Multivariance of social development. Typology of societies

The life of each individual and society as a whole is constantly changing. Not a single day and hour we live is like the previous ones. When do we say that there has been a change? Then, when it is clear to us that one state is not equal to another, and something new has appeared that was not there before. How are changes taking place and where are they directed?

At each individual moment of time, a person and his associations are influenced by many factors, sometimes mismatched and multidirectional. Therefore, it is difficult to speak of any clear, precise arrow-shaped line of development characteristic of society. The processes of change are complex, uneven, and sometimes it is difficult to grasp their logic. The paths of social change are varied and tortuous.

Often we come across such a concept as "social development". Let's think about how change will generally differ from development? Which of these concepts is broader, and which is more specific (it can be entered into another, considered as a special case of the other)? Obviously, not all change is development. But only that which involves complication, improvement and is associated with the manifestation of social progress.

What drives the development of society? What can be hidden behind each new stage? We should look for answers to these questions, first of all, in the very system of complex social relations, in internal contradictions, conflicts of different interests.

Development impulses can come both from the society itself, its internal contradictions, and from outside.

External impulses can be generated, in particular, by the natural environment, space. For example, climate change on our planet, the so-called "global warming", has become a serious problem for modern society. The answer to this "challenge" was the adoption by a number of countries of the world of the Kyoto Protocol, which prescribes to reduce emissions of harmful substances into the atmosphere. In 2004, Russia also ratified this protocol, making commitments to protect the environment.

If changes in society occur gradually, then the new accumulates in the system quite slowly and sometimes imperceptibly to the observer. And the old, the previous, is the basis on which the new is grown, organically combining the traces of the previous one. We do not feel conflict and negation by the new of the old. And only after some time we exclaim with surprise: “How everything has changed around!”. Such gradual progressive changes we call evolution. The evolutionary path of development does not imply a sharp breakdown, destruction of previous social relations.

The external manifestation of evolution, the main way of its implementation is reform. Under reform we understand the power action aimed at changing certain areas, aspects of public life in order to give society greater stability, stability.

The evolutionary path of development is not the only one. Not all societies could solve urgent problems through organic gradual transformations. In conditions of an acute crisis affecting all spheres of society, when the accumulated contradictions literally blow up the established order, revolution. Any revolution taking place in society implies a qualitative transformation of social structures, the destruction of the old order and rapid innovation. The revolution releases significant social energy, which is not always possible to control the forces that initiated the revolutionary change. The ideologists and practitioners of the revolution seem to be letting the "genie out of the bottle." Subsequently, they try to drive this "genie" back, but this, as a rule, does not work. The revolutionary element begins to develop according to its own laws, often baffling its creators.

That is why spontaneous, chaotic principles often prevail in the course of a social revolution. Sometimes revolutions bury those people who stood at their origins. Or else the results and consequences of the revolutionary explosion are so fundamentally different from the original tasks that the creators of the revolution cannot but admit their defeat. Revolutions give rise to a new quality, and it is important to be able to transfer further development processes in an evolutionary direction in time. Russia experienced two revolutions in the 20th century. Particularly severe shocks befell our country in 1917-1920.

As history shows, many revolutions were replaced by reaction, a rollback to the past. We can talk about different types of revolutions in the development of society: social, technical, scientific, cultural.

The significance of revolutions is assessed differently by thinkers. So, for example, the German philosopher K. Marx, the founder of scientific communism, considered revolutions to be "the locomotives of history." At the same time, many emphasized the destructive, destructive effect of revolutions on society. In particular, the Russian philosopher N. A. Berdyaev (1874–1948) wrote the following about the revolution: “All revolutions ended in reactions. This is inevitable. This is the law. And the more violent and furious the revolutions were, the stronger were the reactions. There is a kind of magic circle in the alternation of revolutions and reactions.

Comparing the ways of transforming society, the famous modern Russian historian P.V. Volobuev wrote: “The evolutionary form, firstly, made it possible to ensure the continuity of social development and, thanks to this, to preserve all the accumulated wealth. Secondly, evolution, contrary to our primitive ideas, was also accompanied by major qualitative changes in society, not only in productive forces and technology, but also in spiritual culture, in the way of life of people. Thirdly, in order to solve the new social tasks that arose in the course of evolution, it adopted such a method of social transformation as reforms, which turned out to be simply incomparable in their “costs” with the gigantic price of many revolutions. Ultimately, as historical experience has shown, evolution is able to ensure and maintain social progress, giving it, moreover, a civilized form.

