2 main schools and directions of modern sociology. Main schools of sociology
The classical period of sociology is usually associated with the time and processes of its formation as a science. Historically, it covers the 19th and early 20th centuries. At this time, fundamental ideas about the social structure emerged and received theoretical embodiment, and sociological schools, which are commonly called classical, were formed. They received this name due to the fact that they have primacy in the scientific understanding of social problems and the creation of general methodological foundations of sociology. This also means that all generations of sociologists following the classics are forced to take into account their scientific achievements, or directly turn to them.
Classical sociological theories that influence the development of all, including modern social thought, are represented by three scientific schools: positivist (O. Comte, G. Spencer, G. Tardt, F. Tönnies, E. Durkheim, etc.), Marxist (K. Marx, F. Engels, etc.) and the anti-positivist sociological school (M. Weber, etc.)
Noteworthy is the fact that positivist and Marxist sociologies emerge in a historically short period of time, spanning 10-15 years. Their content shows the influence of the French social thinker Saint-Simon ( Henri Claude De Rouvroy de Saint-Simon (1760-1825). It is interesting that O. Comte, who worked for Saint-Simon for almost five years as a secretary and borrowed many of his ideas, never once referred to the original source of these ideas. In contrast, the founders of Marxist sociology saw in Saint-Simon one of their ideological predecessors.
Auguste Comte (1798 – 1857) considered the founder of positivist sociology. His main works: "A Course in Positive Philosophy" and "A System of Positive Politics, or a Treatise Establishing the Religion of Mankind." Comte first used the term “sociology” in 1839 in the 47th lecture of the Course of Positive Philosophy.
According to Comte, sociology should have the same exact knowledge as the natural sciences. To do this, it is necessary to reject speculation and fiction that are characteristic of philosophical thinking, to abandon attempts to resolve “unsolvable” questions and move on to using the same methods of cognition that have already given positive results in natural science. Obtaining positive results from the study of society will provide an opportunity to apply them in practice with the aim of improving it. This approach in the history of science was called “positivism”, and in relation to sociology - sociological positivism.
The main principles of positivism were the accuracy and objectivity of social research methods, the empirical confirmation of the truth of the acquired knowledge, and the researcher’s refusal to make value judgments. The science of society, based on these principles, according to O. Comte, should identify, describe and organize the facts of social life. Its task is not to cognize the essence and causes of social phenomena, but to study them as certain givens, phenomena. Believing in the power of the human mind as a driving force social development, Comte believed that sociology, all “positive” science, should replace religion and become the basis for the organization of a new society. He saw his historical mission in creating the “Scientific Bible”.
O. Comte, like many other philosophers of his time, was impressed by the successes of the natural sciences. Apparently, this is why he identified two sections in his sociology with corresponding names - “social statics” and “social dynamics”.
Social statics examines the structure of society and the conditions of its existence. Comte understands society as a certain special organism, a system in which its constituent parts are completely subordinate to the whole, and on which the existence of this whole depends. Therefore, every element of society must be examined from the point of view of the public good.
The consideration of issues of social statics was influenced by Comte's specific understanding of the relationship between society and man. Man as an individual, in the view of the French scientist, is an abstraction, since he cannot exist separately from society, and therefore must completely submit to the attitudes of the whole, i.e. society. In modern language, O. Comte proposed a totalitarian model of society. Man is a selfish and aggressive creature, to contain negative manifestations which requires social institutions that ensure the integration of people into society.
Analysis social statics O. Comte, like many thinkers before, begins with the main cell of the social organism - the family. It is the family that acts as the source and environment of moral education; it is here that the individual acquires his social qualities. The family is also the custodian of cultural heritage, which ensures the existence of society throughout the lives of many generations. At the same time, the idealization of the traditional patriarchal family leads Comte to justify inequality between men and women. Important role family also lies in the fact that on its basis, as the primary form of unification of people, large social communities are formed. According to Comte, this is a tribe, people, etc.
Along with the family, the main condition for the existence of society is the division of labor. On its basis, various social groups and classes are formed, which are forced to cooperate with each other in the interests of maintaining social stability. Therefore, Comte gives preference to social solidarity as opposed to group egoism and aggressiveness.
Maintenance social unity requires political coercion. Creating his social utopia, Comte characterizes political power as an expression of the “common spirit”, and the state as an organ of solidarity.
An important consolidating role in society belongs to spiritual factors. The unity of beliefs, convictions and social feelings is ensured, first of all, by religion. Comte claimed to create a new religion, which should be built on the basis of positivism with the addition of a civil cult in the form of new rituals designed to replace traditional church ones.
Social dynamics O. Konta describes the process of continuous reproduction and development of society, reveals, as he imagined, the universal laws of development of society and all spheres of its life. He identified two groups of factors influencing social progress. The primary, decisive factors included spiritual and mental development, which have a decisive impact on all aspects of society and all human history. Comte included climate, race, average duration as secondary human life, population growth. The action of these factors determines the pace of social progress and can slow down or speed up it.
The positivist methodology in relation to the study of society, presented by O. Comte, was further applied in the works of his ideological successors G. Spencer, G. Tarde, F. Tönnies, E. Durkheim and others and served as the basis for various sociological concepts.
English philosopher and sociologist Herbert Spencer (1820 – 1903) was the creator of the evolutionary-organismic concept. His main works are “Fundamentals”, “Foundations of Biology”, “Foundations of Sociology”, etc. Spencer was distinguished by extraordinary erudition in many areas of scientific knowledge. His sociological views were formed under the influence of the achievements of the natural sciences, the ideas of evolution, conceptually presented, primarily in the works on biological evolution of Charles Darwin.
G. Spencer, as a scientist, was most interested in the problem of evolution, which was considered as a universal phenomenon inherent in the surrounding world. He saw his main task in the development of the ideas of evolutionism, the proof of the unity of laws that govern all evolutionary processes. This largely explains the use of the analogy between society and the organism in Spencer's sociology. But this analogy is not absolute; the scientist clearly saw the significant differences between social and biological organisms and sharply criticized organicism.
Spencer compared society with an animal organism, and its individual parts (family, state, etc.) with parts of the body (heart, nervous system, etc.), each of which influences the life of the whole. Like organisms, society develops from the simplest forms to more complex ones.
Herbert Spencer viewed social evolution as a continuation of biological evolution. Society according to Spencer arises as a result of the long evolution of primitive communities. This natural evolution has as its content socialization - the transformation of the animal man into a social man. The main factor in sociogenesis (the formation of society) is the need for survival, which is ensured by the numerical growth of the human population and the associated need to improve social organization.
Spencer's sociological concept presents attempts to eclectically combine the initially antisocial nature of “human nature”, individualism with the action of supra-individual forces, the “social organism”. This was expressed in the extension of natural selection to human relationships and the requirement not to interfere with the natural course of events, which would lead to biological degeneration. Natural selection in human society ensures the survival of the fittest, the most promising from the point of view of the social whole. Spencer believed that society, represented by the state, should not provide assistance to the poor and least intellectually developed individuals and groups of the population. Their fate is extinction. At the same time, understanding the importance of connecting, unifying factors in conditions of fierce competition, Spencer creates the concept of social institutions as mechanisms of self-organization life together of people. It identifies five groups of social institutions: domestic (family, marriage); ritual, ceremonial (customs, rituals, etiquette); political, specializing in resolving group conflicts (state); church, providing spiritual integration (church); professional and industrial institutions arising as a result of the division of labor (guilds, trade unions).
The English sociologist proposed his own classification of societies. The basis for distinguishing social types is the complexity of the structure and functional organization from the “small simple unit” to the “large complex one.” The classification includes two types of societies: military and industrial. At the same time, the main content of the evolution of the first into the second is the gradual transition from mechanical coercion to organic unification based on common interests.
The French sociologist, social psychologist and criminologist had a significant influence on the formation of the psychological direction in the sociology of the classical period Gabriel Tarde (1843-1904). His main works: “Laws of Imitation”, “Social Logic”, “Public Opinion and the Crowd”, “Personality and the Crowd”. Tarde saw interpersonal interactions as the basis of social processes and interpreted society as a product of the interaction of individual consciousnesses. The psychologization of social reality inevitably led Tarde to the conclusion that sociology should be based on psychology and become an “interpsychological discipline.” In this regard, he focused his attention on the study of interpersonal interactions, which, like all social phenomena, are characterized by an imitative nature. Tarde explains social integration and social progress by the action of the laws of imitation. A significant place in his work is occupied by the analysis of the crowd and the public as mass communities. Tarde's original views largely served to shape social psychology, of which he is rightly considered one of the founders.
The founder and first president of the German Sociological Society made a significant contribution to the development of sociology as a science Ferdinand Tönnies (1855 – 1936). His main scientific work is “Community and Society.” F. Tönnies devoted him to studying the forms of interaction between people and, on their basis, identified two types of sociality - community and society. The criterion for distinguishing them is two types of will expressed in them. Tönnies believed that natural (instinctive) will dominates in the community, and rational will, realized consciously, dominates in society.
Historically, community comes first. The scientist characterizes it as a kind of unity of people that arises on the basis of such factors as consent, customs, and religion. Community presupposes a sense of closeness of social positions, stability and long-term social contacts, and common traditions. Society, according to Tönnies, is a secondary formation that is based on rational foundations, calculations, and agreements. It is characterized by such phenomena as agreement, public opinion, politics. Tönnies associated the historical process with the transition from community to society, the increase in rationality in the interaction of people.
In the formation of sociology, the merit of F. Tönnies lies in the fact that he posed and proposed a unique solution to the question of the relationship between empirical research, general theoretical approaches and conceptual knowledge, and also gave definitions of community and society, giving them the status of basic categories of social science.
