the first opportunity, to take revenge and suppress those who "suppressed" her. This type mainly includes those who rise "from rags to riches." It would seem that the opposite type of personality is a conformist. A person of this type is prone to unquestioning obedience. He agrees with everyone and everything. It is clear that such an attitude to the problem of "I and society" rather implies disbelief in oneself, in one's abilities and opportunities to defend one's point of view, than a sincere desire to "live in harmony." Therefore, an authoritarian who does not have the ability to suppress others often behaves like a conformist. And vice versa, a conformist often turns out to be an authoritarian, accustomed to failures, although he has not parted with the dream of "winning back" for everything one day. Finally, there is a tolerant personality type. This is a person who willingly and without tension communicates with other people, but does not seek to please everyone and at any cost - which is typical for conformists - and does not strive for supremacy, to dominate others - which is typical for authoritarians. He communicates, pursuing his goals, interests. But such a person does not impose them on other people, recognizing their right to have their own goals and interests. This implies both respect for others and respect for oneself; both the requirement of self-respect from others, and the ability to respect others yourself, to take into account their opinions and interests, even when they are completely different from yours. Otherwise, using socio-political concepts, this type of personality can be called democratic.
These personality typologies do not coincide with each other. For example, in one society, the normative type of personality is most often both conformist or authoritarian, and in another - tolerant, democratic.
These typologies capture different aspects of the relationship between an individual and society, a group, in the process of which the result is achieved, represented by one or another type of personality. A person is "made" by a group, society. It is not a person who chooses what type of personality he is closer to, but society "educates" a certain type of personality. Much is determined by the position that a person occupies in society.
The palette of development of human problems in sociology is quite diverse. These are, first of all, theories of social action, dating back to M. Weber, and their further development by T. Parsons and other scientists. Considering individual human action as a self-organizing system, T. Parsons revealed its specificity as
a) symbolic, i.e. having symbolic mechanisms of regulation - language, value, etc.;
b) normative, i.e. dependent on generally accepted norms and values;
c) voluntaristic, that is, independent to some extent from environmental conditions, although dependent on subjective "definitions of the situation."
The study of the mechanisms of social action and interaction allowed T. Parsons and his followers to identify the structure of the so-called "need dispositions" of the subject of action or his motivational structure (cognitive, cathectic - the ability to distinguish between positive and negative values for the individual in a situation). Also, evaluative and value orientation as an area of not internal, but already external symbols that regulate the actions of all subjects of interaction. This, in turn, made it possible to show the inconsistency of ideas about the individual as completely independent of society or as rigidly culturally programmed.
T. Parsons also made a distinction between the concepts of a person as an integral biotechnological system, on the one hand, and a social figure as an abstract set of social roles, on the other hand. Thus, he formulated a model of the action system, which includes cultural, social, personal and organic subsystems that are in mutual exchange relations, which was one of the main theoretical achievements of T. Parsons.
CONCLUSION
The concept of personality is determined by a set of socially significant qualities that are formed in interaction with other people.
In sociology, the concept of personality means a stable system of socially significant features that determine the biosocial nature of a person and characterize an individual as a member of a particular community. It shows the transitions from the individual to the social and from social structure to interpersonal relationships and individual behavior.
Sociological approaches lie in the fact that the problem of personality is considered from different points of view, in particular, how a person is socialized under the influence of society.
Sociological concepts of personality unite a number of different theories that recognize the human personality as a specific formation, directly derived from certain social factors.
The basis of the psychological theory of personality in modern sociology is the psychological aspects of the assimilation of social roles by a person, used in American humanistic psychology, especially in the section of psychotherapy, for example:
1) transactional analysis (especially popular), which singled out the structural analysis of personality, the theory of games and scenarios: E. Bern, K. Steiner;
2) psychosynthesis (a combination of classical philosophy and psychological knowledge, including the provisions of existentialism, Freudianism, psychoanalysis, the teachings of Buddhism, yoga, Christianity).
3) rational-emotive therapy (A. Ellis) is built according to the classical formula: a person is upset not so much by this event as by the idea of it, and it is argued that the emotional reactions and life style of a person are associated with basic ideas.
The role theory of personality enjoys significant influence in the sociology of personality. The main provisions of this theory were formulated by G. Cooley, J. Mead, R. Linton, T. Parsons, R. Merton. The role theory of personality describes its social behavior with two main concepts: "social status" and "social role". Ya.L. Moreno, T. Parsons define personality as a function of the totality of social roles that an individual performs in society.
The concept of the distribution of roles in T. Parsons is their division into ascriptive, i.e. prescribed by nature (determined by birth, sex, age, social class, etc.) and attainable, i.e. dependent on the personal efforts of the individual. Since roles are associated with a person's stay in social groups, the personality is a derivative of the conditions accepted in the groups in which the individual is included. In the process of socialization, he learns ways to perform roles and thereby becomes a person. Common to the concept of role theory is that personality is the result of mastering the rules of life and behavior in society.
This excursion into history allows us to conclude that the concept of personality does not always play a central, but very important role in sociology. Regardless of whether we consider society as primary in relation to man or, on the contrary, see in man the “builder” of social reality, we cannot deny the fact that the individual as a bearer of biological and psychological characteristics is an obligatory substratum of the social.
behavior personality
LIST OF USED LITERATURE
1. Bogdanov V.A. Systemological modeling of personality in social psychology. Leningrad: publishing house of Leningrad State University, 1998.
2. Grishaev S.V., Nemirovskii V.G. Social portrait of a young entrepreneur // SotsIs., 1999, No. 5.
3. James W. Personality. // Psychology of Personality. Texts. / Ed. Yu.B. Gippenreiter, A.A. Bubble. M., 1982.
4. Dushatsky A.E. Value-normative; dominants of Russian entrepreneurs. // Socis., 1999. No. 7.
5. Inkels A. Personality and social structure. // Sociology today: problems and prospects. M., 1965.
6. Kon I.S. Sociology of personality. M., 1967.
7. Kravchenko S.A., Mnatsakanyan M.O., Pokrovsky N.E. Sociology: Paradigms and Topics: A Textbook for Higher Educational Institutions / Moscow State Institute of Intern. relations of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation (MGIMO-University). - M.: Publishing house "Ankil", 1997.
8. Kon I.S. People and Roles // New World. - 1970. - No. 12.
9. Kon I.S. Psychological sociology of the late XIX - early XX centuries. // History of sociology in Western Europe and the USA: Textbook for universities / Editorial staff: G.V. Osipov (editor-in-chief), L.G. Ionin, V.P. Kultygin; Institute of Social and Polit. research RAN. - M.: Publishing group NORMA-INFRA-M, 1999.
10. Cooley C. Primary groups // American sociological thought: R. Merton, J. Mead, T. Parsons, A. Schutz: Texts / Comp. E.I. Kravchenko: Ed. V.I. Dobrenkov. - M.: Publishing House of Moscow. un-ta, 1994.
Inkels A. Personality and social structure. // Sociology today: problems and prospects. M., 1965
Dushatsky A.E. Value-normative; dominants of Russian entrepreneurs. // Socis., 1999. No. 7.
Kon I.S. People and Roles // New World. - 1970. -№ 12