Typology of societies

Singling out different types of societies, thinkers are based, on the one hand, on the chronological principle, noting the changes that occur over time in the organization of social life. On the other hand, certain signs of societies coexisting with each other at the same time are grouped. This allows you to create a kind of horizontal slice of civilizations. So, speaking of traditional society as the basis for the formation of modern civilization, one cannot fail to note the preservation of many of its features and signs in our days.

The most well-established in modern social science is the approach based on the allocation three types of societies: traditional (pre-industrial), industrial, post-industrial (sometimes called technological or informational). This approach is based to a greater extent on a vertical, chronological cut, i.e., it assumes the replacement of one society by another in the course of historical development. With the theory of K. Marx, this approach has in common that it is based primarily on the distinction of technical and technological features.

What are the characteristics and characteristics of each of these societies? Let's go to the description traditional society- the foundations of the formation of the modern world. First of all, ancient and medieval society is called traditional, although many of its features are preserved in later times. For example, the countries of the East, Asia, Africa retain signs of traditional civilization today.

So, what are the main features and characteristics of a traditional type of society?

In the very understanding of traditional society, it is necessary to note the focus on reproducing in an unchanged form the ways of human activity, interactions, forms of communication, organization of life, and cultural samples. That is, in this society, relations that have developed between people, methods of work, family values, and a way of life are carefully observed.

A person in a traditional society is bound by a complex system of dependence on the community, the state. His behavior is strictly regulated by the norms adopted in the family, estate, society as a whole.

traditional society distinguishes the predominance of agriculture in the structure of the economy, the majority of the population is employed in the agricultural sector, works on the land, lives by its fruits. Land is considered the main wealth, and the basis for the reproduction of society is what is produced on it. Mainly hand tools (plow, plow) are used, the renewal of equipment and production technology is rather slow.

The main element of the structure of traditional societies is the agricultural community: the collective that manages the land. The personality in such a team is weakly singled out, its interests are not clearly identified. The community, on the one hand, will limit a person, on the other hand, provide him with protection and stability. The most severe punishment in such a society was often considered expulsion from the community, "deprivation of shelter and water." Society has a hierarchical structure, more often divided into estates according to the political and legal principle.

A feature of a traditional society is its closeness to innovation, the extremely slow nature of change. And these changes themselves are not considered as a value. More important - stability, stability, following the commandments of the ancestors. Any innovation is seen as a threat to the existing world order, and the attitude towards it is extremely wary. "The traditions of all the dead generations weigh like a nightmare over the minds of the living."

The Czech educator J. Korchak noticed the dogmatic way of life inherent in traditional society: “Prudence up to complete passivity, to the point of ignoring all rights and rules that have not become traditional, not consecrated by authorities, not rooted in repetition every day ... Everything can become a dogma - the land, and the church, and the fatherland, and virtue, and sin; science, social and political activity, wealth, any opposition can become ... "

A traditional society will diligently protect its behavioral norms, the standards of its culture from outside influences from other societies and cultures. An example of such "closedness" is the centuries-old development of China and Japan, which were characterized by a closed, self-sufficient existence and any contacts with foreigners were practically excluded by the authorities. A significant role in the history of traditional societies is played by the state and religion.

Undoubtedly, as trade, economic, military, political, cultural and other contacts develop between different countries and peoples, such “closeness” will be violated, often in a very painful way for these countries. Traditional societies under the influence of the development of technology, technology, means of communication will enter a period of modernization.

Of course, this is a generalized picture of a traditional society. More precisely, one can speak of a traditional society as a kind of cumulative phenomenon that includes the features of the development of different peoples at a certain stage. There are many different traditional societies (Chinese, Japanese, Indian, Western European, Russian, etc.) that bear the imprint of their culture.

We are well aware that the society of ancient Greece and the Old Babylonian kingdom differ significantly in the dominant forms of ownership, the degree of influence of communal structures and the state. If in Greece and Rome private property and the principles of civil rights and freedoms develop, then in societies of the Eastern type, traditions of despotic rule, the suppression of man by the agricultural community, and the collective nature of labor are strong. Nevertheless, both are different versions of a traditional society.

The long-term preservation of the agricultural community, the predominance of agriculture in the structure of the economy, the peasantry in the composition of the population, the joint labor and collective land use of communal peasants, and autocratic power allow us to characterize Russian society over many centuries of its development as traditional. Transition to a new type of society - industrial- will be carried out quite late - only in the second half of the XIX century.

It cannot be said that traditional society is a past stage, that everything connected with traditional structures, norms, and consciousness has remained in the distant past. Moreover, considering this, we make it difficult for ourselves to understand many problems and phenomena of the modern world. And today, a number of societies retain the features of traditionalism, primarily in culture, social consciousness, political system, and everyday life.