The end of the 19th century was marked by the emergence within the framework of the positivist school of the original concept of sociology by the French scientist Emile Durkheim (1858-1917). His main works: “Elements of Sociology”, “On the Division of Social Labor”, “Rules of the Sociological Method”, “Suicide”. His theory received the epithet of sociologism, as opposed to the organicism and influence of psychology popular in that era. Actually, “sociologism” consisted in Durkheim’s methodological attitude to explain the social by the social. This meant, firstly, that society is a special system, different from others (mechanical, biological) and should be studied as such, and not explained by processes occurring in the psyche and behavior of the individual. Secondly, sociology is designed to study social reality, and its subject is social facts.
Durkheim divided social facts into those that have a material substrate, constituting the “anatomical structure” of society (settlements, frequency of communication between individuals, etc.) and non-material facts - collective ideas, beliefs - what is usually referred to as social consciousness. He endowed both the first and second facts with such properties as objectivity, in the sense of independence from the individual, and coercive force, as a result of which they are imposed on the individual regardless of his desire. With such a rational approach, Durkheim suddenly turns towards idealism and even uses religious-spiritualistic terminology. He presented society as a composition of ideas, beliefs and various feelings that are realized through the individual. In this sense, he calls society God. At the same time, he views religion as a certain set of collective ideas that reflect real social relations.
The sociology of E. Durkheim contains a number of ideas that are fruitfully used by modern science of society. Among them are the concept of function, borrowed from biology, as well as the concept of normality and pathology, applied to society. Durkheim introduces into scientific use the concept of anomie, which characterizes a phenomenon generated by social pathology, the abnormal course of social processes. The essence of anomie (literally, normlessness) is a state of society in which there is no moral regulation of individual behavior.
To overcome crisis phenomena in society associated with pathology, Durkheim considered it necessary for social relations to be built as relations of association, bringing people together on the basis of solidarity.
He considered social progress through the prism of the criterion of increasing the degree of social cohesion in society, the transition from mechanical solidarity to organic. These processes corresponded to such phenomena as an increase in the division of labor and an increase in the dependence of members of society on each other.
Concerned with the problem of preserving his contemporary society, E. Durkheim proposed his own version of solving the most acute class contradictions. He postulated the need to develop a sense of solidarity among individuals belonging to different classes, and called for regulating the relationship between labor and capital on this basis.
A special place in Durkheim's sociology is occupied by its applied aspects. The most famous among them is the study of the problem of suicide. Here, Durkheim, on the basis of empirical data, shows that the cause of this phenomenon is not only mental deviations observed in individuals, but also certain social factors and conditions.
The second classical school of sociology is the school based on the teaching Karl Marx (1818 - 1883) and his companion and friend Friedrich Engels (1820 -1895)– Marxist sociology. It should be noted that neither Marx nor Engels used the term “sociology” in relation to their views and did not enter into theoretical polemics with O. Comte, apparently considering him just an interpreter of the ideas of Saint-Simon. Sociological issues in their teaching about society are part of a broader teaching represented by a system of philosophical, economic, and political views - Marxism. Many issues of social structure and functioning were considered not only in special works, but also in individual articles, notes, and letters. The most famous sociological works are the works of K. Marx “Capital”, “The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte”, “Class struggle in France from 1848 to 1850”, “Towards a critique of political economy. Preface" and the works of F. Engels "The situation of the working class in England", "The origin of the family, private property and the state", "The Peasant War in Germany".
Marxist sociology was built on the basis of the study of specific facts of social life, which were considered in connection and contradiction with each other, as well as in development. This made it possible to establish significant connections and relationships between social phenomena and processes, to highlight trends and patterns of their development. The history of human society was thus revealed as a natural historical process.
Based on the dialectical-materialist methodology, Marx and Engels fruitfully used the systemic method in the study of society. Society as a system harmoniously integrated the economy, social structure, politics, and spiritual life. The decisive role was given to material, economic factors. Naturally, before engaging in art and politics, a person must eat, drink, dress, and have a home. In this regard, society represents the unity of an economic basis and a political-ideological superstructure. The basis, economic relations, ultimately play a decisive role in relation to the superstructure, that is, changes in the economic basis of society sooner or later lead to changes in its social structure, political system, spiritual life. It was found that the level and nature of the development of production relations embodied in the basis are, in turn, dependent on the level of development of the productive forces of society. Together they form a mode of production that determines what society as a whole should be like. On the basis of this methodological approach, Marx and Engels developed a theory of socio-economic formation. German scientists saw in the socio-economic formation a historically specific type of society, based on its characteristic mode of production, which determines the totality of ideological relations and views (politics, law, art, religion, etc.) and the corresponding organizations and institutions (state, court, church, etc.). Such social types include primitive communal, slaveholding, feudal, capitalist and communist socio-economic formations, which successively replace one another. Socio-economic formations thus represent stages of social progress.
The “mechanism” of changing socio-economic formations is hidden in material production, the development of productive forces, which at a certain stage come into conflict with the old relations of production. This conflict, in turn, gives rise to and is complemented by conflicts in all parts of the social system, the subjects of which are antagonistic social classes. It is resolved in a social revolution. In fact, the causes and sources of the development of society were discovered. The problematic of social conflict and the place it occupies in Marxist sociology allow us to characterize it as the theoretical foundation of conflictology that subsequently emerged.
In the Marxist sociological concept, the problem of man and society was refracted through the prism of human liberation from exploitation, organically associated with private ownership of the means of production. Marx and Engels believed that the future communist society would create all the necessary conditions for the complete and free development of the individual.
Within the framework of Marxist sociology of the 19th century, problems of classes, their fundamental interests and way of life, social institutions of family, marriage, religion, as well as criteria for social progress, the role of the masses and the individual in history, the social foundations of law and the state were posed and solved.
The sociology of Marxism and positivist sociology have a number of common features and significant differences. What they have in common are: the creation of a sociological theory based on the analysis of empirical data; study, first of all, of contemporary capitalist society, which is at a certain stage of development; understanding of society as a system. Among the differences, one should highlight, such as, firstly, the presence of opposing methodological approaches in terms of identifying the main factors of social existence - materialism in Marx’s theory and idealism in positivist sociology; secondly, different understandings of social progress and its mechanisms, which in positivist sociology led to the transformation of capitalism into an eternal social system, and in Marxist sociology - into just one of the stages of social development, which, in accordance with natural history law, will be replaced in the course of social higher revolution; thirdly, an objective description of social conflicts and their role in the sociological theory of Marx and subjective attitudes and utopian wishes for inter-class solidarity and unity in the sociology of positivism.
The antipositivist sociological school arose at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries. One of its most prominent representatives is Max Weber (1864-1920) . His main scientific works are “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism” and “Economy and Society.” The name of this German sociologist and political scientist is also associated with “understanding sociology,” the author of the term and the creator of which he was.
The essence of the methodological approach of antipositivism in sociology lies in the following basic provisions. Firstly, there is no unity of the laws of nature and society, which, due to its specificity, has a qualitative difference from natural phenomena. Secondly, the methods of studying society cannot be similar to the methods of studying the natural sciences. Thirdly, sociology gives an idea of the phenomena and processes occurring in society, but cannot provide knowledge about society as a whole.
By implementing these methodological guidelines, M. Weber builds the logic of sociology in the following way. Since the facts of social reality are events that consist of behavioral acts of individual individuals and groups of people, the main thing in its study should be knowledge of the meaning of a particular action. But each individual puts a certain, subjective meaning into his action. Therefore, in order to know him, one must understand his motivation, i.e. what made a person do or not do this or that act.
Understanding subjective meaning requires insight into inner world individual. Information about it can be obtained from the individual himself, or a number of assumptions can be made based on personal mental experience. In both cases, the reliability of the result will be questionable, since the individual being interviewed may lie, and the researcher’s thoughts will add even more subjectivity. Understanding turns out to be at the level of assumptions and hypotheses.
M. Weber offers ideal types of social action as a tool for understanding sociology. Their “ideality” lies in the fact that they do not occur in a “pure” form and represent a kind of generalized simplified characteristic. At the same time, identifying the features of several or all ideal types in the analysis of a specific social action allows us to obtain a sufficient understanding of it. The following four ideal types of social action are distinguished. Purposeful action is an action consciously oriented towards a specific goal, which is justified with the help of reason. Value-rational action is an action that has a conscious orientation towards certain moral and aesthetic imperatives (requirements) developed human culture. It is determined by a conscious belief in the value of a certain way of behavior as such, regardless of the ultimate success of the activity. Affective action is an action caused by deep feelings or emotional states of the actor. Traditional action is an action that is prompted by an acquired habit or tradition.
The methodology created by Max Weber allowed him to successfully apply it to the analysis of various spheres of human activity, which served as a significant contribution to the sociology of religion and the sociology of politics.
The theoretical heritage of classical schools of sociology has great methodological significance for modern science about society. Firstly, it reveals the foundations of sociological analysis and focuses on the study of real social facts. Secondly, it initially establishes a variety of approaches to social problems and ways to solve them. Thirdly, the theoretical capital of classical sociological schools serves as an inexhaustible source of scientific controversy and the development of sociological thought.
Related information.
Modern Western sociology is represented by a variety of schools and movements that are developing in many directions.
Structural-functional analysis. One of the main directions of American sociology of the second half of the 20th century. For the first time, the ideas of the functional principle of understanding society were presented in the works of O. Comte and G. Spencer. Thus, Comte’s social statics was based on the position according to which institutions, beliefs, and moral values of society are interconnected and form one whole. Any phenomenon can be explained by describing the pattern of its coexistence with other phenomena. Spencer used special analogies between processes in the human body and society. E. Durkheim's sociology was based on the recognition that society has its own reality, independent of people; that this is not just an ideal being, but a system of active forces, a “second nature”; that explanations of social life must be sought in the properties of society itself.
The functional aspects of the development of society and social phenomena were developed by American sociologists Talcott Parsons (1902-1979) and Robert Merton (born 1910).
