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, 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 terms, 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 prevalence 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 modernization theories. 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. Girtz, 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 postmodern or another “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) this 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 type of society in the process of its transformation into a modern type of 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 copy of 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 information dissemination media, and the familiarization of 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.................
Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below
Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.
Hosted at http://www.allbest.ru/
1. The concept of sociology of the French thinkerE. Durkheim
At the end of the 19th century, the influence of Comte's positivism noticeably increased in various areas of the spiritual culture of France. The idea of sociology as an independent science that could develop the foundations for the scientific reorganization of society gradually began to find support in the circles of social reformers.
In Durkheim's understanding, sociology is the study of mainly social facts, as well as their scientific explanation. The scientist sought to prove that sociology can and should exist as an objective science, the subject of which is social reality, which has special qualities inherent only in it. The elements of this social reality, according to Durkheim, are social facts, the totality of which makes up society. The sociologist gives the following definition: “A social fact is any mode of action, established or not, capable of exerting external coercion on an individual.”
In order to single out and consider sociology as a special science, according to Durkheim, at least two conditions must be met: a) it must have a special subject that differs from the subjects of other sciences; b) this subject must be accessible to observation and give in to explanation in the same way as and insofar as the facts that other sciences deal with are observable and explainable.
From this peculiar double "sociological imperative" follow two famous formulas of Durkheim's doctrine: social facts must be considered as things; these facts have such a basic distinguishing feature as a coercive effect on the individual.
Speaking of social facts, Durkheim distinguishes two groups. On the one hand, these are morphological facts that act as forms of social being. On the other hand, he speaks about the facts of collective consciousness, i.e. collective ideas, which are the essence of morality, religion, law.
Sociology appears in Durkheim as a complex structural formation, including three main parts: social morphology, social physiology and general sociology. The task of the first is to study the structure of society and its material form (the social organization of peoples, the geographical basis of their life, population, its distribution over territories, etc.). The second task is characterized as the study of specific manifestations of social life (religion, morality, law, economics, etc.). As for the third - general sociology, then, according to Durkheim's plan, it should establish, reveal the most general laws of the life of society and synthesize them into a single whole.
In the concept of the French scientist, a special place is occupied by the question of the relationship of sociology with other social sciences, primarily with philosophy. Sociology occupies a central place in his system, since it equips all other social sciences with a method and theory on the basis of which research can and should be conducted in various areas of social life. The task of sociology is to unite representatives of various social and humanitarian disciplines with the help of a common point of view on the nature of social facts, matching criteria for their assessment, and a single research method. Only in this case sociology will cease to be an abstract, metaphysical science, and other social disciplines will become peculiar branches, sections of sociological knowledge that study collective ideas in their concrete form - moral, religious, economic, legal, etc.
In the question of the relationship between sociology and other social sciences, its relationship with philosophy is of particular importance. Durkheim proceeds from the fact that the influence of sociology on philosophy should be no less than that of philosophy on sociology. This influence has a purely positive direction, since it is aimed at freeing philosophy from its speculative and speculative nature and giving it certain specifics, i.e. the quality that is inherent in sociology as a science. However, it is impossible not to discover another requirement of the French scientist - about the separation of sociology from philosophy and giving it the status of a completely independent science.
The central methodological place in his work is occupied by the theory of society, called "sociologism". Two main propositions characterize Durkheim's "sociologism". First, it is the primacy of the public over the individual. Society is seen as a richer and more meaningful reality than the individual. It acts as a factor determining human activity, and social facts in this approach should "be" outside their individual manifestations.
The concept of society was so significant for Durkheim that he literally deified it - not only figuratively, but also in the literal sense of the word.
He called society God, used the concepts of God and society as synonyms in order to establish, instead of decrepit religious ideas, new ones, supposedly meeting the criteria of rationality and secularism. On the one hand, Durkheim emphasized the sacredness of society, endowing it with the features of spirituality, on the other hand, he emphasized the earthly, social roots of religion. Durkheim wanted to express the idea of the moral superiority of society over individuals. But by doing so, he painted it in traditional religious colors.
In accordance with the interpretation of the relationship between the social and the individual, Durkheim made a clear distinction between the collective and individual consciousness. “The totality of beliefs and feelings common in it to members of the same society,” he wrote, “forms a certain system that has its own life; it can be called collective or common consciousness.” Collective, or general, consciousness he called the mental type of society and considered the conditions of its existence and the way of development, irreducible to the material basis. To designate emotionally colored beliefs and ideas, Durkheim coined the term "collective representations". In an effort to express the dynamic aspect of the collective consciousness, its spontaneous unregulated nature, he introduced the term "collective representations" to refer to emotionally colored common ideas and beliefs.
The second main position of "sociologism" is formulated as the principle of an objective scientific approach to social facts, associated with the requirement to explain some of them by others, but not to reduce them to biological or psychological phenomena and processes. In this sense, one can speak of Durkheim's critique of biological and psychological reductionism.
The main features of a social fact are their independent, objective existence and their coercive character, i.e. the ability to exert external pressure on an individual, these are collective ideas or facts of collective consciousness. Durkheim contrasted the latter with facts that he understood as forms of social being or the so-called social morphology, which studies the structure and form of individual "material" parts of society, its "anatomical structure".
The facts of a morphological order, along with collective representations, Durkheim called the “internal social environment”, emphasizing the ability of collective consciousness to produce other social facts and even create a society, the sociologist gave it a self-sufficient autonomous character, never raising the question of the boundaries of this autonomy or its relative nature. The concept of the “material substratum” of society that he used was embodied in ecological, demographic and technological material.
The first rule, which, according to Durkheim, was supposed to provide an objective approach to social reality, was expressed in principle: "Social facts must be considered as things."
To interpret social phenomena as "things," the sociologist explained, means to recognize their existence independent of the subject and to investigate them objectively, as the natural sciences investigate their subject. The goal of sociological science is not reduced to the description and ordering of social facts through observable objective manifestations. With the help of the latter, deeper causal relationships and laws are established. The presence of law in the social world testifies to the scientific nature of sociology, which reveals this law, to its relationship with other sciences.
2. Concepts of German classical sociology.
2.1 Byunderstanding sociologyM. Weber
sociological weber durkheim tennis
M. Weber (1864-1920) organically continues the great traditions of German philosophy. M. Weber defines his sociology as understanding. The idea of the German sociologist is that when explaining the phenomena of nature, people resort to judgments confirmed by human experience in order to have the feeling that they understand them. Here, understanding is achieved through the definition of concepts and the establishment of links between them, so to speak, "indirectly" way. Moreover, these natural phenomena themselves, as such, have no meaning.
Another thing is human behavior. Here the understanding is immediate: the professor understands the behavior of students listening to lectures; the passenger understands why the taxi driver does not run a red light. Human behavior, in contrast to the "behavior" of nature, is an outwardly manifested meaningfulness associated with the fact that people are endowed with reason. Social behavior (social action) contains a meaningful structure that sociological science is able to understand and explore.
The principle of understanding turns out to be the criterion by which the sphere that is important for the sociologist is separated from that which cannot be the subject of his research. The sociologist understands the behavior of the individual, but not the "behavior" of the cell. Equally, according to Weber, the sociologist does not understand the "actions" of the people or the national economy, although he may well understand the actions of the individuals who make up the people. In other words, the possibilities of sociological understanding are limited to the actions and behavior of individuals.