The transition from a traditional society, devoid of dynamism, to an industrial type society reflects such a concept as modernization.

industrial society is born as a result of the industrial revolution, leading to the development of large-scale industry, new modes of transport and communications, a decrease in the role of agriculture in the structure of the economy and the resettlement of people in cities.

The Modern Philosophical Dictionary, published in 1998 in London, contains the following definition of an industrial society:

An industrial society is characterized by the orientation of people towards ever-increasing volumes of production, consumption, knowledge, etc. The ideas of growth and progress are the "core" of the industrial myth, or ideology. An essential role in the social organization of industrial society is played by the concept of a machine. The consequence of the implementation of ideas about the machine is the extensive development of production, as well as the "mechanization" of social relations, the relationship of man with nature ... The boundaries of the development of an industrial society are revealed as the limits of extensively oriented production are discovered.

Earlier than others, the industrial revolution swept the countries of Western Europe. The UK was the first country to implement it. By the middle of the 19th century, the vast majority of its population was employed in industry. The industrial society is characterized by rapid dynamic changes, the growth of social mobility, urbanization - the process of growth and development of cities. Contacts and ties between countries and peoples are expanding. These communications are carried out by telegraph and telephone. The structure of society is also changing: it is based not on estates, but on social groups that differ in their place in the economic system - classes. Along with changes in the economy and the social sphere, the political system of an industrial society is also changing - parliamentarism, a multi-party system are developing, and the rights and freedoms of citizens are expanding. Many researchers believe that the formation of a civil society that is aware of its interests and acts as a full partner of the state is also associated with the formation of an industrial society. To a certain extent, it is precisely such a society that has received the name capitalist. The early stages of its development were analyzed in the 19th century by the English scientists J. Mill, A. Smith, and the German philosopher K. Marx.

At the same time, in the era of the industrial revolution, there is an increase in unevenness in the development of various regions of the world, which leads to colonial wars, seizures, and the enslavement of weak countries by strong ones.

Russian society is quite late, only by the 40s of the 19th century, it enters the period of the industrial revolution, and the formation of the foundations of an industrial society in Russia is noted only by the beginning of the 20th century. Many historians believe that at the beginning of the 20th century our country was agrarian-industrial. Russia could not complete industrialization in the pre-revolutionary period. Although the reforms carried out on the initiative of S. Yu. Witte and P. A. Stolypin were aimed precisely at this.

By the end of industrialization, that is, the creation of a powerful industry that would make the main contribution to the national wealth of the country, the authorities returned already in the Soviet period of history.

We know the concept of "Stalin's industrialization", which took place in the 1930s and 1940s. In the shortest possible time, at an accelerated pace, using primarily the funds received from the robbery of the village, the mass collectivization of peasant farms, by the end of the 1930s, our country created the foundations of heavy and military industry, mechanical engineering and ceased to depend on the supply of equipment from abroad. But did this mean the end of the process of industrialization? Historians argue. Some researchers believe that even in the late 1930s, the main share of national wealth was still formed in the agricultural sector, that is, agriculture produced more product than industry.

Therefore, experts believe that industrialization in the Soviet Union was completed only after the Great Patriotic War, by the middle - second half of the 1950s. By this time, industry had taken a leading position in the production of gross domestic product. Also, most of the country's population was employed in the industrial sector.

The second half of the 20th century was marked by the rapid development of fundamental science, engineering and technology. Science is turning into a direct powerful economic force.

The rapid changes that have engulfed a number of spheres of the life of modern society have made it possible to talk about the entry of the world into post-industrial era. In the 1960s, this term was first proposed by the American sociologist D. Bell. He also formulated the main features of a post-industrial society: creating a vast service economy, increasing the layer of qualified scientific and technical specialists, the central role of scientific knowledge as a source of innovation, ensuring technological growth, creating a new generation of intelligent technology. Following Bell, the theory of post-industrial society was developed by American scientists J. Galbright and O. Toffler.

basis post-industrial society was the restructuring of the economy, carried out in Western countries at the turn of the 1960s - 1970s. Instead of heavy industry, the leading positions in the economy were taken by science-intensive industries, the “knowledge industry”. The symbol of this era, its basis is the microprocessor revolution, the mass distribution of personal computers, information technology, electronic communications. The rates of economic development, the speed of transmission of information and financial flows over a distance are multiplying. With the entry of the world into the post-industrial, information age, there is a decrease in the employment of people in industry, transport, industrial sectors, and vice versa, the number of people employed in the service sector, in the information sector is increasing. It is no coincidence that a number of scientists call the post-industrial society informational or technological.

Describing modern society, the American researcher P. Drucker notes: “Today, knowledge is already being applied to the sphere of knowledge itself, and this can be called a revolution in the field of management. Knowledge is rapidly becoming the determining factor of production, relegating both capital and labor to the background.”