T. Parsons considered one of the key tasks of sociology to be the analysis of society as a system of functionally interrelated components. In practice, this meant that the analysis of any social process is part of the study of a certain system within certain boundaries. Parsons understood the system as a constant set of repeated and interconnected actions (the theory of social action), and the needs of the individual as variables in the social system.
T. Parsons and other researchers tried not only to derive the rules for the functioning of any system, but also to determine the set of necessary conditions or “functional prerequisites” for all social systems. These universal conditions concerned not only social system, but also its components. Each social system must satisfy certain needs of its elements, ensuring their survival. It must also master certain methods of distributing material resources. In addition, the system should facilitate the process of socialization of people, giving them the opportunity to form either subjective motivations for submission to specific norms, or a certain general need for such submission. At the same time, each system must have a certain organization of activities and institutional means to successfully counteract violations of this organization, resorting to coercion or persuasion. And finally, social institutions must be relatively compatible with each other.
In every society, in addition to social norms, there are values unique to it. In the absence of such values, it is unlikely that individuals will be able to successfully harness the need to conform to social norms. Fundamental values must become part of the personality.
Parsons' theoretical scheme unites and organizes problem of social order. The concept of “social order” includes the existence of certain restrictions, prohibitions, control in social life, as well as certain relationships in it: the presence of an element of foresight and repetition (people can act only when they know what to expect from each other); more or less long-term constancy in the preservation of forms of social life. Various aspects of social order are reflected in many concepts, the main ones being “system” and “structure”. They are used both in relation to empirical objects and relations, and in relation to abstract objects.
The concept of “structure” covers permanent elements of the structure of a social system, relatively independent of minor and short-term fluctuations in the relationship of the system with the external environment. In connection with the changeability of these relations, a system of dynamic processes and mechanisms is introduced between the requirements that arise from the conditions of the constancy of the structure and the requirements of a given external situation. This dynamic aspect takes over the functional part of the analysis. At the most general abstract level, social order for Parsons is the product of two processes: the tendency of the social system to self-preservation and the tendency to maintain certain boundaries of constancy relative to the environment (homeostatic equilibrium). Actions within a system, which consists of many subsystems, are analyzed on the basis of functional prerequisites, requirements for its use and the equilibrium of the system. Activities within the system appear as a consequence of its structural responses to requirements, which reveal its connection with the environment. Therefore, when analyzing a social system, it is important to examine its interchange with other systems. And different elements of the system, according to Parsons, are derived from the conditions of social action and interaction.
T. Parsons believed that any social system should provide:
1) rational organization and distribution of its material (natural), human (personnel) and cultural resources to achieve its goals;
2) defining the main goals and supporting the process of achieving them;
3) maintaining solidarity (integration problem);
4) supporting the motivation of individuals when they perform social roles and eliminating hidden tensions in the system of personal motivation.
The second and third requirements are put forward by the cultural system, the main task of which is to legitimize the normative order of the social system. The problem of defining the main goals and achieving them is satisfied by political practice. The problem of integration can be solved by religious activity or its functional alternatives - different secular ideologies, etc.
The fourth problem is solved by the family, which carries out primary socialization, “building” the requirements of the social system into the personal structure of a person and maintaining the emotional satisfaction of its members. All four functional requirements make sense only in their totality, in their structural interconnection.
Structural-functional analysis as a method of social research is systematized and described in detail R. Merton. In the paradigm (system of forms) of structural-functional analysis he formulated the following basic concepts:
- “functions” – consequences of activities that contribute to the adaptation of the system;
- “dysfunctions” – adverse consequences;
- “explicit functions” – conscious consequences;
- “latent functions” – unconscious consequences;
- “functional requirements” – requirements, the fulfillment of which is necessary for the normal functioning of the system;
- “functional alternatives” – equivalent structures capable of performing the same functions.
In Western sociology, structural-functional analysis is most widespread in the sociology of politics, sociology of crime, sociology of the family, and the study of social stratification. In the late 1950s and 1960s, the functional approach was criticized for its application of biological concepts to social systems; for a non-historical (static) consideration of society; for a too abstract categorical apparatus. Opponents also noted the failure of functional analysis to adequately describe and analyze conflicts. Subsequently, the theoretical approaches of structural-functional analysis were synthesized with other sociological movements.
Theories of social conflict. They present a variety of concepts that recognize conflict as one of the most important factors in social development. The works are considered authoritative for the study of problems of social conflict K. Marx and G. Simmel.
Proponents of social conflict theories do not agree with the assertion that inequality is a natural way of ensuring the survival of society. Not only do they point out the shortcomings of functionalist theories (is it fair, for example, that a gum salesman earns more than the people who teach his children?), but they also argue that functionalism is nothing more than an attempt to justify status. In their view, inequality results from a condition in which people who control social values (wealth and power) are able to extract benefits for themselves.
American sociologist L. Coser (born in 1913) believes that in every society there are certain elements of tension and potential social conflict, which is the most important component of social interaction and contributes to the destruction or strengthening of social ties. If in rigid (closed) societies social conflicts divide society into two “hostile” groups or two “hostile” classes, undermine the foundations of collective “consent”, threaten the destruction of social ties and the social system through revolutionary violence, then in “pluralistic” (open) societies In societies they find their solution, and social institutions protect social harmony. The value of conflicts lies in the fact that they prevent the ossification of the social system, open the way to innovation, that is, the introduction of new forms of labor organization and management, which cover not only individual enterprises, but also their entirety, industries.
German sociologist Ralph Dahrendorf(born in 1929), calling his sociological concept “conflict theory,” contrasts it with both Marxist class theory and the concepts of social harmony. He considers social conflict to be a consequence of resistance to relations of domination and subordination. Suppression of social conflict, according to Dahrendorf, leads to its aggravation, and “rational regulation” leads to “controlled evolution.” Although reasons for conflicts always exist, a liberal society can arrange them at the level of competition between individuals, groups, and classes.
Theories of social conflict, recognizing conflict as one of the main driving forces of social progress, simultaneously consider phenomena that are characterized by the concepts of “consent”, “stability”, “order”, “peace”. At the same time, agreement is considered a normal state of society, conflict is considered temporary.
Social exchange theory. The theory of social exchange, the founder of which is considered an American sociologist and social psychologist George Homans(1910-1989), embodies attempts to establish connections between the macro and micro levels of social reality. Representatives of this concept consider the exchange different types activity as the fundamental basis of social relations on which certain structural formations are formed (power, status, prestige, conformity, etc.). The theory of social exchange has become widespread in sociology, social psychology, political science, and economics.
According to this theory, people interact with each other based on an analysis of their own experiences, potential rewards and punishments. Exist two premises of social exchange theory. First comes from the assumption that a person’s behavior is dominated by a rational principle, which aims him to receive certain rewards (money, goods, services, prestige, respect, success, friendship, love, etc.). Types of rewards are conceptualized in different ways: “value” in sociology; “utility” - in economics; “reward”, “payment” - in social psychology. Second premise reveals the content of the name of this concept: the process of social interaction is interpreted as a constant exchange between people of various rewards. “Exchange agreements” are seen as the elementary acts that make up the fundamental level of social life, and increasingly complex structural formations (social institutions and organizations) are considered to grow out of exchange relations.
Psychoanalytic theories. The impetus for the development of psychoanalytic theories was given by the psychological teachings of the famous Austrian Sigmund Freud(1856-1939), who hypothesized the dominant role in human life of unconscious impulses, mainly of a sexual nature. But there is a significant difference between Freud's social doctrine and psychoanalysis as a specific method for studying unconscious mental processes.
According to Freud, the problem of resolving sexual conflicts is of decisive importance not only in individual development, but also in the historical process. The basis of sociocultural, artistic and other types of human activity is the sublimation (transformation, switching) of sexual energy.
Freud's theory of interpersonal communication is based on the belief that the process of interaction between people reproduces their childhood experiences. As adults, they apply in different life situations the concepts learned in early childhood. The tendency to respect a person in authority, such as a leader, due to the fact that he resembles one of his parents. Freud believed that people belong to different social groups and remain in them largely because they experience a sense of loyalty and obedience to the group leaders. He explained this not by any special qualities of leaders, but rather by their identification with powerful, god-like personalities, which were personified by their parents in childhood.
Freud's followers, often disagreeing with his main statements regarding the role of the sexual factor in social life, used the psychoanalytic method in the study of subconscious unconscious processes and their role in shaping people's behavior. So, American researcher Karen Horney(1885-1952) studied the social aspects of the emergence of neuroses. Viewing neurosis as a reflection of the irrational aspects of society, Horney considered it to be the driving force behind a state of “basic fear” generated by a hostile environment. As a reaction to fear, various defense mechanisms “turn on”: suppression of fear, resulting in other symptoms; “narcotization” of fear – direct (through alcohol) or indirect (in the form of violent external activity, etc.); escape from situations that cause fear. These defenses give rise to the four “great neuroses” of our time: benevolence neurosis – the search for affection, affection and approval at any cost; power neurosis - the pursuit of power, prestige and possession; submissiveness neurosis (automatic conformism); neuroisolation – escape from society. But these irrational ways of resolving conflicts increase the self-alienation of the individual. Psychoanalysts see the tasks of psychotherapy in identifying defects in the patient’s social connections system in order to better adapt him to the existing lifestyle.
A notable figure in the sociology of the 20th century. became a German-American sociologist and psychologist Erich Fromm(1900-1980). At first he developed the theory of the Freudian direction, collaborated with scientists of the Frankfurt school, the so-called neo-Marxists G. Horkheimer, G. Marcuse and others. Therefore, E. Fromm is often considered a neo-Freudian or neo-Marxist. In fact, in the 50-80s, he created an original sociological theory, using and critically evaluating various sociological movements. Fromm himself identified three conceptual approaches to the study of society:
1. Psychological - characteristic of Freud's thinking, according to which cultural phenomena are caused by psychological factors that “grow” from instinctive impulses, which society influences only through complete or partial suppression. According to Fromm, Freud's followers explained capitalism as a consequence of anal eroticism, and the development of early Christianity as a consequence of ambivalence regarding the image of the father.