We are talking about the fact that Weber proclaims that the specific object of understanding sociology is not the internal state or external attitude of a person as such, taken in itself, but his action. Action, on the other hand, is always an understandable (or understood) attitude towards certain objects, an attitude that is characterized by the fact that it presupposes the presence of a certain subjective meaning.
Revealing the main features of understanding sociology, Weber dwells on three of them, which characterize the presence of explainable human behavior and the meaning attached to it.
Understanding in its purest form takes place where there is purposeful rational action. In a goal-oriented action, for Weber, the meaning of the action and the actor himself coincide: to understand the meaning of the action means, in this case, to understand the acting individual, and to understand him means to understand the meaning of his act. Such a coincidence Weber considered an ideal case, from which sociology as a science should start. In Weber's understanding sociology, the problem of value and evaluation occupies an important place. In this matter, neo-Kantians, primarily G. Rickert, had a significant influence on him. Weber distinguishes between two acts - attribution to value and evaluation. Evaluation has a subjective nature, while value turns our individual opinion into an objective and generally valid judgment. Science, according to Weber, should be free from value judgments. But does this mean that a sociologist (or any other scientist) should generally abandon his own assessments and judgments? No, it does not, but they should not "intrude" into his own scientific analysis, and he can express them only as a private person (but not as a scientist).
From here, Weber had the concept of value as the interest of the era. Delimiting the value judgment and reference to value, Weber had in mind that the first is a subjective statement of the moral or life order, while the second is the content of objective science. In this distinction, one can see the difference between political and scientific activities and, at the same time, the commonality of interests of a politician and a scientist. On an individual-personal level, within the framework of his own life destiny, Weber wanted to be a scientist, but at the same time he aspired to political activity.
Since the nodal category of understanding sociology is understanding, Weber's treatment of it is of interest. It distinguishes direct understanding and explanatory understanding. The first means a rational direct understanding of thoughts and the intended meaning of the action. We directly understand the action of a woodcutter chopping wood, or a hunter aiming to shoot an animal. Explanatory understanding means revealing the motivational meaning of actions. We understand the actions of someone who is chopping wood or aiming before a shot, not only directly, but also motivationally, explaining why a person does this and not that, does this and not otherwise, etc.
Interpreted in this way understanding, according to Weber, means interpretive comprehension: a) actually assumed in individual cases (if we are talking about a historical analysis of events); b) alleged, bribes in the average and approximate meaning (if we are talking about the sociological consideration of mass phenomena); c) meaning or semantic connection in a scientifically constructed pure type of some frequently repeated phenomenon.
In essence, M. Weber laid the foundation for modern sociology. Sociology must strive above all to understand not just human behavior, but its meaning. A sociologist is called upon to understand the meaning of human actions and what meaning a person himself attaches to his actions, what purpose and meaning he puts into them.
2.2 Processes and FormsinteractionsG. Simmel
G. Simmel's sociology is usually called formal. Formal sociology studies and classifies forms - universal ways of embodying historically changeable contents. The identification of pure forms, separated from content, is followed by their ordering, systematization and psychological description in historical time. Simmel emphasizes that the form (as matter) cannot be lost, only its only possibility of realization can be lost. Formal sociology singles out pure forms from the totality of social phenomena.
Thus, the main thing in his work was the concept of form, although he realized that it arises on the basis of the content associated with it, which, however, cannot exist without form. For Simmel, the form acted as a universal way of embodying and realizing the content, which was historically conditioned motives, goals, motivations of human interactions.
The problem of the relationship between form and content could not but excite him. He well understood their dialectics, the special role of form in it, when it is capable of breaking the isolation of parts of the whole. In a number of cases, he opposes form to content, while in others he sees a close connection between them, each time resorting in analysis to comparison with geometric forms in connection with their contradictions, correspondence with certain bodies, which can be considered as holding these forms.
One of the basic concepts in Simmel's sociological theory was the concept of interaction. His German sociologist considered the main "cell" of society. He wrote that “society in general is the interaction of individuals. Interaction is always formed as a result of certain inclinations or for the sake of certain goals. Erotic instincts, business interest, religious impulses, defense or attack, play or entrepreneurship, the desire to help, learn, as well as many other motives induce a person to work for another, to combine and harmonize internal states, i.e. to the production of influences and, in turn, their perception. These mutual influences mean that a unity, a "society" is formed from individual carriers of stimulating impulses and goals.
Emphasizing the key role of interaction in Simmel's sociological concept, suffice it to say that the central category of sociology - society - was considered by him as a set of interactions of form and content. In this regard, the following position of the sociologist, which has become, in essence, a textbook, is of great importance: "Society", in whatever sense this word is now used, becomes a society, obviously, only thanks to the indicated types of interaction. A certain number of people form a society not because in each of them lives some concretely defined or individually driven life content; only if the vitality of these contents takes the form of mutual influences, if one of them affects the other - directly or through a third, - a society is born from a purely spatial neighborhood or a temporary change of people.
There are two main meanings of the concept of society. Firstly, society, as the sociologist emphasizes, is a "complex of socialized personalities", "social-formed human material". Secondly, it is the sum of those forms of relations due to which a society in the above sense of the word is formed from individuals. Society is continuously generated by interaction. Individuals unite in society, i.e. "socialized". Thus, the term "society" of the German sociologist is closely related to another key term - "socialization".
The task of sociology as a science is to study the various forms of socialization, to classify and analyze the forms of social life. If there is a science whose subject is society, and nothing else - and there is such, he believes, and this science has the name of sociology - then its only goal can only be the study of interactions, types and forms of socialization. The subject of sociology should be the study of the forms of social life, not its content. According to Simmel, social content does not require special sociological consideration, because it is the subject of attention of many social sciences. They are not engaged in the study of social forms. Since sociology arose later than most of these sciences, it was left (and inherited) precisely this subject field.
Socialization as a process is characterized by a number of features. One of them is the number of participants. Socialization is possible if two or more individuals participate in the interaction, if they relate to each other in an appropriate way. Another sign of socialization is that it requires its localization in a certain space.
The analysis of the processes of socialization should lead, according to Simmel, to the isolation of factors that are not observable in their pure form in social phenomena. These "pure forms of socialization" become the subject of sociology. The German scientist noted that the sociological method singles out the moment of socialization from social phenomena in the same way that grammar separates the pure forms of language from the content in which these forms live, sociology must not only identify these pure forms, but also systematize them, give their psychological justification and description. in historical change and development. This is how sociology becomes an understanding sociology.
Simmel considered understanding sociology as a sociological theory of knowledge, as a theory of historical understanding.
The German researcher distinguished between general and pure or formal sociology. By general sociology he understood the application of the sociological method in various social sciences. As for formal sociology, it was seen as a description and systematization of pure forms of socialization. In addition, Simmel included the sociological theory of knowledge and social philosophy (he called it social metaphysics) in the system of sociological knowledge.
Being a prominent representative of formal sociology, G. Simmel in a number of works concretize his doctrine of society with the help of classifications of social forms and their detailed consideration. He gives examples of such a classification and analysis in Sociology. Researchers of the work of the German sociologist note that one of them includes social processes, social types and models of development.