Scientists who study the development of culture, spiritual life, in relation to the post-industrial world, introduce another name - postmodern era. (Scientists understand the era of modernism as an industrial society. - Note by the author.) If the concept of post-industrialism mainly emphasizes differences in the sphere of economy, production, methods of communication, then postmodernism primarily covers the sphere of consciousness, culture, patterns of behavior.

The new perception of the world, according to scientists, is based on three main features.

First, at the end of faith in the possibilities of the human mind, a skeptical questioning of everything that European culture traditionally considers rational. Secondly, on the collapse of the idea of ​​unity and universality of the world. The postmodern understanding of the world is based on multiplicity, pluralism, the absence of common models and canons for the development of various cultures. Thirdly: the era of postmodernism sees the individual differently, "the individual as responsible for shaping the world retires, he is outdated, he is recognized as connected with the prejudices of rationalism and is discarded." The sphere of communication between people, communications, collective agreements comes to the fore.

As the main features of a postmodern society, scientists call increasing pluralism, multivariance and diversity of forms of social development, changes in the system of values, motives and incentives of people.

The approach we have chosen in a generalized form represents the main milestones in the development of mankind, focusing primarily on the history of the countries of Western Europe. Thus, it significantly narrows the possibility of studying the specific features, features of the development of individual countries. He draws attention primarily to universal processes, and much remains outside the field of view of scientists. In addition, willy-nilly, we take for granted the point of view that there are countries that have pulled ahead, there are those that are successfully catching up with them, and those that are hopelessly behind, not having time to jump into the last wagon of the modernization machine rushing forward. The ideologists of the theory of modernization are convinced that it is the values ​​and models of development of Western society that are universal and are a guideline for development and a model for everyone to follow.

Society structure

Social institutions:

• organize human activity into a certain system of roles and statuses, establishing patterns of people's behavior in various spheres of public life;
• include a system of sanctions - from legal to moral and ethical;
• streamline, coordinate many individual actions of people, give them an organized and predictable character;
• provide standard behavior of people in socially typical situations.

Society as a complex, self-developing system is characterized by the following specific features:

1. It is distinguished by a wide variety of different social structures and subsystems.
2. Society is not only people, but also social relations that arise between them, between spheres (subsystems) and their institutions. Public relations are the diverse forms of interaction between people, as well as the connections that arise between different social groups (or within them).
3. Society is capable of creating and reproducing the necessary conditions for its own existence.
4. Society is a dynamic system, it is characterized by the emergence and development of new phenomena, the obsolescence and death of old elements, as well as the incompleteness and alternative development. The choice of development options is carried out by a person.
5. Society is characterized by unpredictability, non-linearity of development.
6. Society functions:
   - reproduction and socialization of a person;
   – production of material goods and services;
   – distribution of products of labor (activity);
   – regulation and management of activities and behavior;
   - spiritual production.

The structure of the socio-economic formation

productive forces- these are the means of production and people with production experience, skills for work.
Relations of production- relations between people that develop in the process of production.
Type superstructures predominantly determined by the nature basis. It also represents the basis of the formation, determining the affiliation of a particular society.
The authors of the approach singled out five socio-economic formations:

1. primitive communal;
2. slaveholding;
3. feudal;
4. capitalist;
5. communist.

Selection criterion socio-economic formations is production activities of people, the nature of labor and ways of inclusion in the production process(natural necessity, non-economic coercion, economic coercion, labor becomes a need of the individual).
Driving force for development society is the class struggle. The transition from one socio-economic formation to another is carried out as a result of social revolutions.

Strengths of this approach:

– it is universal: practically all peoples went through the indicated stages in their development (in one volume or another);
- it allows you to compare the levels of development of different peoples in different historical periods;
- it allows you to track social progress.

Weak sides:

- does not take into account the specific conditions and characteristics of individual peoples;
- pays more attention to the economic sphere of society, subordinating all the rest to it.

Stage-civilizational approach (W. Rostow, Toffler)
This approach is based on the understanding of civilization as a stage in the process of progressive development of mankind, in its ascent up the stairs leading up to a single world civilization.
Proponents of this approach distinguish three types of civilizations: traditional, industrial, post-industrial (or information society).