2. Economic - grew, as Fromm believed, from the disfigured understanding of history that K. Marx developed. Therefore, it was believed that such phenomena of social and cultural life as religions and political ideas were generated by subjective economic interests. The Protestant appears as a direct reflection of certain economic needs of the bourgeoisie. Fromm notes that Marx had something else in mind: objective economic conditions are the driving force of history, since a change in these conditions leads to the transformation of economic relations. As a result, people's economic attitudes also change, and the intense desire for material wealth is only one of such attitudes.
3. Idealist – presented in M. Weber’s work “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism,” which argues that a new type of economic behavior and a new spirit of culture are due to the emergence of new religious movements, although it is emphasized that this behavior was not determined only by religious doctrines.
In contrast to these concepts, Fromm believed that ideology and culture are based on social character, which is a set of traits common to the majority of members of a given social group; is formed by the way of life of a given society. The dominant traits of this character become creative forces shaping the social process.
Considering the problem of Protestantism and capitalism from this point of view, Fromm showed that the collapse of medieval society threatened the middle class. This threat brought on feelings of isolation, powerlessness and doubt. The psychological change made the doctrine of Luther and Calvin attractive. They strengthened and consolidated changes in the structure of personality, and its new features became effective forces in the development of capitalism, which arose as a consequence of economic and political changes.
Fromm also applied this approach to fascism. The lower middle class responded to economic changes (the growing power of monopolies and post-war inflation) by strengthening certain character traits, namely sadistic and masochistic aspirations. Nazi ideology further strengthened them, and, consequently, these new character traits became forces that served the expansion of German imperialism. In both cases, Fromm argued, when a certain class is threatened by new economic trends, it reacts to this threat psychologically and ideologically. Moreover, the psychological changes caused by such a reaction contribute to the development of economic trends contrary to the economic interests of this class.
E. Fromm modeled the mechanism of interaction between economic, psychological and ideological factors: a person reacts to changes in the external environment by changing himself, and these psychological factors, in turn, contribute to the development of the economic and social process. Changes in social conditions lead to changes in social character, that is, to the emergence of new needs and anxieties. These new needs give rise to new ideas, while at the same time preparing people to accept them. New ideas strengthen and strengthen the new social character and direct human activity in a new direction. In other words, social conditions influence ideological phenomena through social character, but this character is not the result of passive adaptation to social conditions.
Social character- this is a consequence of dynamic adaptation based on the inherent properties of human nature, inherent biologically or formed in the course of history.
Many theorists believed and still believe that it is first necessary to radically change the political and economic structure of society, and only then the human psyche. Others adhere to the idea that human nature should first be changed and only then should we begin to build a new society. Fromm considers both approaches to be erroneous. In his opinion, in the first case, the motivations of the new elite are no different from the motivations of the previous elites. This elite will definitely try, in the midst of the new socio-political institutions created by the revolution, to renew some elements of the old society. Therefore, the victory of the revolution will mean its defeat, as illustrated by the revolutions in France and Russia. In the second case, changes of a purely mental nature do not extend beyond the individual and his immediate environment and, ultimately, are not significant. Therefore, Fromm adheres to the idea that the personality structure of the average individual and the socio-economic structure are interdependent.
E. Fromm is the author theories of radical humanism, which is based on a “typology of social characters” and on the study of the relationship between the individual and society. Its main provisions: production should serve people, not the economy; relations between man and nature should be built not on exploitation, but on cooperation; antagonisms must be replaced by relationships of solidarity; the supreme purpose of all social action must be human welfare and the prevention of human suffering; not maximum, but only smart consumption serves human health and well-being; Every person should be interested in and involved in active work for the benefit of other people.
Symbolic interactionism. Its main feature is the analysis of social interactions based on the symbolic content that people put into their specific actions. Within this theory, the meanings of symbols as necessary means are important. social interactions. Moreover, much attention is paid to the main symbolic means of interaction – language. A social symbol, which has the features of a sign structure, is a necessary element in fulfilling a social role, without which interaction is impossible. Behind the social symbol lies the individual’s comparison of his actions with social norms and patterns of behavior. Having recognized social symbols as signs of interaction, one can study its features.
Founder of symbolic interactionism - American sociologist George Herbert Mead(1863-1934), although the concept itself was introduced into scientific circulation by his student - Herbert Bloomer(1900-1978). J. G. Mead believed that the social world of man and humanity is formed as a result of processes of social interactions in which the “symbolic environment” plays a decisive role thanks to its two main means - gestures and language. Social life depends on a person's ability to imagine himself in other social roles, and this depends on the ability to internal dialogue.
Associated with symbolic interactionism is the so-called sociodramatic approach, which interprets social life as the implementation of a “dramatic” metaphor (figuratively), analyzes interaction in such concepts as “actor”, “mask”, “scene”, “script”, etc.
Neo-Marxism. Western scholars have repeatedly predicted the imminent collapse of Marx's doctrine, which has often been revived in an updated form. In recent years alone, the popularity of Marxism in the West has had several ups and downs. The latest modification is associated with attempts to solve new problems of the post-industrial and information society.
Main schools and directions of modern sociology
Sociology develops at the most rapid pace in the twentieth century, with the United States taking the baton in the development of sociology. Since the 20s of the twentieth century, American sociologists have occupied a leading position in world sociology.
Among sociological scientific schools, the Chicago Sociological School had the greatest popularity and scientific productivity. It was at the University of Chicago, on the basis of the world's first faculty, that multi-purpose applied research was launched, which marked the emergence and flowering of empirical sociology. The first sociological journal and the American Sociological Society were founded in Chicago. The founders of the school are William Thomas and Robert Park. A classic example of this school is the 5-volume work of W. Thomas and F. Znaniecki “The Polish Peasant in Europe and America” (1918-1920). This book is about the adaptation of Polish peasants in America. Another prominent work was R. Park's Chicago Negroes, W. Warner's study The American City. The most important feature school is focused on empirical research. The theoretical basis is behaviorism (behaviorism is “behavior,” according to this concept, sociology should study the observable behavior of people, reduced to stimuli and reactions, influencing the former, one can control human behavior) and pragmatism. R. Park founded the direction of urban ecology. The main processes of change in the city are: 1) population concentration; 2) centralization (selecting a center); 3) segregation (separate living of different social groups); 4) invasion (influx of emigrants); 5) succession (the assimilation of certain patterns of behavior typical for a given area of the city). The main research method is monographic, which combines interviews, observation, and analysis of documents regarding a particular phenomenon or territory.
The Chicago School laid the foundation for the development by American and European scientists of structural-functional, systemic approaches, concepts of action, conflict theory, etc. on the basis of behaviorism.
The Frankfurt School took its name from the Institute for Social Research, which existed in the 1930s. XX century in Frankfurt am Main. With Hitler's rise to power, this institute was dissolved and its members emigrated. The main features of this school were neo-Marxism (the desire to apply Marx's theory to modern conditions), and left-radicalism (the fight against capitalism, with new means and in new conditions). Representatives: Theodor Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, Max Horkheimer, György Lukács, Jürgen Habermas. The main work of T. Adorno “The Authoritarian Personality”. Here the connection between a person’s social position and his ideological ideas was studied. Typical features of an authoritarian personality: anti-Semitism, racism, conservatism in economic and political matters, an uncritical attitude towards group authorities, their idealization, the desire to show and punish those who do not share respect for these authorities, a tendency towards superstition, belief in fate, increased sensitivity with a manifestation of strength and firmness. An authoritarian personality does not show a humane attitude and is uncompromising, mechanically obeys common values, imitates authorities, hates all opponents, outsiders, and is prone to prejudices and stereotypes. Frankfurt residents are characterized by a psychologization of social relations. They study personal alienation, oppression, and aggressiveness. They believe that authoritarianism is a natural manifestation of Western civilization. Herbert Marcuse's major work, One Dimensional Man. Marcuse believed that as a result of the actions of the state, the ruling classes and the media subordinate to them, people develop a one-dimensional vision of the world. Traits of a one-dimensional person: 1) focus on production efficiency; 2) artificial creation of needs that corrupt people; 3) the identity of technological and spiritual development. As a result, the working class integrated into bourgeois society and ceased to be revolutionary. Marcuse identified industrial society itself with bourgeois society. Fighting this
society is possible along the path of a revolution of consciousness, an integral part of which is the sexual revolution. The bearer of the sexual revolution is youth. Other carriers are the intelligentsia, national and religious minorities, and the poor masses of the third world. Structural-functional, systemic, conflictological approaches are based on the ideas of E. Durkheim and K. Marx. They examine the structures and systems of society at the macro level. Structural functionalism represents societies as systems consisting of large elements - subsystems, interconnected and interdependent on each other. Functionalists analyze social subsystems - economics, politics, law, religion from the point of view of their connections with each other and the functions performed in society.
The theory of social action developed by T. Parsons (1902-1979) is adjacent to the functionalists. The main problem of sociology is the study of processes of integration of social systems. A social system consists of interacting individuals, each of whom is an actor (creator of social action) and an object of action of other actors. Any social system is a structure, a set of components with stable properties, and at the same time as a process during which the relationships between structures, or the structures themselves (statics and dynamics of the system) change. That. social systems were viewed as complex sets of social actions. Parsons created a generalized, abstract model of human action, calling it a “unit act,” which includes actor(actor) and situational environment. The situational environment of the action influences the actor through a system of symbols and signs that are elements of culture. The situational environment of the acting subjects consists of 4 factors: 1. biological organism; 2. personal subsystem; 3. cultural subsystem; 4. social subsystem, ensuring the integration of society. The action system performs 4 functions:
1. adaptation - adaptation to the environment;
2. goal achievement - defining goals, mobilizing means and resources to achieve them;
3. motivation - reproduction and maintenance of the model (values and norms of the system);
4. integration - coordination and stability between parts of the system. Each of the functions corresponds to its own body: biological - adaptation, personal - goal achievement, etc. In the process of interaction of an individual with others, the individual comes to expect certain actions of other individuals in certain situations. This expectation is called expectation. Expectations directed at others, and their expectations directed at you and those around you, lead to the emergence of certain rules, norms, and patterns of behavior that regulate human behavior.