Simmel refers to social processes subordination, domination, reconciliation, competition, etc. The second category of social forms covers social types, meaning the systematization of some essential characteristic qualities of a person that do not depend on interactions between people (aristocrat, poor man, cynic, coquette, merchant, woman, alien, bourgeois, etc.). The third group of social forms includes models of development and characterizes social differentiation, the relationship between the group and the individual. Simmel writes that the strengthening of individuality leads to the degradation of the group (the smaller the group, the less individual its members are and, conversely, with the increase in the group, its members become more dissimilar to each other).
Simmel defines sociology as the science of society: it explores the forms of social reality that are a universal way of embodying historically changing contents. The latter is considered by him as historically conditioned goals, motives, motivations of human interactions. In the totality of interactions between the form and the content that fills it, society is realized.
2.3 Social forms and their evolutionF. Tennis
A significant contribution to the development of Western sociology of the classical period was made by one of the founders of professional sociology in Germany, the founder and first president of the German Sociological Society, Professor Ferdinand Tennis.
Sociology, according to Tennis, studies the differences in relationships between people. The main type (or form) of differences is characterized by the presence or absence of connectedness between people.
Tennis says that sociology as a special science has its own specific subjects. These are "things" that take place only in social life. “They,” the sociologist writes, “are products of human thinking and exist only for human thinking, but primarily for the thinking of the socially connected people themselves. This "connectedness" of people (ie various forms of social connections between them) is studied by sociology.
Essentially, it is about the study of interdependence and human interaction. As the simplest case of social bonding, Tennis analyzes exchange.
But, of course, social connections are not limited to exchange. They are much more diverse, and their types and forms form the basis of the sociological concept of Tennis. He compares (and, to a certain extent, opposes) two types of connections and the corresponding types of society. He defines the first type of social ties as communal (general), the second - as public. Community (general) ties are determined by such psychological characteristics as spiritual intimacy, the inclination of people to each other, the presence of emotions, affection, personal experiences. Public relations have the characteristics of a rational plan: exchange, trade, choice. The first type of relations is characteristic mainly of patriarchal-feudal societies, the second - of capitalist ones. Community (general) relations include tribal relations, relations of neighborhood and friendship. Social relations have a material nature and are built within the framework of the principles and structures of rationality.
These two series of connections are communal (general) and public. In a community (community), the social whole logically precedes the parts in society, on the contrary, the social whole is made up of parts. The difference between the community (community) and society is the difference between the organic and mechanical connection (solidarity) of the parts that make up the social whole. In the sociological concept of Tennis, two types of relations, respectively, two types of organization of social life are closely connected with two types of will - natural, instinctive and rational, rational. The first type of will is the foundation of communal (general) ties, the second - public ties. The German sociologist paid great attention to the problem of volition. Social cohesion between people is based on the fact that the will of one influences the will of another, either by stimulating or fettering it.
Community and society appear in Tennis as the main criteria for classifying social forms. The forms of social life themselves are subdivided by the sociologist into three types: a) social relations; b) groups, aggregates; c) corporations, or associations, unions, associations, partnerships. These types of forms of social life are characterized by historians of sociology as one of the very first attempts to consider the social structure of society.
Social relations are objective. Tennis emphasizes that one should distinguish between social relations of a comradely type, social relations of the type of domination and mixed relations. Each of these types of relations takes place both in the organization of the community and in the social organization.
The totality of social relations between more than two participants is a "social circle". This is the stage of transition from social relations to a group or aggregate. The totality is the second concept of form (after social relations); “The essence of the social totality lies in the fact that the natural and mental relations that form its foundation are consciously accepted, and therefore they are consciously wanted. This phenomenon is observed everywhere where folk life takes place, in diverse forms of communities, for example, in language, way of life and customs, religion and superstitions ... ". A group (set) is formed when the association of individuals is considered by him as necessary to achieve some specific goal.
The third form considered by the scientist is the corporation. It arises when the social form has an internal organization, i.e. certain individuals perform certain functions in it. "Her (corporation) , - writes the sociologist, “the distinguishing feature is the capacity for unified volition and action—a capacity that is most clearly represented in the ability to make decisions…”. A corporation can arise from natural relationships (Tennis cites blood ties as an example), from a common relationship to the land, from living together and interacting both in the countryside and in the city. In relation to a corporation, the same procedure for considering human relations according to the criterion of "partnership - domination" takes place, followed by the division of types of social relations into community (community) and public.
Based on the differences in social forms, Tennis argues that as they develop from the initial basis of common life, individualism arises, which is the harbinger of the transition from community to society. One of the options for describing such a transition, associated with the emergence of individualism, is as follows: “... not just social life is decreasing, but communal social life is developing, acquiring more and more power, and, finally, another, new interaction, coming from the needs , interests, desires, decisions of acting personalities. Such are the conditions of "civil society" as a radical form of diverse phenomena that are embraced by the sociological concept of society and are limitless, cosmopolitan and socialist in their tendency. This society - in essence it is a capitalist society - is a collection of families and individuals of a predominantly economic nature.
The doctrine of social forms is the subject of pure, or theoretical, sociology. He distinguished between pure (theoretical), applied and empirical sociology. The first analyzes society in a state of statics, the second - dynamics, the third explores the facts of life in modern society on the basis of statistical data. Therefore, empirical sociology was called by him sociography.
Tennis himself conducted empirical (sociographic) research on crime, suicide, industrial development, demographic changes, the activities of political parties, etc. As can be seen, the range of interests of the German sociologist in empirical problems was quite wide. And some of his studies were very scrupulous.
3. American sociological thought inachal20th century
On the development of sociological thought in the early twentieth century. The Chicago School played a huge role. It was the first institutional academic school in North American sociology. In fact, during the first third of the 20th century, the Chicago School was basically the sociology of the United States.
The school arose from the first department of sociology in the United States, organized since the creation of the new University of Chicago in 1892.
The American researcher Lester Kurtz identifies three generations in the development of the Chicago School of Sociology. First generation covers the period of development from the founding of the school to the first world war.
The founder and first dean of the Department of Sociology at the University of Chicago was Albion Woodbury Small (1854-1926), who was the first professor of sociology in the United States.
In 1825 he founded the American Journal of Sociology and was its editor for three decades. As far as Small's view is concerned, the basic raw material of the social process is for him the activity of the group. Group activity is based on elementary human interests, and the inevitable conflict of these interests gives dynamics to the social process. At the same time, he believed that conflicts could be resolved and anarchies avoided if they were carried out under the authoritative control of the state, which adjudicated on group antagonisms.
In 1893, Small proposed an extended scheme of human interests arising in comparable forms of group manifestations. In developing this scheme, he also used the ideas of Gustav Ratzenhofer, an Austrian social Darwinist, in it.
It was the first generation of the Chicago School - Small, Vincent, Thomas, Henderson - who approved liberalism as the main socio-philosophical doctrine of the sociological school. Liberalism is understood in the United States as an ideological orientation based on the belief in the importance of the freedom and well-being of the individual, as well as on the belief in the possibility of social progress and improving the quality of life through changes and innovations in the social organization of society.