Characteristics of the main types of civilizations

Criteria for comparison	Traditional (agrarian) society	Industrial (western) society	Post-industrial (information) society
Features of the historical process	Long, slow evolutionary development, lack of clear boundaries between eras	Sharp, spasmodic, revolutionary development, the boundaries between eras are obvious	Evolutionary development of society, revolutions only in the scientific and technical sphere, globalization of all spheres of public life
Relations between society and nature	Harmonious relationships without destructive impact, the desire to adapt to nature	The desire to dominate nature, active transformational activity, the emergence of a global environmental problem	Awareness of the essence of the global environmental problem, attempts to solve it, the desire to create the noosphere - the "sphere of reason"
Features of economic development	The leading sector is the agricultural sector, the main means of production is land, which is in communal ownership or incomplete private ownership, since the ruler is the supreme owner	Industry dominates, the main means of production is capital, which is privately owned.	The service sector and the production of information prevail, world economic integration, the creation of transnational corporations
The social structure of society	Rigid closed caste or class system, low or no social mobility	Open class social structure, high level of social mobility	Open social structure, stratification of society by income, education, occupational characteristics, high level of social mobility
Features of the political system, regulation of public relations	The predominance of monarchical forms of government, the main regulators of social relations are customs, traditions, religious norms	The predominance of republican forms of government, the creation of a rule of law state, the main regulator of public relations is law
The position of the individual in society	The individual is absorbed by the community and the state, the dominance of collectivist values	Individualism, individual freedom

Ways of development of society is an evolutionary, revolutionary and reforming way. Let's consider each of them.

Evolution - it is (from the Latin evolutio - “deployment”) the process of natural change in society, in which a social form of development of society arises, which differs from the previous one. The evolutionary path of development is smooth, gradual changes that occur in society in specific historical conditions.

For the first time a sociologist spoke about social evolution Spencer g.

The modern Russian historian highly appreciated the evolutionary path of development Volobuev P. He named positive aspects of evolution:

• Ensures the continuity of development, preserving all the accumulated wealth
• It is accompanied by positive qualitative changes, and in all spheres of society.
• Evolution uses reforms, is able to provide and support social progress, to give it a civilized form.

Revolution- (from Latin revolutio - turn, transformation) these are fundamental, spasmodic, significant changes in society that lead to the transition of society from one qualitative state to another.

Types of revolutions

By run time:

• Short-term (for example, the February Revolution in Russia in 1917)
• Long-term (for example, the Neolithic, that is, the transition from an appropriating to a producing type of economy, lasted about 3 thousand years; the industrial revolution, that is, the transition from manual labor to machine labor, lasted about 200 years, this is 18-19 centuries).

By areas of flow

• technical (Neolithic, industrial, scientific and technical)
• cultural
• social (with change of power)

According to the scale of flow:

• in a separate country
• in a number of countries
• global

Assessments of social revolutions

K. Marx:“Revolution is the locomotive of history”, “the driving force of society”

Berdyaev N.: “All revolutions ended in reactions. It's inevitable. This is the law. And the more violent and furious the revolutions were, the stronger were the reactions.

Most sociologists see revolution as an undesirable deviation from the natural course of history, because any revolution is always violence, death of people, impoverishment of people.

Reform- (from lat. reformo transformation) is a change in society carried out from above by the government, power. This happens through the adoption of laws, regulations and other authoritative prescriptions. Reforms can take place in one area or in several at once. However, there are no significant, fundamental changes in the state (in the system, phenomenon, structure).

Types of reforms

Influence on the course of historical development

• progressive, that is, leading to improvement in any area of ​​society (reform of education, health care. Recall the reforms of Alexander II - peasant, zemstvo, judicial, military - all of them significantly improved social relations.
• Regressive - leading to a backward movement, worsening something in society. So the counter-reforms of Alexander III led to increased reaction, conservatism in management.

By area of ​​society:

• Economic(transformations in the economic activity of the country)
• Social(creation of conditions for a decent life for people)
• Political(changes in the political sphere, for example, the adoption of a constitution, a new electoral law, etc.)

New types of revolutions of the 20th and 21st centuries:

• "green" revolution - a set of changes in agriculture that occurred in developing countries in the 1940s-1970s of the 20th century. These include: introduction of more productive plant varieties; expansion of irrigation, that is, irrigation systems; improvement of agricultural machinery; the use of fertilizers, pesticides, i.e. chemicals to control pests and weeds . Target this revolution - a significant increase in agricultural production, access to the world market.
• "velvet" revolution is a process of bloodless reform of the social regime. For the first time the term arose in connection with the events in Czechoslovakia in November-December 1989. In these revolutions, the leading role is played by elite groups that compete with the same elite, but in power.
• "orange" revolution is a company of rallies, protests, strikes, pickets and other acts of civil disobedience, the purpose of which is to solve pressing problems. The term first appeared in connection with the events in Ukraine in 2004, when supporters of Yushchenko and Yanukovych opposed.