Robert Merton (1910-2003) - American sociologist and prominent theorist of structural functionalism. He modernized the theory of structural functionalism and gave it a more rational character. He introduced additional categories to the description of "functions". Dysfunction, a concept that characterizes the fact that existing institutions in society can not only support the social system, but also have a destructive effect. Nonfunction - a function that does not have of great importance for the system. Explicit and latent (hidden) function - in society there can be visible and hidden functions, some can be studied, while others cannot (they manifest themselves indirectly). It is the unforeseen consequences of the latent function that should be the subject of sociological research. Merton allowed for the possibility of analyzing individual levels of the system (institutions, groups); for this purpose, different levels of functional analysis were proposed. Merton will propose the concept of middle-range theories. They are not too abstract and broad and relate to a limited range of phenomena, for example, urban sociology, sociology of youth. Merton developed the modern theory of anomie and studied culture as a set of norms and values of society. Believed that some group members may not act in accordance with general norms.
The theory of social conflict arose as a reaction of sociologists to the widespread dissemination of structural-functional analysis, based on the affirmation of stability, sustainability and order in society, ignoring actually existing social conflicts. The modern theory of social conflict was developed by the American sociologist Lewis Coser (b. 1913). He complemented Parsons' theory, believing that stability cannot exhaust the state of society. In addition to stability, conflict is also necessary. In his works “Functions of Social Conflict” (1956), “Studies of Social Conflict” (1967), Coser put forward the idea that the social system involves an unequal distribution of power, wealth, and status. There is never agreement about the fairness of resource distribution. Conflict arises from attempts by individuals or social groups to increase their share of resources. Coser explores the positive functions of conflict in ensuring order in society. 1. The function of defusing tension between warring groups. 2. Communication and information function: as a result of conflict, people get to know each other better. 3. The function of creation, constructing a social association, confrontation with a common enemy forms and unites groups. 4. Function of stimulating social change. Conflict prevents the impoverishment and stagnation (stagnation) of social orders. It creates new norms. The most effective means of containing conflict is to ascertain the potential strength of the warring parties: if the forces of opponents are assessed before the outbreak of conflict, then interests can be resolved without conflict. The German sociologist Ralf Dahrendorf (b. 1929) pursued a slightly different goal. In his work “Exit from Utopia” (1967), he argued that conflict theory is replacing positivism. The essence of social conflict is the antagonism of power and resistance. Hence power gives rise to conflict. In Essays on the Theory of Society (1968), Dahrendorf says that the causes of conflict are the inequality of social positions occupied by people. Conflict is a natural state of society, but in a civilized society it is necessary to regulate conflicts and prevent social upheavals. Conflict, according to Dahrendorf, appears when a group realizes its rights and social position and demands to change the existing order. MAIN SCHOOLS AND DIRECTIONS OF MODERN SOCIOLOGY
In modern sociological science, there are many different schools and directions, as well as a considerable number of options for their classification. Sociological theories are divided: 1) according to the level of generalization - into middle-level theory, macro- and microsociology 2) according to the object of study - into sociocentric and human-centric theories, 3) according to the nature of the development of society - into conflictological and evolutionist concepts.
Macrosociology includes theories that describe large--
new patterns in the development of society, the interaction of os--
new elements of the social system, intergroup relations
solutions and fundamental processes; microsociology includes
includes theories that describe the influence of interpersonal relationships -
tions, small groups, collective behavior on the process arose--
innovation and development social phenomena. And if the most important
categories of macrosociology are categories such as:
society, power, norm, revolution, then the main categories of micro-
rosociology - group, leadership, stereotype, deviation. Here
the problem arises of the bifurcation of the development goal of modern co-
ciology - or preservation of the subject of study (society - as
integral system), or method (scientific analysis, verification,
operationalism). These two areas of sociology separately
developed until now, and only in the second half
In the 20th century, serious attempts were made to unite them...
opinions. Middle-range theories emerge that describe
development of local social objects (individual processes
and phenomena) by the method of theoretical generalization of accumulated
exact facts.
Sociocentric
concepts
They proceed from the priority of the whole over the part, the complete dependence of man on society, the dissolution of the personal in the social. Human-centric
theories
focus on the value of the individual, the spiritual, moral, and creative significance of the individual.
There are also two irreconcilable camps in sociology: conflictologists And evolutionists. The main difference between them is that the former see the basis of the structure of society as conflict, irreconcilable contradictions of various social groups, while the latter emphasize the functional unity of all social groups that make up society. If the former study how social confrontation is reflected in the form, structure and development of society (theories of class, racial struggle), then the latter study how social harmony and functional correspondence are established between various social groups and institutions.
In general, the development of sociology in the 20th century is characterized by the emergence large quantity schools and directions, each of which is unique and requires serious consideration. None of the areas of modern sociology in itself can provide a universal theoretical explanation of the entire diversity of social reality, but each of the areas explains and interprets the social problems of our time in its own way, creating its own special approach to research.
knowledge of society, social groups, and people.
One of the main schools of modern sociology is - structural functionalism. The founder of structural functionalism, T. Parsons, who formulated the initial principles of the systemic structure of society, argued that all social systems have four main functions. These are:1) adaptation, those. adaptation of the social system to the external and internal situation, 2) goal achievement- the system’s desire to determine and achieve its goals, 3) integration, i.e. the constant desire of the system to unite all its parts and functions, 4) sample retention, those. continuous development and updating of the system! individual motivations, behavioral patterns and cultural principles. The main idea of functionalism is the idea of systematicity. At the same time, using a naturalistic approach to the study of society, natural scientific methodology, structural functionalism substantiates the idea of “social order”, social balance achieved through social consent.
Neo-evolutionism in the person of its representatives - T. Parsons and E. Shils - tries to combine the idea of consistency with the idea of developing a social system along the path of progress. Society is a continuously developing system. Continuously updated public institutions that adapt to external environment thereby ensuring the survival of society. Existing social phenomena and facts must be considered from the perspective of their consequences. Dysfunctional forms of behavior and institutions that threaten the self-survival of society must be controlled and eliminated. Modern societies, supporters of neo-evolutionism conclude, have achieved not only high degree economic, but also cultural productivity, that is, they became capable of exercising highly effective control over themselves and over the environment. Thus, the content of social development along the path of social evolution, social progress is reduced to the complication of the system and the growth of its adaptive abilities.
Social change theory . R. Merton continues the traditions of structural-functional analysis. He! proposes a system of multiple models of functional analysis at the level of specific social communities and groups instead of general sociological theory. Along with the concept of “function”, he introduces the concept of “dysfunction”, thus declaring the possibility of deviation of the social system from the norm, which in turn leads either to a change in the system of norms, or to a new stage in the system’s adaptation to existing conditions. In this way, R. Merton introduces into structural functionalism the idea of changing a specific social system. As for the causes of social changes, in sociology there is a large number of both single-factor and multifactor models. The following are called the causes of social changes: geographical environment, especially climate (R. Buckle), population (R. Malthus), prominent figures(Nietzsche F.), economics (Rostow U.), division of labor (Durkheim E.), ideology (Weber M.), etc.
German sociologist R. Dahrendorf in theories of social conflict comes from the fact that in every society there are center lines conflicts. Conflicts between different social groups or classes are inevitable and are reverse side any integration. It is impossible to avoid conflicts, but they can and should be directed in a certain direction, leading to the smooth evolution of the social system, and not to its destruction. To do this, conflicts should be formalized as much as possible, that is, brought to the surface of public life, made the subject of discussion, debate, and litigation. The presence of open and democratically resolved conflicts in society is evidence of the viability of the social system, since any social development leads to an uneven distribution of power and authority, which is the reason for the struggle between groups of people for their redistribution.
Social behaviorism - microsociological level theory has two main varieties - theory of social exchange And symbolic interactionism.
Social exchange theory (Homans J., Blau GG) refers to human-centric concepts, since it proceeds from the primacy of man, not society. Social exchange is a constant exchange of values. People act and interact based on specific interests that force them to enter into certain relationships and behave in a certain way. The interaction is carried out according to the “stimulus-response” formula. Proclaiming the primacy of the mental over the social, behaviorists argue that the value of an individual lies not in its social, but in its mental qualities, which are subject to exchange in the process of behavior and interaction of people. But since exchanges are not of equal value, this is where social inequality arises, which is expressed in the fact that people who have the means to satisfy the needs of other people can use them to gain power over them. Rewards - approval, respect, status, as well as practical help - act as a stimulus for interaction between people. Behaviorists insist on the strict determinism of human behavior, on denying the need to know the mental state of people to explain their behavior, since they consider these states to be an illusion.
Ideas about the irreducibility of human behavior to a set of reactions to any external stimuli, about the ability of people to creatively comprehend their relationships with other people, forced many sociologists to turn to the analysis of the meanings that a person or group of people attach to certain aspects of human interactions. This is how symbolic interactionism and phenomenological sociology emerged.
Symbolic interactionism (Bloomer G., Stone G.) puts the main emphasis on the “meaning” that the characters - “actors” put into them when entering into relationships and interactions with each other. At the same time, the role of language is especially emphasized not only in the communication of people, but also in the formation of the entire society. The main characteristics of symbolic interactionism include: the desire to base the explanation of behavior not on individual differences and interests, but on social needs, an understanding of society as a set of interactions between people mediated by symbols, the presentation of social activity in the form of a set of social roles, which is a certain system of linguistic symbols.