The five-volume work of this period of the Chicago School, The Polish Peasant in Europe and America, published by William Isaac Thomas and Florian Witold Znaniecki, entered the world sociological classics.
William Thomas formulated the concept of the social situation, which he divided into three major components: 1) the objective conditions embedded in existing social theories and values; 2) attitudes of the individual and the social group; 3) the formulation of the essence of the situation by the acting individual.
In joint work with Znaniecki, Thomas studied in detail the system of social attitudes and showed that conflicts and social disintegration necessarily arise in cases where individual definitions of a situation by a person do not coincide with group values.
As a representative of the psychological trend in sociology, Thomas singled out four groups of human motivating desires that play a leading role in determining his behavior: the need for new experience, security, stability in his lifestyle, the need for recognition from the environment and the thirst for dominance over his environment. He associated the individual configuration of these desires with the innate characteristics of a person, primarily with his temperament.
One of the most significant innovations in The Polish Peasant is the typology of personalities in terms of their predominant mechanisms of social adaptation.
The petty-bourgeois type is characterized by the traditional nature of its attitudes; bohemian is distinguished by unstable and little connected attitudes with a general high degree of adaptation; the creative type is the most significant, although frivolous, for the fate of social progress, since only this type of personality is capable of generating inventions and innovations.
In the work of W. Thomas and F. Znaniecki, the method of studying personal documents was actively used. Data from Polish archives, press materials, documents from American social migration agencies, and so-called "deep" interviews were also intensively used.
By analyzing letters and diaries, Thomas and Znaniecki discovered many motivational and behavioral responses to the social environment; reactions reflecting the emotional and event side of individual adaptation. Scientists came to the conclusion that society is a universal series of social characters: Philistine - bourgeois, Bohemian - bohemian, creative - active, or creative.
These three characters carry a single mechanism of adaptation, represented by steps: 1) Determination of character by innate temperament. The construction of the organization of personal life, which completes the process of objectification of the various relationships that give character; 2) Adaptation of character to the requirements of society and the immediate environment; 3) Adaptation of the individual life organization to a specific social organization.
After analyzing the process of personal adaptation, Znaniecki and Thomas came to a fundamental conclusion for sociologists: social evolution, on the one hand, tames the process, on the other hand, it requires a person to have more individualized reactions of consciousness and behavior. It is in historical dictate that the reason for the formation and rule of social characters lies.
The first type of character - Philistine unites people who are oriented in consciousness and behavior towards stability. Their psyche hardly perceives the requirements of a changing situation. The life of the Philistine is connected with traditional situations, and he is formed as a conformist. However, he shows the ability to resist, the pressure of changes in the external environment.
Bohemian is characterized by spontaneity of behavioral reactions. People of this type are not capable of forming stable patterns of behavior. As Znaniecki and Thomas noted, the bohemian tends to demonstrate a certain degree of adaptability to new conditions, but it does not lead him to a new holistic model of life organization. The historical roots of this character are generated by the transitional state of society, in which no permanent social guidelines have had time to develop.
The third type - the creative one - is the most socially effective character, since he builds his life on the basis of a tendency to modification and diversity, while following his own goals. He constantly expands his control over the social environment and adapts his desires to it, i.e. adaptation goes through a different mechanism - the mechanism of vigorous activity. Creative people form the dynamic core of social systems. Although they are a minority in any society, their activities are the most productive.
Thus, all types of social character are the result of an alloy of temperament and socio-historical conditions for the formation of personalities.
Already in the early works of Znaniecki, the problem of values, the key problem of philosophical discussions of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, was in the center of attention. It was the values that became the basis for drawing the dividing line between the world of nature and the world of culture. For authors, any item that has identifiable content and meaning for members of a social group is of value. Attitudes are the subjective orientation of group members towards values.
Znaniecki proceeds from the fact that values are not subjective by nature, they really exist, like natural things, which means that the sciences of culture have the same right to exist as the sciences of nature. Znaniecki connects the right to existence of any science with the study of a certain aspect of reality, i.e. with the corresponding subject, which acts as a relatively closed system. Each of these systems consists of a limited and theoretically observable number of elements, and also has a specific internal structure. The empirical reality itself, according to Znanetsky, is presented in the form of an inexhaustible variety of facts, and only as a result of the study is the method of their connection into a certain structure and system revealed.
Znaniecki distinguished four types of basic social systems that form the basic concepts of sociology: a) social actions; b) social relations; c) social personalities; d) social groups
Among the basic concepts of sociology, the category of social actions has been developed in the most detailed way. Znaniecki devotes his fundamental work "Social Action" to her. He refers to the category of social action only those individual and collective human actions that other human individuals have as their main value. These human actions aim to bring about certain changes in these core values (social objects).
The main ideas of Znaniecki related to the interpretation of social actions have become firmly established in the foundation of modern sociological theory. F. Znanetsky conducted a detailed analysis and gave a classification of possible types of social action. He divides all kinds of social action into two categories: adaptations and oppositions. The first includes those actions that cause the desired behavior of individuals or groups without threatening any of the values or capabilities of the partner, the second - those that are associated with threats and repression.
According to Znaniecki, in its own categorical definition, social action does not confront human individuals or collectives as psychobiological realities. In this regard, people - the objects of social action - are called social values in order to distinguish them from aesthetic, technical, economic and other values. And it is social action that acts as the central subject of sociological research.
Znaniecki's other main category is the social personality system. A social personality is created in a certain environment and reproduces the already created models, which express the real system of rights and obligations, and is a social value within the framework of social relations and interactions.
As one of the types of social systems, Znaniecki also considers a social group in which a person performs the appropriate roles, occupies a particular position, and also has the corresponding rights and obligations. The social life of an individual is not limited to the framework of a separate social group, just as a huge number of social actions of a person are not limited to one social group, of which he is a member.
Unlike, for example, Durkheim, Znaniecki does not make the individual's behavior strictly dependent on the group, does not accept the unilinear determination of the individual by the group. The relationship between a social group and an individual is considered by him in the perspective of a middle path between sociological holism and individualism. His theory of social groups as a cultural system has as its foundation a well-known methodological principle - the humanistic (human) coefficient. The introduction of this coefficient is due to the fact that each group, like a social personality, has the character of a social value, i.e., being an object, it is also a subject.
His sociological concept is opposed to Durkheim's sociology, which neglects the role of the individual in the social process, as well as Simmel's formal sociology. Based on his views, sociology should not follow the path of speculative search, nor the path of bare empiricism, nor the path of extreme holism, nor the path of extreme individualism, but seek a middle path between extreme methodological positions.
Emphasizing the role of the subject, taking into account the "humanistic coefficient" in the structure of social systems, Znaniecki at the same time considered sociology to be nomothetic, i.e. formulating laws based on the inductive method of data collection. Thus, his sociology is based on empirical social reality, on which alone theoretical generalizations and the construction of a sociological theory are possible.
In full between the First World War and the mid-1930s, the leaders of the Chicago School, Robert Park and Ernest Burgess, showed themselves. The main problems of their work are various aspects of urbanization, the sociology of the family, and social disorganization. The book An Introduction to the Science of Sociology (1921) written by Park and Burgess, which for a long time was the main textbook for students of sociology at US universities, gained great fame. It is considered fundamental to the formation of modern empirical sociology.