  Material prepared: Melnikova Vera Aleksandrovna

Contrary to all the statements of supporters of the substantive understanding of culture, it is still not a substance, but an accident. It is the creation of people who always live in society, it is a product of society. I have repeatedly said that society is never a simple collection of people. Society and the totality of the people who make up it never completely coincide. As already noted, the lifetime of a sociohistorical organism always exceeds the lifetime of any of its members. Therefore, the inevitability is the constant renewal of its human composition. There is a change of generations in the society. One is replaced by another.

And each new generation, in order to exist, must learn the experience that the outgoing one had. Thus, in society there is a change of generations and the transfer of culture from one generation to another. These two processes are a necessary condition for the development of society, but they, taken by themselves, do not represent the development of society. They have a certain independence in relation to the process of development of society.

The emphasis on continuity in the development of culture gave grounds for interpreting this development as a completely independent process, and the identification of accumulation in the development of culture made it possible to interpret this process as progressive, ascending. As a result, evolutionary concepts arose in which the development of culture was considered independently of the evolution of society as a whole. The center of gravity in these concepts was shifted from society to culture. This is the concept of the largest English ethnographer Edward Burnett Tylor (Taylor) (1832 - 1917) - the author of the book "Primitive Culture", famous in his time. He was a staunch champion of evolutionism. From his point of view, any cultural phenomenon arose as a result of previous development, appeared in society as a product of cultural evolution.

1. Man needs society

According to the Bible, the first people Adam and Eve in the garden of the Creator were together and communicated. However, this communication was not yet public in the full sense of the word. Everyone also knows what it led to. Driven out of Eden, Adam and Eve had to earn their bread by the sweat of their faces. From that moment their social life began.

This biblical story tells us, among other things, that a real society begins to exist only when all the conditions for its existence - material (food, shelter, clothing, tools) and ideal (knowledge, beliefs, traditions, etc.) - are created by people not alone, but together with other people. Our whole life from beginning to end takes place in society, and therefore any of our actions has a social form and takes place in the conditions created by society.

The public, or what is the same, sociality has entered the flesh and blood of our being, the essence of our "I". An isolated person who does not need to communicate with other people and their help is nothing more than a figment of fantasy. Even Aristotle noted that "one who is not able to enter into communication or, considering himself a self-sufficient being, does not feel the need for anything, no longer constitutes an element of the state (in our case, society - O.V.), becoming either an animal or a deity."

Society is the natural living environment for man. Even before his birth, society is preparing for him. Being born, a person immediately finds himself in society. Throughout his life, he finds in society and through society all the conditions for his existence and development. And even when he leaves this world, he remains in the memory of society, especially those close to him. And if his life and work had a noticeable impact on public life, then he remains in public memory for a long time, and in some cases, perhaps forever.

What is society - this strange formation of people, giving birth to them from themselves, making them full-fledged individuals, and then remembering them for a long time? Is it enough to call a society a mere collection of people? Or maybe it's their special form of organization? Or maybe it is a kind of transpersonal organism, the cells of which are all of us, people? This question is complicated by the fact that society is not given to our sense organs like other surrounding material objects. We see people around us, but not society. We can only guess about its existence. On this occasion Vl. Solovyov noted: “From the fact that the image of the unity of social bodies is not palpable to our external senses, it does not follow that it does not exist at all: after all, our own bodily image is not at all sensible and unknown to a separate brain cell or blood ball ... It is required, first of all, that we treat the social and world environment as a real living being, with which we, never merging to the point of indifference, are in the closest and complete interaction.”

When we see the fruits of collective human efforts: cultivated land, dwellings, tamed cattle, ritual buildings, cemeteries, we say "here people have a society." We assert this not on the basis of the sensory perception of society itself, because it is not directly given to us, but on the basis of the conjecture that a certain form of relations has been established between people here, which can be defined as public.

What is the public? In everyday speech, this concept is used when we want to point out something that belongs to everyone, to the whole society. For example, public buildings, public land, public opinion. We also call the public large groups of people who show their opinion or unity of will in relation to this or that issue. We say, for example, "the world community is against the spread of nuclear weapons." But in all cases we say this because the public is a special form of the joint existence of people. Note that there can be many forms of joint existence of people, but not all of them differ in the quality of the community. To make this idea clear, consider a few examples.

1. Beach. People lie under the hot sun, each on his own, not paying attention to others. Although they rest together, that is, in one place, but since there is no communication between them, there is no public.

2. Market. Here the human mass is in constant motion and activity. All are united by one thought - to buy cheaper, to sell more expensive. Everyone thinks about their own personal benefit and sees the people around them as nothing more than sellers and buyers. And although we have before us the joint existence of people, filled to the brim with the passions and energy of communication, we do not see the public here. It is good that market relations cannot cover the entire social life as a whole, otherwise the society would cease to exist.