Phenomenological sociology (Schutz A.) puts at the center of the study the problem of “intersubjectivity” - mutual understanding between people. “The sociology of ordinary knowledge”, formed within the framework of phenomenological sociology, unlike other directions, does not consider a person as a captive of the social system. The individual creates and constantly develops this system. Social reality itself depends on our interpretation and is fundamentally the social structure of man. This social structure of reality is based on knowledge acquired through common sense. Society exists as an objective phenomenon, but the foundations of the social life of individuals are rooted in their interaction with each other in everyday life, which is the “highest reality.”
Within the framework of phenomenological sociology, two different schools have emerged - school phenomenological sociology knowledge (Berger P., Lukman T.) and ethnomethodology(Garfinkel G.). Phenomenological sociology knowledge insists on the need for “legitimization”! symbolic universals of society. P. Berger develops the theory of “legitimization”, based on the fact that the internal instability of the human body requires “the creation by the person himself of a stable living environment" To this end, it is proposed to institutionalize the meanings of human action patterns in the “everyday world.” P. Berger also showed the relationship between “man in society” and “society in man.” According to the views of Lukman T., the subject of the phenomenological sociology of knowledge is not theoretical knowledge, but ordinary, pre-theoretical knowledge, which a person directly encounters in his Everyday life. The essence of his concept is that social reality is constructed by intersubjective human consciousness. Everything that exists in society is a product of human consciousness. Reality is real to the extent that people perceive it. In this way, the distinction between society as objective reality and social reality as social consciousness is removed.
Ethnomethodology sets the task for sociology to identify the rationality of everyday life, different from scientific rationality. The methods of traditional sociology are not suitable for studying real human behavior. Sociology must show how society exists in various forms everyday behavior, while studying the methods that people use in everyday life. G. Garfinkel develops the main part of ethnomethodology - the analysis of colloquial utterances that are identified with acts of social interaction. Ethnomethodology identifies social interaction with verbal communication. Thus, the main task of sociology comes down to identifying the rationality of ordinary, everyday life of people, as opposed to scientific rationality.
In the development of modern sociological theory, it is revealed coherence phenomenon/connections/ macro- and microtheories, objective and subjective approaches to the study of social reality. Many sociologists, trying to overcome the methodological mosaic of science, substantiate the coherence of levels of social reality, as well as the idea of integrating theories of different levels.
So way : Modern foreign sociology is characterized by the emergence of new large schools and directions, waging an ideological struggle among themselves and differing in their content and character, understanding of the theoretical and practical tasks of sociology. Modern sociology is characterized by the creation of new theories, the complication of the conceptual apparatus, the improvement of methodological principles of knowledge of social reality, and the search for the specifics of the sociological approach to the study of society. In modern sociology, three main explanations have emerged social behavior person. It can be carried out in terms of: 1) meaning, meaning, value orientations, motives (“understanding” interpretation); 2) functions of certain types of human social behavior (structural functionalism); 3) stimulus-response, reward, learning (non-behaviorist interpretation).
In modern sociology, two central problems can be identified in its development - the problem of identifying the levels of social reality and the problem of social order. These are the two main paradigms of modern foreign sociology.
Despite the diversity and diversity in the approaches and methods of studying the social among representatives of various schools and directions, active attempts are being made to create a unified sociological theory in order to unite the efforts of scientists in understanding the patterns of development of society, its social and personal structures in modern conditions with the aim of using sociological knowledge in the interests of society and individuals.
Bibliography:
1.Aron R. Stages of development of sociological thought. M. Progress-University, 1992.
2. Ritzer J. Modern sociological theories. – SPb., PETER, 2002.
3. Goffman A.B. Classical and modern: studies on the history and theory of sociology. – M., Nauka, 2003.
SOCIETY AS A SYSTEM
The concept of “society” is one of the central ones in sociology. What is society? What are the characteristics of social phenomena that distinguish them from many other phenomena? Many sociologists have tried to answer these questions.
The term “society” (lat. Socius means common, joint)!!! ambiguous. Usually, when defining this concept, the following meanings are indicated:
society as a certain stage in the development of humanity or a country, characterized by specific forms of social, economic, political and other relations (primitive, slaveholding, feudal, capitalist, socialist society, etc.). Here the word “society” is used in the sense of “stage”, “stage”, “period”.
Society as a group of people united for joint activities to realize common goals and interests (society of book lovers, society of nature lovers, etc.). In this meaning, the word society is synonymous with the words “organization”, “union”, “association”, etc.
Society as an extremely broad concept to designate that part of the material world that is isolated from nature and interacts with it in a certain way. In this sense, society is the totality of all forms of association and ways of interaction between people, both among themselves and with the natural world around them.
Society as a subject of study of sociology is given only where there are several units (individuals) gifted with the psyche and interconnected by processes of mental interaction, that is, the exchange of ideas, feelings, volitional aspirations, etc., that is, those who are in the process of communication.
However, this is clearly not enough to fully characterize society. Consequently, to the given characteristics of society, others should be added to show the specificity of the society studied by sociology. These features consist both in the properties of the interacting units themselves and in the properties of the interaction process.
The development of the theory of society was accompanied by the formation of numerous approaches to the definition of society. Thus, E. Durkheim viewed society as a supra-individual spiritual reality based on collective ideas. According to M. Weber, society is the interaction of people, which is a product of social, i.e. actions oriented towards other people. The prominent American sociologist T. Parsons defined society as a system of relations between people, the connecting principle of which is norms and values. From the point of view of K. Marx, society is a historically developing set of relations between people that develop in the process of their joint activities.
Systematic approach to society. A system is a set of elements ordered in a certain way, interconnected and forming some kind of integral unity. The internal nature, the content side of any integral system, the material basis of its organization are determined by the composition, the set of elements. A social system is a holistic formation, the main element of which is people, their connections, interactions and relationships. These connections, interactions and relationships are sustainable and are reproduced in the historical process, passing from generation to generation.
Defining society we can say that it is a set of people, groups, and social institutions that are stable in time and space, united by historically established forms of their interrelation and interaction.
Society cannot exist outside of nature and without interaction with it. Society arose as a result of the long evolution of the natural world in the process of human development. It is directly related to nature, since its very existence depends on the funds and resources that it draws from the surrounding nature. Specifics of the natural environment, climatic and geographical conditions influence the characteristics of the development of society.
At the same time, society itself has a huge impact on nature, both positive and negative. Working out various means adaptation, adaptation to the surrounding natural elements, man at the same time interferes with the functioning of the natural system. It changes landscapes, “turns” rivers, drains swamps and seas, thereby causing irreparable damage to nature. The depletion of natural resources and their pollution confront human society with the task of survival and the preservation of the human race. Today it is obvious that society cannot be independent from nature.
Society arose historically; it is the result of naturally developing relationships between people. In contrast, the state is an artificially created political institution designed to manage these relationships. The concept of “society” is applicable to any historical era, to a group or association of people of any size. We emphasize that society is the largest group living in a given territory. Sociologist E. Shils singled out a number of signs of society:
This is the largest group that is not part of any system.
It has a territory that it considers its own.
It has its own control system.
Marriages are concluded between representatives of this association.
The association lasts longer average duration life of an individual.
It is replenished by the children of those people who are already its recognized representatives.
He has his own value system (culture).
It has its own name and its own history.
These signs of society are universal. Both ancient tribes and modern states correspond to them. They indicate family, marriage and blood relations; they describe the culture and method of social reproduction and the system of government.
Let us emphasize that society is primary, and the state is secondary. It arises only at a certain stage of development of society.
One of the most important characteristics of society is sustainability. Scientists see its causes in the presence of a common will, “collective consciousness” (E. Durkheim), the presence of a common system of fundamental values and norms (Merton), the presence of a common, unified system power relations(Shiels).
So, society is a complex system. Its elements are people whose social activity is determined by a certain social status that they occupy, social functions (roles) that they perform, social norms and values accepted in a given system, as well as individual personality qualities (motives, value orientations, interests, etc.)
The basic mechanism for regulating society is social institutions. They are the very core that holds the entire society together. Thanks to them, it survives and functions.
In sociology social institutions defined as an adaptive structure of society, created to satisfy its most important needs and regulated by a set of social norms. These are relatively stable and integrated sets of symbols, beliefs, values, norms, roles and statuses that govern entire areas of social life. Social institutions are: family, religion, education, state, economics, management, etc.
Social institutions allow a person, while fighting for survival, to satisfy the most important needs of life: in the reproduction of the family, in obtaining a means of subsistence, in the transfer of knowledge, in security and social order, in solving spiritual problems. These institutions were formed through the process of natural selection during the evolution of society.
Social institutions perform a number of functions in society functions:
meeting social needs;
ensuring the sustainability of social life;
regulation of relationships between members of society by developing norms of behavior;
integration of the aspirations and actions of individuals, ensuring the internal cohesion of society.
Institutions do not remain unchanged. They are constantly developing, changing, and improving. The more complex the society, the more developed the system of institutions. The society is distinguished by great integrating power. It includes and subordinates every generation of people to generally accepted norms and rules. At the same time, it is receptive to innovation: it includes new institutions, norms, and relationships. It ensures continuity in development.
No society stands still: it either progresses or regresses. When the sum of the positive consequences of large-scale changes exceeds the sum of the negative changes we speak of progress. The predominance of negative changes means regression society. Progress is a global process. It characterizes the movement of society throughout history. This is the process of the ascent of human societies from a state of savagery to the heights of civilization.
Regression covers individual societies for a short period of time. This is a local process.
Progress can be gradual and spasmodic. Gradual progress comes in the form of reforms. Reform – partial improvement in any area of life, a series of gradual transformations.
Spasmodic progress occurs when revolutionary changes occur in society. Revolution – a complex change in all or most aspects of social life, affecting the fundamentals existing system. It means a qualitative change in society.
Revolutions and reforms differ in scale, scope, and subject of implementation. Revolutions mean a qualitative leap, and reforms mean gradual partial improvements. They may not differ in duration. For example, the Neolithic revolution was by no means short-lived - it lasted several millennia.