Robert Ezra Park is considered the ideological creator of the Chicago School. His works “The Immigrant Press and Its Control” (1922), “The City” (1925) are widely known, in which various aspects of the influence of the social environment on human life are analyzed, and biological and economic factors of human life are also considered.
Among the important sociological concepts first introduced by Park, one should especially note the concept of social distance, as an indicator of the degree of closeness or alienation of individuals or social groups, as well as the concept of a marginal personality, which characterizes an individual located in a social structure at the junction of social groups or on their periphery.
Much attention is paid to the development and use of various methods of empirical research. The attitudes and value orientations (attitudes) of various social groups are studied. For this, the survey method is used - both oral (interview) and written (questionnaire), and the method itself is worked out in detail. For the first time, the problems of its advantages and disadvantages are raised.
One of the main achievements of the Chicago School was work in the field of social ecology (closely related to the study of the city). The social ecology of the Chicago School is sometimes called the theory of social change, the foundations of which were formulated by Park. It is about the fact that society must be considered as an organism subject to evolution. The latter is a movement from one order to another, higher one. The Park names four of these orders: ecological (spatial-territorial), economic, political, socio-cultural.
The condition for the survival and development of society is to maintain, first of all, the ecological, or territorial, order. It is a consequence of the spatial, physical interaction of individuals. On its basis, an economic order arises, which is the result of production, trade and exchange. On the basis of the achieved economic order, a political order appears, which can be implemented with the help of political means, control and regulation of behavior. Finally, the most informal type of order in society is the socio-cultural order, which is most often influenced by traditions.
At the heart of every kind of order, Park argues, is a special kind of social interaction that allows people to move from conflict to agreement.
There are also specific scientific research carried out under the direct supervision of Burgess. These studies were carried out in Chicago itself using, as mentioned above, methods, primarily the method of social mapping. A number of social maps of Chicago were developed - leisure places (dance floors, cinemas, theaters, etc.), locations of certain ethnic communities (Italians, Germans, blacks, mulattoes, Chinese, etc.). Moreover, students were engaged in compiling such places (mapping). This made it possible, within the framework of the "City as a Social Laboratory" program, to determine and present in a manual, systematized form a certain structure of the city.
Considerable interest is observed in relation to the use of qualitative non-formalized research methods, which is most characteristic of Burgess's work. In general, he was one of the first in sociology to use the case study method, aimed at a comprehensive description and explanation of a particular social fact (case). Sometimes this method is called monographic.
The work of Park and Burgess had a great influence on small-town exploration, in particular, carried out outside the Chicago School by the couple Helen and Robert Lind. As classic as many of the Chicago School, these works explored community life and social inequality in a small American city. The impetus for the above-mentioned works of the Linds was Park's study of the problems of blacks in America and, in general, racial relations.
The characterization of the Chicago School will be incomplete if one does not touch, at least briefly, on the views of two of its well-known representatives, W. Ogborn and L. Wirth. They also did a lot of successful study of the American city. Ogborn, in contrast to the leaders of the school, Park and Burgess, who sought to organically combine quantitative and qualitative methods of urban research, insisted on the need for only the former. Therefore, it is no coincidence that the statistical methodology of the study received the most noticeable expression in his works.
One of Ogborn's major works is "Social Change". In it, he outlined his theory of cultural lag, or, as it is sometimes called, cultural lag. Its essence lies in the fact that changes in material culture occur, as a rule, faster. and more active than transformations in non-material (adaptive) culture. This means that developing technology, which primarily affects the state of material culture, determines all other social changes. He became one of the first representatives of technological determinism in sociology. However, the cultural lag theory was criticized in the literature of that time and caused discussions for opposing two types of cultures - material and non-material.
If Ogborn's theory was not rigidly connected with the study of the city, then Wirth's concept was the most urbanistic and concerned the development of a theory of urban lifestyle. He was the first in sociology to introduce the concept of "urban lifestyle", which he contrasted with the rural one.
Within the framework of the Chicago school, the prerequisites were created for the emergence of the urban concept of Louis Wirth, who developed the concept of the urban lifestyle. In his concept, Wirth linked together the characteristics of the spatial and social organization of a large city (large population, high concentration, social heterogeneity of the population) with the characteristics of a special urban personality type that is formed under these conditions. According to Wirth, the size, density and heterogeneity of the population is characterized by: the predominance of anonymous, businesslike, short-term, partial and superficial contacts in interpersonal communication; a decrease in the importance of territorial communities; the diminishing role of the family; variety of cultural stereotypes; the instability of the social status of the city dweller, the increase in his social mobility; weakening the influence of traditions in regulating the behavior of the individual .
FROMlist of used literature
1. Zborovsky, G.E. History of sociology: textbook / G.E. Zborowski. - M.: Gardariki, 2007. - 608 p.
2. History of sociology in Western Europe and the USA. Textbook for high schools. Managing editor - Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences G.V. Osipov. - M.: Publishing group NORMA - INFRA. - M., 1999. - 576 p.
3. History of sociology. XIX-XX centuries: in 2 hours. Part 1. Western sociology: textbook. allowance for students studying in the direction 540400 “Social-econ. education” / A.V. Vorontsov, I.D. Gromov. - M.: Humanitarian, ed. Center VLADOS, 2005. - 423 p.
4. History of sociology: Proc. Manual / Elsukov A.N., Babosov E.M., Gritsanov A.A. and etc.; Under total ed. A.N. Elsukova and others - Minsk: Higher. school, 1993. - 319 p.
5. Kapitonov E.A. History and theory of sociology. Textbook for universities - M .: "Publishing house PRIOR", 2000. - 368 p.
Hosted on Allbest.ru
Similar Documents
Formation of sociology as a science: ancient thinkers Plato and Aristotle, founder of sociology O. Comte. Sociological thought in the works of K. Marx. E. Durkheim's levels of social reality, M. Weber's ideal type. Typology of sociality F. Tennis.
abstract, added 02/04/2010
Sociology G. Spencer, evolutionism. Theoretical and philosophical foundations of E. Durkheim's sociology, the idea of social solidarity. Political sociology of M. Weber, theory of "social action", religion in the sociological concept of M. Weber.
term paper, added 12/18/2008
Sociology as an independent direction of scientific thought. Social Darwinist concepts. Psychological concepts and psychoanalytic concept of Z. Freud. Marxist view of the class character of the state. The sociological concept of Marxism.
test, added 05/25/2015
M. Weber's theory of social action, its influence on social and political thought. "Understanding Sociology" as the ancestor of a special tradition in sociological thinking, a method of social cognition; concept of economy, politics, religion, law.
test, added 11/27/2010
The theme of social solidarity is the main theme of Durkheim's sociology. Durkheim's place in the history of sociology. Weber's sociological concept. The subject and methods of "understanding sociology". Weber and modern society. Marxist sociology and its fate.
abstract, added 02/03/2008
Evolutionary sociology of H. Spencer: the first experience of a systematic approach. Sociological realism of E. Durkheim. Relativistic sociology of G. Simmel. M. Weber is the largest figure in German and world humanitarian and social thought, his understanding sociology.
abstract, added 01/24/2011
Social prerequisites for the emergence of sociology as a science. "Formal" school of sociology by G. Simmel, F. Tennis and V. Pareto. Classical sociology of the beginning of the 20th century. Sociological view of O. Comte. American sociology: the main stages of development.
abstract, added 05/03/2015
Description of the sociological views of Emile Durkheim - the creator of the methodology of "sociologism", the patriarch of the French sociological school. Formal sociology of F. Tenis and G. Simmel.
test, added 09/23/2010
Social facts and structural functionalism of E. Durkheim, features of his sociologism. The study of the functions of the division of labor and the identification of its positive consequences. Interpretation of normal and pathological in the development of society. Theory of social anomie.
test, added 06/09/2009
Prerequisites for the emergence of sociology. Classical sociology of the 19th century. "Understanding" non-classical sociology of Germany. American sociology of the XIX-XX centuries. Modernism and postmodernism. Russian sociology of the XIX-XX centuries. Sociology is a science and academic discipline.