3. Military battle. Not for life, but for death, two armies fight. Maybe for the territory, for the wealth collected in the cellars of the royal palace, for the enemy's population, which can be turned into slaves, for an idea, religious, national or universal. At first glance, the war has all the signs of a public. Each army has a unity of purpose - to win. The tension of human forces, the energy of interpersonal communication, the individual and collective activity of people - everything exceeds normal human limits. In war, the personality of a person, his best, high and low qualities are fully manifested. Finally, the war leads to the death of many people, the devastation of the territory and the destruction of the economic foundations of society. But is there a sign of publicity in the relations of people in war? There are two answers here. If soldiers defend their common values, their land, people, their shrines, then such a war strengthens the social bond that exists between them. Cities and villages may be destroyed, masses of people captivated and shrines desecrated, but the spirit of the public lives here and from the troubles of war it only becomes stronger. But if people are not united by a single spirit of a just war and everyone pursues in it only their own benefit, which often happens in wars of conquest, then such an army is nothing more than a gang of bandits, between whom there can be no truly social relations.

4. Library. As we have seen, the public is born as a result of human joint activity. But here we have rows of tables, shelves with books. Silence characteristic of the library. Someone reads the work of an ancient philosopher, someone delved into complex mathematical calculations. Someone rereads their favorite classic, and someone just relaxes reading a humorous magazine. Before us is the so-called "scientific world". Here everyone is working hard on their scientific or spiritual theme. And although an external observer will not notice any material movement here that unites all those present, reason tells us that the spirit of the public is hovering here. These people create what can be called the spiritual wealth of society.

5. Philosopher's office. In silence under the light of a lamp alone, the philosopher reads the work of his distant historical predecessor. We do not see here not only no material activity, but it seems that time itself has stood still. The conclusion suggests itself that the philosopher is outside of society and his individual work is devoid of any sign of publicity. But let's listen to an authoritative person, the great German philosopher G. Hegel: “The circle of life of a peasant woman is outlined by cows - Liza, Chernushka, Pestrushka, etc., son Marten and daughter Urschel, etc. The philosopher is just as intimately close - infinity, knowledge, movement, sensual laws, etc. And what for a peasant woman is her late brother and uncle, then for a philosopher - Plato and Spinoza, etc. One is as valid as the other, but the latter has the advantage of eternity.” So, whoever sees the hidden essence of things here will agree that the philosopher in his works resides in the sphere of the public, and moreover, such a public in which eternity shines.

Let's leave, however, examples, there are many of them, and let's ask ourselves the question "what is the public"? What is its essence?

Publicity is a special quality of human relations, when the joint actions of people are aimed at achieving common goals, as a result of which social wealth is created, which is equally accessible to everyone and enriches people's lives not only materially, but, more importantly, morally. In other words, the public manifests itself in the presence public domain, which can have a material (a set of material goods), social (a system of social relations and institutions) and ideal (a system of ideas, knowledge, beliefs) form. Plato called this, the beginning of society, the public good. But in this concept, a very important feature remains undisclosed - the availability of a public good to every member of society. After all, the good for society is not always the good for its individual members. Plato put the public good above the private, because he was holistic, that is, he believed that the particular is born from the general, and not vice versa. Modern society, having passed a long historical path of development, has come to the understanding that society as a whole can be prosperous only when human rights as individuals are put in the foreground, and the public good is recognized by all members of the community as their common property. Thus, if people multiply the common good, then this leads to the prosperity and development of society. If, on the contrary, everyone thinks only about his own personal welfare, then the social principle in relations between people weakens and withers away. It can even lead to the death of society. Consequently, the strength of social existence, the resistance of society to the forces of decay are determined by the attitude of people to their public property.

We already see the first, primitive forms of public property in tribal communities. The quantitative growth of the public domain is accompanied by its qualitative transformation and the growth of its diversity. The latter is commonly called development society.

Today there is hardly a person who would deny the fact that societies develop, although many people deny social progress. If we compare the beginning of human history with its present state, then in everything - from material conditions to forms of spiritual life - we see such striking differences that cause a feeling of admiration and pride for the human race. To go from a stone ax to a computer and a nuclear reactor, from a hut made of leaves to an artificial ship-house in Earth's orbit, from primitive forms of tribal community management to a worldwide civil social order, from tribal (and often inhuman) gods to great world religions, full of deep and universal meaning - aren't these amazing facts of the development of society? It is not difficult to see in them the main features of what we call development. Development is not only a transition from the lower to the higher, but also from the simple to the complex, diverse. At the same time, not only the degree of complexity of the system of society increases, but also new opportunities are revealed, which further spurs the energy of development.