Society is an extremely complex, multi-level formation that does not fit into the framework of any one classification. In modern sociology there are several typologies of society.
Singling out the number of levels of management and the degree of social stratification as a typology criterion, they distinguish:
Simple societies - there is no social stratification in them, there are no leaders and subordinates, there are no rich and poor. This type includes primitive tribes whose age is more than 40 thousand years.
Complex Societies are characterized by social stratification, the presence of several levels of management (managers and governed constitute opposite strata). In societies of this type, social inequality is reinforced economically, legally, religiously and politically. Complex societies arise with the emergence of the state. Their age is approximately 6 thousand years.
If we single out writing as a criterion for typology, then society can be:
Preliterate- able to speak, but not able to write.
Written– fixes sounds in signs, owns the alphabet and is able to store and transmit in writing knowledge accumulated over generations. The age of written societies is approximately 10 thousand years.
Societies can also be classified according to the way they obtain their means of subsistence. According to this criterion, the following types are distinguished:
Protosociety– The main method is hunting and gathering. Society consists of local kinship groups. This period lasted hundreds of thousands of years.
Pre-civilization– the defining methods of obtaining a means of subsistence were cattle breeding and gardening.
Agricultural society - agrarian civilization - at this stage of development, the birth of the state and cities took place, social stratification occurred, and writing appeared.
Industrial – society that began to take shape in European countries by the 17th century. This is a mechanized society. The main means here are machines and machines. Its main structural features are capital and labor. Its products are manufactured in separate, clearly identified units.
Post-industrial – a society in which the defining industries are not industry, but computer science and the service sector. Computerization, which radically changes the organization and processing of information, the rapid development of the “knowledge industry” and the increasing role of the service sector – these are the features of a post-industrial society. The development factor of such a society is theoretical knowledge, the science. And the dominant figure becomes the scientist, the scientific worker. According to many experts, only the United States and Japan are at this stage of development today.
So, the development of human society successively passes through three stages: pre-industrial, industrial and post-industrial.
The transition from primitive to traditional or pre-industrial society is called neolithic revolution, and to the industrial – the industrial revolution or modernization.
The term “modernization” does not refer to the entire period of social progress, but only to the present stage. Translated from English, the term “modernization” means “modernization.” The essence of modernization is associated with rationalism, with increasing complexity of social organization, with urbanization, etc.
Distinguish two types of modernization of society:
Textbook “Fundamentals of modern sociology”
Tutorial... sociology. Educationalallowance. Barnaul: Altai State University Publishing House, 2001. S.I. Grigoriev, Yu.E. Rastov Educationalallowance"Fundamentals of modern sociology"... about a hundred textbooks and educationalbenefits By sociology. At first sight, ...
SOCIOLOGY Educational and methodological manual on independent work for students of all specialties
Educational and methodological manualRastov Yu.E. Beginnings of modern sociology: Educationalallowance. M., 1999. Dmitrieva... Sociology. Educationalallowance. – St. Petersburg: IVESEP, Znanie, 2004. – 416 p. Marshak A.L. Sociology
Organic modernization was prepared by the entire course of previous evolution and is a characteristic of the country’s own development. Its prerequisites are laid, first of all, in the sphere of culture and social relations. An example of organic modernization could be the process of formation of capitalism. This was a natural change in the way of life, traditions, and worldview, conditioned by objective factors in the development of society.
Inorganic modernization is a method of “catching up” development. Its prerequisites are not formed during long-term evolution, and it is a response to external challenges. First of all, it manifests itself in the sphere of economics and politics. Borrowing new technologies, purchasing equipment, inviting foreign specialists, changing the legislative framework, up to the adoption of a new constitution of the country - these are examples of inorganic modernization.
the manual was prepared by a team of teachers from the department... literature on current issues sociology, including textbooks and educationalbenefits. By the early 30s...
Modern Western sociology is represented by a variety of schools and movements that are developing in many directions.
Structural-functional analysis. One of the main directions of American sociology of the second half of the 20th century. For the first time, the ideas of the functional principle of understanding society were presented in the works of O. Comte and G. Spencer. Thus, Comte’s social statics was based on the position according to which institutions, beliefs, and moral values of society are interconnected and form one whole. Any phenomenon can be explained by describing the pattern of its coexistence with other phenomena. Spencer used special analogies between processes in the human body and society. E. Durkheim's sociology was based on the recognition that society has its own reality, independent of people; that this is not just an ideal being, but a system of active forces, a “second nature”; that explanations of social life must be sought in the properties of society itself.
The functional aspects of the development of society and social phenomena were developed by American sociologists Talcott Parsons (1902-1979) and Robert Merton (born 1910).
T. Parsons considered one of the key tasks of sociology to be the analysis of society as a system of functionally interrelated components. In practice, this meant that the analysis of any social process is part of the study of a certain system within certain boundaries. Parsons understood the system as a constant set of repeated and interconnected actions (the theory of social action), and the needs of the individual as variables in the social system.
T. Parsons and other researchers tried not only to derive the rules for the functioning of any system, but also to determine the set of necessary conditions or “functional prerequisites” for all social systems. These universal conditions concerned not only the social system, but also its components. Each social system must satisfy certain needs of its elements, ensuring their survival. It must also master certain methods of distributing material resources. In addition, the system should facilitate the process of socialization of people, giving them the opportunity to form either subjective motivations for submission to specific norms, or a certain general need for such submission. At the same time, each system must have a certain organization of activities and institutional means to successfully counteract violations of this organization, resorting to coercion or persuasion. And finally, social institutions must be relatively compatible with each other.
In every society, in addition to social norms, there are values unique to it. In the absence of such values, it is unlikely that individuals will be able to successfully harness the need to conform to social norms. Fundamental values must become part of the personality.
Parsons' theoretical scheme unites and organizes problem of social order. The concept of “social order” includes the existence of certain restrictions, prohibitions, control in social life, as well as certain relationships in it: the presence of an element of foresight and repetition (people can act only when they know what to expect from each other); more or less long-term constancy in the preservation of forms of social life. Various aspects of social order are reflected in many concepts, the main ones being “system” and “structure”. They are used both in relation to empirical objects and relations, and in relation to abstract objects.
The concept of “structure” covers permanent elements of the structure of a social system, relatively independent of minor and short-term fluctuations in the relationship of the system with the external environment. In connection with the changeability of these relations, a system of dynamic processes and mechanisms is introduced between the requirements that arise from the conditions of the constancy of the structure and the requirements of a given external situation. This dynamic aspect takes over the functional part of the analysis. At the most general abstract level, social order for Parsons is the product of two processes: the tendency of the social system to self-preservation and the tendency to maintain certain boundaries of constancy relative to the environment (homeostatic equilibrium). Actions within a system, which consists of many subsystems, are analyzed on the basis of functional prerequisites, requirements for its use and the equilibrium of the system. Activities within the system appear as a consequence of its structural responses to requirements, which reveal its connection with the environment. Therefore, when analyzing a social system, it is important to examine its interchange with other systems. And different elements of the system, according to Parsons, are derived from the conditions of social action and interaction.
T. Parsons believed that any social system should provide:
1) rational organization and distribution of its material (natural), human (personnel) and cultural resources to achieve its goals;
2) defining the main goals and supporting the process of achieving them;
3) maintaining solidarity (integration problem);
4) supporting the motivation of individuals when they perform social roles and eliminating hidden tensions in the system of personal motivation.
The second and third requirements are put forward by the cultural system, the main task of which is to legitimize the normative order of the social system. The problem of defining the main goals and achieving them is satisfied by political practice. The problem of integration can be solved by religious activity or its functional alternatives - different secular ideologies, etc.
The fourth problem is solved by the family, which carries out primary socialization, “building” the requirements of the social system into the personal structure of a person and maintaining the emotional satisfaction of its members. All four functional requirements make sense only in their totality, in their structural interconnection.
Structural-functional analysis as a method of social research is systematized and described in detail R. Merton. In the paradigm (system of forms) of structural-functional analysis he formulated the following basic concepts:
- “functions” – consequences of activities that contribute to the adaptation of the system;
- “dysfunctions” – adverse consequences;
- “explicit functions” – conscious consequences;
- “latent functions” – unconscious consequences;
- “functional requirements” – requirements, the fulfillment of which is necessary for the normal functioning of the system;
- “functional alternatives” – equivalent structures capable of performing the same functions.
In Western sociology, structural-functional analysis is most widespread in the sociology of politics, sociology of crime, sociology of the family, and the study of social stratification. In the late 1950s and 1960s, the functional approach was criticized for its application of biological concepts to social systems; for a non-historical (static) consideration of society; for a too abstract categorical apparatus. Opponents also noted the failure of functional analysis to adequately describe and analyze conflicts. Subsequently, the theoretical approaches of structural-functional analysis were synthesized with other sociological movements.
Theories of social conflict. They present a variety of concepts that recognize conflict as one of the most important factors in social development. The works are considered authoritative for the study of problems of social conflict K. Marx and G. Simmel.
Proponents of social conflict theories do not agree with the assertion that inequality is a natural way of ensuring the survival of society. Not only do they point out the shortcomings of functionalist theories (is it fair, for example, that a gum salesman earns more than the people who teach his children?), but they also argue that functionalism is nothing more than an attempt to justify status. In their view, inequality results from a condition in which people who control social values (wealth and power) are able to extract benefits for themselves.
American sociologist L. Coser (born in 1913) believes that in every society there are certain elements of tension and potential social conflict, which is the most important component of social interaction and contributes to the destruction or strengthening of social ties. If in rigid (closed) societies social conflicts divide society into two “hostile” groups or two “hostile” classes, undermine the foundations of collective “consent”, threaten the destruction of social ties and the social system through revolutionary violence, then in “pluralistic” (open) societies In societies they find their solution, and social institutions protect social harmony. The value of conflicts lies in the fact that they prevent the ossification of the social system, open the way to innovation, that is, the introduction of new forms of labor organization and management, which cover not only individual enterprises, but also their entirety, industries.