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 direction in Russian sociology began to develop at the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th century, 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 direction 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 an 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 a particular 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 the 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 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 personality 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 the 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
UDK 316.356.2 BBK 60.561.51 K 77
Yu.V. Kravchenko,
postgraduate student of the Faculty of Social Work of the Novocherkassk State Meliorative Academy, tel.: 89094372304. E-mail: Vamim240486а rambler.ru.
The main sociological concepts of understanding the stability of a young family
(Reviewed)
Annotation. The article considers the main conceptual ideas of understanding the family as a sociological phenomenon. Particular emphasis is placed on the consideration of family stability criteria. The functions, structure, conditions of formation and development of the family are revealed.
Key words: young family, family stability, sociological concept, family functions, dysfunctionality.
Yu.V. kravchenko,
Post-graduate student of Faculty of Social Work, Novocherkassk State Meliorative Academy, ph.: 89094372304, E-mail: [email protected]
Basic sociological concepts of understanding of stability of a young family
abstract. This paper examines the main conceptual ideas of understanding a family as a sociological phenomenon. The special focus is made on consideration of criteria for stability of a family. The work discloses functions, structure, conditions of formation and family development.
Keywords: young family, stability of a family, sociological concept, family functions, disfunctining.
At the present stage of development of Russian society, when the degree of uncertainty in life is quite high, and traditional ideas about life values are undergoing significant changes, young people entering into marriage experience various difficulties in their future family life. Many scientists, including T.A. Zinkevich-Kuzemkina and N.I. Oliferovich, consider the first years of the marriage of spouses as the basis of the entire future existence of the family, when its main features are determined, on which the fate of people who have entered into marriage will depend. It is at the initial stage of marriage that the foundations are laid for all the main aspects of family life. It took a lot of effort and time for the very term “young family” to become established in modern society.
In sociological science, there are various definitions of the concept of "young family". One can give the definition of E.V. Antonyuk, reflecting the opinion of foreign researchers and understanding a young family as a family at the stage from the moment of marriage to the birth of a child. In our opinion, this definition is controversial, since it does not reflect the general picture of the subsequent functioning of a young family. Many researchers define the concept of "young family" as a family that exists in the first three years after marriage (in the case of the birth of children - without limiting the duration of marriage), in which both spouses have not reached the age of 30, as well as a family consisting of one of parents under the age of 30 and a minor child. This definition looks more specific, since it highlights the feature
young family - the age of the spouses up to 30 years, which comes from generally accepted in the scientific and social science literature. The most acceptable, in our opinion, is the definition formulated by M.S. Matskovsky and T.A. Gurko and relating to a young family, where the spouses are not more than 30 years old, the experience of living together is up to 5 years inclusive, and both spouses are in their first registered marriage. The length of time the family has existed - up to 5 years - is due to the fact that during this period the nature of marital relations takes shape, which are influenced by the marriage choice, the process of adaptation of the spouses to each other is underway.
How to help save a young family? Increase its stability and achieve stability? Before answering the questions posed, it is necessary to understand what a family is, what is the specificity of the relationship of its main elements. The theoretical analysis of scientific works devoted to the family makes it possible to identify two main areas that allow us to approach the understanding of the family as a sociological phenomenon, to identify the criteria for its sustainability.
Within the framework of one of the directions that arose back in the 19th century, the family acts as a small group. The founder of this sociological tradition is F. Jle Ple, whose ideas proclaimed the concept of the life cycle of the family as a small group. In the works of his followers (M. Zemskaya, V.P. Menyputin, E.V. Krichenko, V.A. other small groups. As a small social group, the family was most often considered in those cases when the relations between the individuals that make up the family, or the internal ties of the family, were studied. This approach allows you to establish the dynamics of marital relations, the nature of the relationship between parents and children, as well as the motives and causes of divorce. Being a small group, it combines personal needs with public interests, adapts to social relations, norms, values accepted in society. Considering the problems of interpersonal interaction, one must not forget that they are closely related to the norms, values and patterns of behavior existing in society. The researchers of this approach, first of all, were interested in the goals, structure, composition, nature of group interaction, power structure, family norms, values, satisfaction with staying in the family, etc.
From the standpoint of the institutional approach, the process of family formation was mainly studied - a set of norms and standards of courtship, the choice of a marriage partner, sexual behavior, relationships with parents of future spouses, and, finally, sanctions for failure to comply with certain norms. These ideas are reflected in the works of K.K. Bazdyreva, I.A. Gerasimova, A.G. Kharcheva, N.D. Shimin, et al. Researchers were primarily interested in patterns of family behavior (how social regulation of family behavior takes place), established roles in the family. Relations between husband and wife, according to this approach, are regulated by a system of norms and sanctions specially developed by the institution of marriage. Some norms, rights and obligations are of a legal nature and are regulated by the Fundamentals of Legislation and the Code of Marriage and Family. The regulation of other norms of marriage is carried out thanks to morality, customs, traditions (for example, the norms of courtship, premarital behavior, the distribution of power and responsibilities between husband and wife, family leisure, etc.). Since norms and traditions change over time, their difference is noted depending on one or another stage of the family life cycle. The contribution of the followers of this approach to the analysis of the various functions of the family, in identifying the growing role of intra-family interaction in ensuring family stability is undeniable (T.M. Afanas'eva, N.G. Yurkevich, etc.).
In domestic and foreign sociology, attempts are constantly being made to throw a "bridge" between the macro- and microsociology of the family, to combine approaches to the family as an institution and as a group. This does not mean the dissolution of the sociological approach in the psychological one: we are talking about the creation of a conceptual and conceptual apparatus,
allowing at the level of society to track socially significant results
individual and family behavior. On the other hand, at the family and individual level, it is important to be able to establish the social determinism of value orientations, attitudes, motives, and actions.
One of the options for integrating the institutional and microgroup approaches is to work towards the analysis of the family as a system. Formally, this involves the study of the systemic properties of the family: integrity, connections with external and internal systems, structure, levels of organization, etc. So, E.V. Antonyuk, Yu.E. Aleshina and L.Ya. Gozman, remaining in the paradigm of studying the family as a community (E.V. Antonyuk) and the family as a small group (Yu.E. Aleshina and L.Ya. Gozman), offered to move away from the search for the leading activity of the family to consider the very system of family life. “The search within a complex system of family activities for factors that mediate the interpersonal relations of family members, their communication and interpersonal perception is impossible without taking into account the changes taking place in the joint activities of the spouses, their relationships during the family cycle” . Thus, researchers deepened their understanding of the family, recognizing its systemic organization. O.S. Sermyagina also noted the methodological importance of studying the family as an integral phenomenon. The application of a systematic approach to the study of the family makes it possible to move away from understanding the dynamics of the family as a linear and causal process and approach the consideration of the processes occurring in the family as mutually influencing and mutually conditioning.