German sociologist Ralph Dahrendorf(born in 1929), calling his sociological concept “conflict theory,” contrasts it with both Marxist class theory and the concepts of social harmony. He considers social conflict to be a consequence of resistance to relations of domination and subordination. Suppression of social conflict, according to Dahrendorf, leads to its aggravation, and “rational regulation” leads to “controlled evolution.” Although reasons for conflicts always exist, a liberal society can arrange them at the level of competition between individuals, groups, and classes.
Theories of social conflict, recognizing conflict as one of the main driving forces of social progress, simultaneously consider phenomena that are characterized by the concepts of “consent”, “stability”, “order”, “peace”. At the same time, agreement is considered a normal state of society, conflict is considered temporary.
Social exchange theory. The theory of social exchange, the founder of which is considered an American sociologist and social psychologist George Homans(1910-1989), embodies attempts to establish connections between the macro and micro levels of social reality. Representatives of this concept consider the exchange of different types of activities as the fundamental basis of social relations on which certain structural formations are formed (power, status, prestige, conformity, etc.). The theory of social exchange has become widespread in sociology, social psychology, political science, and economics.
According to this theory, people interact with each other based on analysis own experience, potential rewards and punishments. Exist two premises of social exchange theory. First comes from the assumption that a person’s behavior is dominated by a rational principle, which aims him to receive certain rewards (money, goods, services, prestige, respect, success, friendship, love, etc.). Types of rewards are conceptualized in different ways: “value” in sociology; “utility” - in economics; “reward”, “payment” - in social psychology. Second premise reveals the content of the name of this concept: the process of social interaction is interpreted as a constant exchange between people of various rewards. “Exchange agreements” are seen as the elementary acts that make up the fundamental level of social life, and increasingly complex structural formations (social institutions and organizations) are considered to grow out of exchange relations.
Psychoanalytic theories. The impetus for the development of psychoanalytic theories was given by the psychological teachings of the famous Austrian Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), who hypothesized the dominant role in human life of unconscious impulses, mainly of a sexual nature. But there is a significant difference between Freud's social doctrine and psychoanalysis as a specific method for studying unconscious mental processes.
According to Freud, the problem of resolving sexual conflicts is of decisive importance not only in individual development, but also in the historical process. The basis of sociocultural, artistic and other types of human activity is the sublimation (transformation, switching) of sexual energy.
Freud's theory of interpersonal communication is based on the belief that the process of interaction between people reproduces their childhood experiences. As adults, they apply concepts learned in early childhood to different life situations. The tendency to respect a person in authority, such as a leader, due to the fact that he resembles one of his parents. Freud believed that people belong to different social groups and remain in them largely because they experience a sense of loyalty and obedience to the group leaders. He explained this not by any special qualities of leaders, but rather by their identification with powerful, god-like personalities, which were personified by their parents in childhood.
Freud's followers, often disagreeing with his main statements regarding the role of the sexual factor in social life, used the psychoanalytic method in the study of subconscious unconscious processes and their role in shaping people's behavior. So, American researcher Karen Horney(1885-1952) studied the social aspects of the emergence of neuroses. Viewing neurosis as a reflection of the irrational aspects of society, Horney considered it to be the driving force behind a state of “basic fear” generated by a hostile environment. As a reaction to fear, various defense mechanisms “turn on”: suppression of fear, resulting in other symptoms; “narcotization” of fear – direct (through alcohol) or indirect (in the form of violent external activity, etc.); escape from situations that cause fear. These defenses give rise to the four “great neuroses” of our time: benevolence neurosis – the search for affection, affection and approval at any cost; power neurosis - the pursuit of power, prestige and possession; submissiveness neurosis (automatic conformism); neuroisolation – escape from society. But these irrational ways of resolving conflicts increase the self-alienation of the individual. Psychoanalysts see the tasks of psychotherapy in identifying defects in the patient’s social connections system in order to better adapt him to the existing lifestyle.
A notable figure in the sociology of the 20th century. became a German-American sociologist and psychologist Erich Fromm(1900-1980). At first he developed the theory of the Freudian direction, collaborated with scientists of the Frankfurt school, the so-called neo-Marxists G. Horkheimer, G. Marcuse and others. Therefore, E. Fromm is often considered a neo-Freudian or neo-Marxist. In fact, in the 50-80s, he created an original sociological theory, using and critically evaluating various sociological movements. Fromm himself identified three conceptual approaches to the study of society:
1. Psychological - characteristic of Freud's thinking, according to which cultural phenomena are caused by psychological factors that “grow” from instinctive impulses, which society influences only through complete or partial suppression. According to Fromm, Freud's followers explained capitalism as a consequence of anal eroticism, and the development of early Christianity as a consequence of ambivalence regarding the image of the father.
2. Economic - grew, as Fromm believed, from the disfigured understanding of history that K. Marx developed. Therefore, it was believed that such phenomena of social and cultural life as religions and political ideas were generated by subjective economic interests. The Protestant appears as a direct reflection of certain economic needs of the bourgeoisie. Fromm notes that Marx had something else in mind: objective economic conditions are the driving force of history, since a change in these conditions leads to the transformation of economic relations. As a result, people's economic attitudes also change, and the intense desire for material wealth is only one of such attitudes.
3. Idealist – presented in M. Weber’s work “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism,” which argues that a new type of economic behavior and a new spirit of culture are due to the emergence of new religious movements, although it is emphasized that this behavior was not determined only by religious doctrines.
In contrast to these concepts, Fromm believed that ideology and culture are based on social character, which is a set of traits common to the majority of members of a given social group; is formed by the way of life of a given society. The dominant traits of this character become creative forces shaping the social process.
Considering the problem of Protestantism and capitalism from this point of view, Fromm showed that the collapse of medieval society threatened the middle class. This threat brought on feelings of isolation, powerlessness and doubt. The psychological change made the doctrine of Luther and Calvin attractive. They strengthened and consolidated changes in the structure of personality, and its new features became effective forces in the development of capitalism, which arose as a consequence of economic and political changes.
Fromm also applied this approach to fascism. The lower middle class responded to economic changes (the growing power of monopolies and post-war inflation) by strengthening certain character traits, namely sadistic and masochistic aspirations. Nazi ideology further strengthened them, and, consequently, these new character traits became forces that served the expansion of German imperialism. In both cases, Fromm argued, when a certain class is threatened by new economic trends, it reacts to this threat psychologically and ideologically. Moreover, the psychological changes caused by such a reaction contribute to the development of economic trends contrary to the economic interests of this class.
E. Fromm modeled the mechanism of interaction between economic, psychological and ideological factors: a person reacts to changes in the external environment by changing himself, and these psychological factors, in turn, contribute to the development of the economic and social process. Changes in social conditions lead to changes in social character, that is, to the emergence of new needs and anxieties. These new needs give rise to new ideas, while at the same time preparing people to accept them. New ideas strengthen and strengthen the new social character and direct human activity in a new direction. In other words, social conditions influence ideological phenomena through social character, but this character is not the result of passive adaptation to social conditions.
Social character- this is a consequence of dynamic adaptation based on the inherent properties of human nature, inherent biologically or formed in the course of history.
Many theorists believed and still believe that it is first necessary to radically change the political and economic structure of society, and only then the human psyche. Others adhere to the idea that human nature should first be changed and only then should we begin to build a new society. Fromm considers both approaches to be erroneous. In his opinion, in the first case, the motivations of the new elite are no different from the motivations of the previous elites. This elite will definitely try, in the midst of the new socio-political institutions created by the revolution, to renew some elements of the old society. Therefore, the victory of the revolution will mean its defeat, as illustrated by the revolutions in France and Russia. In the second case, changes of a purely mental nature do not extend beyond the individual and his immediate environment and, ultimately, are not significant. Therefore, Fromm adheres to the idea that the personality structure of the average individual and the socio-economic structure are interdependent.
E. Fromm is the author theories of radical humanism, which is based on a “typology of social characters” and on the study of the relationship between the individual and society. Its main provisions: production should serve people, not the economy; relations between man and nature should be built not on exploitation, but on cooperation; antagonisms must be replaced by relationships of solidarity; the supreme purpose of all social action must be human welfare and the prevention of human suffering; not maximum, but only smart consumption serves human health and well-being; Every person should be interested in and involved in active work for the benefit of other people.
Symbolic interactionism. His main feature is the analysis of social interactions based on the symbolic content that people invest in their specific actions. Within this theory, the meanings of symbols are important as necessary means of social interactions. Moreover, much attention is paid to the main symbolic means of interaction – language. A social symbol, which has the features of a sign structure, is a necessary element in fulfilling a social role, without which interaction is impossible. Behind the social symbol lies the individual’s comparison of his actions with social norms and patterns of behavior. Having recognized social symbols as signs of interaction, one can study its features.
Founder of symbolic interactionism - American sociologist George Herbert Mead(1863-1934), although the concept itself was introduced into scientific circulation by his student - Herbert Bloomer(1900-1978). J. G. Mead believed that the social world of man and humanity is formed as a result of processes of social interactions in which the “symbolic environment” plays a decisive role thanks to its two main means - gestures and language. Social life depends on a person's ability to imagine himself in other social roles, and this depends on the ability to internal dialogue.
Associated with symbolic interactionism is the so-called sociodramatic approach, which interprets social life as the implementation of a “dramatic” metaphor (figuratively), analyzes interaction in such concepts as “actor”, “mask”, “scene”, “script”, etc.
Neo-Marxism. Western scholars have repeatedly predicted the imminent collapse of Marx's doctrine, which has often been revived in an updated form. In recent years alone, the popularity of Marxism in the West has had several ups and downs. The latest modification is associated with attempts to solve new problems of the post-industrial and information society.