From the standpoint of the socio-psychological approach, the family was considered as a small social group, whose members are united by common social activities and are in direct personal communication, which is the basis for the emergence of emotional relationships, group norms and group processes. This approach was implemented in the works of a number of domestic scientists (SI. Golod, T.A. Gurko, I.S. Kon, M.Yu. Arutyunyan, etc.). Today there is a tendency to increase the importance of the socio-psychological approach to the family, to family problems, as problems of internal interpersonal relations. Now the importance of the “external factors” that hold the family has significantly decreased, while the disintegrating ones, on the contrary, have increased. This approach allows you to establish the motives and causes of divorce, the dynamics of marital relations, the nature of the relationship between parents and children. But, focusing on the problems of interpersonal interaction, one cannot ignore their close connection with the norms, values and patterns of behavior existing in society. It is easy to see that each of the approaches to the study of the family described above has its own specifics.
With the development of conflict theories, a different interpretation of the family, proposed by X. Hartmann, appeared. In her opinion, a true understanding of the essence of the family is not related to the analysis of emotional or kinship relations between its members, the family is a “place of struggle” between spouses for their interests, the distribution of power. In the family, economic production and the redistribution of material wealth are carried out, while the interests of each of its members come into conflict with the interests of other members and society as a whole. At the same time, the positive direction of this approach is obvious: there is an emphasis on the nature of these relations, the need to develop a culture of relationships, to learn to be more tolerant and tolerant in the family, to be able to come to a compromise.
One of the most controversial in the sociology of the family is the structural-functionalist approach, which focuses on the functions of the family and their change. Durkheim also drew attention to the fact that the family loses a number of its important functions under the influence of urbanization, etc., becomes less stable due to the voluntary nature of marriage (instead of marriage by agreement of the parents), and, most importantly, that a decrease in the number of members of a modern family reduces family solidarity. According to this concept, the criterion of family crisis was its dysfunctionality. However, within the framework of the approach, opinions were also expressed about the variety of functional changes (new functions, enrichment and specialization of traditional functions, their change). The most important function
families for a long time considered the socialization of children and adolescents. In this regard, the social role of the family as an agent of primary socialization was emphasized.
Until now, in the sociology of the family, the dominant position has been occupied by the traditionally sociocentric understanding of the family, where those of its functions, in the implementation of which society was interested, came to the fore. Accordingly, the functions focused on the interaction of spouses (sexual, communicative, etc.) were either underestimated or not singled out as independent, significant functions at all. The opinion is characteristic of such a position: “The totality of functions that the modern family performs can be reduced to the following: reproductive, educational,
economic, recreational (mutual assistance, health maintenance, organization of leisure and recreation), communicative and regulatory (including primary social control and the exercise of power and authority in the family) ” .
American sociologists W! Bar, R. Lewis and G. Spagnier drew attention to the need for a predominantly individualistic interpretation of success, the quality of marriage. The main thing in it was to be the achievement of the goals of marriage set by individuals; a high level of marital adjustment and marital happiness, integration and a high degree of marital satisfaction. Accordingly, the emphasis was placed on the performance of such functions of the family as communicative, sexual. These assessments can be considered as another - anthropocentric - interpretation of marriage, which has no less than the sociocentric paradigm, the right to exist.
I would like to emphasize the prospects of focusing on the socio-cultural function of the family, when the goals of marriage are focused on creating conditions for self-realization and self-development of the personality of spouses, children, and satisfaction of personal needs. A deeper understanding of the socio-cultural function is associated with the concept of culture of a coordinated group of people (family community) (A.I. Antonov, V.M. Medkov). This orientation towards the problems of the culture of family relations is especially characteristic of the works of the Ural sociologists (A.E. Gushchina, L.N. Kogan, L. L. Rybtsova, etc.), in which the understanding of the sociocultural function of the family and family education is associated with the concept of culture. The process of transition from one idea (family - a cell of society) to another (family - self-worth), or rather, to a combination of them, is a complex, contradictory process. The researchers of this school set the task of analyzing the factors that increase the stability of internal ties, the culture of communication between spouses and children, based on mutual assistance, support and guardianship.
In the modern world, more and more often a person and society are considered as interpenetrating components of an integral society generated by the interactions of people. This principle underlies the anthroposocietal approach, the founder of which is N.I. Lapin. This approach is in many ways similar to the socio-cultural and structural-functional ones. They are united by the understanding of a person as an active subject of action and interaction with society, and society itself - as an inseparable triad of a person, culture, sociality. At the same time, the approach does not throw overboard the problems of macrostructures, but seeks to clarify the relationship between the subjective and the objective in society, its micro- and macrolevels, and their mutual transitions.
However, these attempts at analysis do not give a final answer to the questions of how the family is formed, which is the basis for the unity of family members, which ensures the stability of the family over time and the success of its functioning. The integrative (multi-paradigm) approach is interesting in its completeness, considering the family as a unity (social institution, small group, sphere of personal life), which allows describing internal and external relations, elemental structure, functions and changes in the family as a system (L.L. Rybtsova, M. S. Matskovsky and others). This approach is based on a more general methodological and systematic approach (V.N. Sadovsky). A systematic understanding of the family and family processes makes it possible to explore the development of family relationships over time, to consider the life cycle
families (E.B. Gruzdeva, L.A. Gordon, E.V. Klopov, etc.).
The relevance of the issues described in this article is due to the high importance of the family as a small social group in modern society, which at the moment in its existence and functioning has a significant number of negative trends of various etymologies. These phenomena are especially acute in the appearance of a modern young family. It is in connection with a wide range of negative trends in a young family that an integrative approach to its problems becomes so important for us, as an approach that allows us to move away from the stereotypical consideration of this issue within the framework of any one research area.
Notes:
1. Oliferovich N.I., Zinkevich-Kuzemkina T.A., Velenta T.F. Psychology of family crises. SPb., 2006. S. 360.
2. Antonyuk E.V. The formation of the role structure of a young family and its perception by spouses // Bulletin of Moscow State University 1993. No. 4. P. 9-10, 25.
3. Klimantova G.I. Problems of a young family in the context of society modernization // Proceedings of the V All-Russian Social and Pedagogical Congress (Moscow, June 6-7, 2005). M., 2005. P.5.
4. Matskovsky M.S. Sociology of the family. Problems of theory, methodology and methodology. M.: Nauka, 1989. S. 158.
5. Andreeva G.M. Social Psychology. M., 1980. S. 42.
6. Hartmann N. The family as the locus of gender, class, and political struggle// Signs. 1981. No 6. P. 364.
7. Sociology. M.: Thought, 1990. C. 282.
8. Lapin N.I. Anthroposocietal approach // Journal of sociology and social anthropology. 2006. V. 9, No. 3. S. 25-34.
1. Oliferovich N.I., Zinkevich-Kuzemkina T.A., Velenta T.F. Psychology of family crises. SPb., 2006. P. 360.
2. Antonyuk E.V. Formation of role structure of a young family and its perception by spouses // Bull. Moscow State University. 1993 no. 4. P. 9-10, 25.
3. Klimantova G.I. Problems of a young family in the conditions of society modernization // Materials of the 5th Russian Social and Pedagogical Congress (Moscow, June 6-7, 2005). M., 2005. P. 5.
4. Matskovsky M.S. Sociology of a family. Problems of the theory, methodology and technique. M.: Nauka, 1989, P. 158.
5. Andreeva G.M. social psychology. M., 1980. P. 42.
6. Hartmann H. The family as the locus of gender, class, and political struggle // Signs. 1981 . No 6. P. 364.
7. sociology. M.: Mysl, 1990. P.282.
8. Lapin N.I. Anthroposocietal approach // Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology. 2006 . V.9. no. 3. P. 25-34.
Theories of Marx and Weber as the basis of a theoretical approach to the sociology of the city
Remark 1
The methodological orientation of research in the field of the city laid down by the classics of sociology has become the basis for the latest theoretical developments and the search for adequate tools for analyzing the problems of urban settlements. Most modern urban sociologists, while developing their concepts, are trying to rethink the classical tradition, paying special attention to the differences in the approaches of K. Marx and M. Weber in the study of social processes.
K. Marx and M. Weber paid equal attention to the problem of conflicts. However, the ways to solve it for them are significantly different. Thus, for Weberian urban sociology, the main issue is the struggle of various social groups for control in cities, as well as the mechanisms for maintaining power by various social groups in cities. For the Marxist tradition, the conflict has primarily an economic basis - it arises between two antagonistic classes - the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, which appropriates the results of the workers' labor.
According to the followers of M. Weber, the study of modern cities should be based on the study of the history of development and the formation of the specifics of social relations: how status groups, economic institutions arise and take shape, actually determine the appearance of the city. Thus, the analysis of urban centers and communities within the Weberian tradition is based on a significant historical foundation.
An important aspect of the study of representatives of this trend is also a significant attention to the study of the political dimension, which is seen as something autonomous in relation to the economic development of the city. Significant attention is paid to the authors of neo-Weberians interpretive approach in the study of urban lifestyle and urban processes. This direction requires special attention and explanation of the emergence of ideas, beliefs, symbols and systems that are formed and developed in the city, focuses on the analysis of collective actions based on values shared by the majority of citizens. Topical questions for neo-Weberians:
- the need to study the history of the city,
- analysis of the urban hierarchy within existing systems,
- monitoring government policy by mista.
For neo-Marxist sociologists, the problems of economic determination, the description of human actions as a simple agent outside human forces, and the constant use of categories of class conflict are topical. Despite the significant methodological disagreements between the authors of various areas of modern sociological studies of the city, one can see certain common features in the concepts of the followers of K. Marx and M. Weber.
Neo-Weberian and Neo-Marxist theories
Thus, both neo-Weberian and neo-Marxist concepts of explaining the processes of a modern city are based on an analysis of the problems of the functioning of capital in Western cities, the processes of urban collective consumption as the basis for the reproduction of the capitalist system. The increase in the dependence of the city on the interest of the ruling elites is analyzed. The main motive for attracting increased attention of Western researchers of the city to Marxism in the mid-70s. 20th century was the movement of social protest, which took place in Europe and the United States in the 60-70s. The basis of this movement was the protests against the Vietnam War, the speeches of environmental and feminist organizations. All this led to the interest of researchers in the legacy of K. Marx, the doctrine of social conflict and the search for deep, economic explanations for the course of urban processes. Neo-Marxism arose on the basis of criticism of urban management in the 60s and 70s. 20th century
The basis of this approach was the thesis about the self-sufficient role of city agents, who provided all the functions of management and life support of the city. G. Lefevre (Henri Lefebvre) - one of the modern world-famous French philosophers, revised some of the ideas of K. Marx, whose works he turned to in search of an explanation of the processes of urban development. To do this, he uses such concepts of Marx's dictionary as profit, rent, class exploitation. With their help, Lefebvre manages to prove that the development of the city is the same result of the capitalist system, like any other production.
However, he notes that K. Marx's approach to the analysis of the city is limited. The thing is that in the political economy concept of K. Marx, the concept of "turnover of capital" does not apply to real estate. In this regard, I Lefebvre introduces a new term - "secondary circulation of capital", designed to describe one of the most important sources of income for the modern capitalist economy - investing in construction, which brings no less profit than investing in production.
Economic theory of city functioning
Within the framework of the neo-Marxist approach in the sociology of the city, a number of well-known researchers work, among which are M. Castells, D. Harvey, in whose works the analysis is based on the study of economic and political factors influencing the formation of the city, attention is paid to the socio-territorial consequences of the application of the latest technologies, it is considered how the city is changing as a result of the transition of the economy to a new era - informational.M. Castells (Manuel Castells) - Spanish sociologist working in the US, develops a Marxist approach to the analysis of the city. As a theorist, Castells began by studying the problems of urbanization and the social structure of the modern city. For 12 years he taught the sociology of the city at the Higher School of Social Sciences in Paris. In his fundamental article "The Urban Question" (1977), M. Castells analyzes the fundamental changes that have taken place in the capitalist system.
The main function of the city, according to the author, is economic. The city is a place of consumption of goods and services necessary to maintain life and work efficiently, it is also a place of reproduction of the labor force of a capitalist society. At the same time, the city becomes an indicator of the main contradiction of the capitalist system - the contradiction between profit maximization and an attempt to reduce the costs associated with the organization of labor. Capitalists, according to M. Castells, do not consider it necessary to invest in healthcare, employment, housing construction, which are necessary for the reproduction of labor resources.
Remark 2
Confirmation of the ideas of M. Castells was the fact that in the 90s. 20th century about 15 American cities were on the verge of bankruptcy. M. Castells also cites the amount of debt of the largest metropolitan areas - New York and Cleveland, in which only government loans made it possible to avoid bankruptcy.
Among the representatives of the neo-Weberian approach to the study of urban processes, one can name R. Pala (Ray Pahl), who in his work “City. Essays on sociology "(1970). Develops a managerial model of the city. The subject of this work is the system of bureaucratic management and its carriers. According to R. Pal, in the early 70s. 20th century the main dominants of urban processes in the developed industrial countries have crystallized.
These processes turned out to be due to certain limitations, among which the author highlights:
- fundamental spatial restrictions on access to important and scarce urban resources and facilities are expressed in distances mediated by time and cost;
- restriction of access to city resources, associated with the spread of rules and procedures introduced by the bureaucracy, which help to distribute and control city resources;
- The population living in different districts of the city differs in the degree of access to the necessary resources and funds, depending on their economic and status positions.
Since the extent to which access to city resources is restricted depends on who controls the access process, it becomes impossible to avoid conflicts in such a city system.
Remark 3
So, unlike the followers of Marxism, the neo-Weberian tradition in the study of the city, analyzing the processes and social movements that were formed in the cities of the second half of the twentieth century, focuses on the analysis of political and administrative processes, the struggle of various social groups for control, the introduction of new technologies.