3. Causes of social development

What makes a society develop? What is the deep source of social development? The answer to this question is given to us by the science of man, philosophical anthropology. Man is the only creature on the planet who is aware of the difference between the real and the ideal, experiences it and tries to overcome it. Everything that a person does, he correlates with the ideal image of this matter, and dissimilarity with it makes a person persistently repeat the work, achieving an approximation of the result to what must be. In other words, a person distinguishes between the existing and the proper and seeks to fill the gap between them with his work. The tool for him in this work is the mind, and the guiding beacon is the moral feeling. Why is this amazing property of human consciousness - to strive from the real to the ideal - only a person has - this question is beyond the scope of our topic. We only note that this ability is available to all people, regardless of their individual characteristics.

Development, however, is characterized not only by the improvement of the existing, but also by the opening of new possibilities, in other words, diversification, enrichment of human existence with new conditions that make its life more universal, and its forces more powerful both materially and ideally. The reason for this is also rooted in human nature. Man is intellectually an infinite being. Any finite being limits him and arouses in him a desire to overcome this limitation.

The world around man is in constant change. A person is constantly faced with new factors that limit the free expression of his will. Where possible, a person tries to change these factors in accordance with his needs. Where he cannot be the master of the situation, he tries to adapt to new conditions. But there are also such factors before which a person is powerless, then he seeks salvation from them. In any case, he has to use, as G. Hegel said, "the cunning of the mind", that is, to find ways to push one force of nature against another, benefiting from this for himself. In order to do this successfully, a person must know the nature of things around him. But since environmental conditions are constantly changing, the process of knowing the nature of things can never stop. In other words, nature itself encourages a person to develop.

Having named these general causes of development, we are immediately faced with the question: if these causes are common to all people, living and ever living, then why do societies develop in different ways, why do they have different rates, directions and forms of development?

4. Variety of forms and types of social evolution

For more than 2000 years, the phenomenon of social development has been most clearly manifested in Europe. Over the past 400 years, the dominance of the European world over the rest in this respect has led to the fact that the very principle of development has become identified with a broader concept, which includes Europe - that is, with the concept of the West. Even the rapidly developing Pacific region we today call the most western of the eastern regions of the world.

Other societies are inferior to the Western in terms of the pace of development, but amaze with their forms and perseverance in development, which they have to show in large areas, such as in Russia, or with their mighty solidity and slowness, such as the Indian and Chinese civilizations. In addition, we notice in the development of all societies such a quality as non-linearity, which is expressed in the following manifestations:

The development process is not uniform. It includes two phases: a phase of progressive, calm movement forward and a phase of sharp, sometimes catastrophic changes, when the logic of the previous development breaks down, the pace of social life increases dramatically, and as a result, society changes qualitatively.

The development of society does not go in one direction towards a predetermined goal. The vector of development can change dramatically and unexpectedly. Only in the second half of the 20th century, that is, relatively recently, among scientists studying the nature of society, the opinion was established that the future of society is an open system with an infinite number of possibilities and paths. It is fundamentally impossible to predict which factors of natural or anthropogenic nature will become decisive in the future.

The development of individual societies can either accelerate or fade. Thus, among the peoples and cultures there is a change of "leader" according to one or another development criteria. The word "leader" is put in quotation marks, because in reality there is no objective reference point by which the development of society as a whole can be assessed. All societies interact with each other, adopting some achievements (material, social or spiritual).

In addition, there are societies that have hardly developed in their history and today remain at the level of almost the Stone Age. Such an existence without development is called stagnation. In a state of centuries of stagnation even before the 20th century. there were many societies on the Asian, South American and African continents. There are very few such societies left today. But it would be wrong to think that the lack of development is the result of their spiritual sleep. In fact, these societies are full of vitality, have a deep knowledge of the nature in which they live, and they are quite characterized by a moral sense no less than developed societies. The peculiarity of their social life is that they have chosen the path of harmony with nature. Once they have found the state of homeostasis maintained by their social order for thousands of years, and for the sake of maintaining the status quo, they avoid close contact with other, so-called civilized peoples.

Finally, there are societies that have not only ceased development, but also their very life. These societies are dead or dying. So the civilizations of Babylon, Crete, Mycenae, Ancient Greece and Rome, etc., have gone into the past.

5. Factors influencing the course of development of society

Looking at all this diversity of forms, directions and rates of development, it is natural to ask the question, what determines this diversity? The first philosopher who raised the question of the causes of social development was Augustine Aurelius (354-430). He argued that the cause of development is rooted in living nature, and in man also a consciously manifested craving for the Creator. “You created us for Yourself, and our heart does not rest until it rests in you.” Before Augustine, thinkers interpreted the movement of society as cyclical, where periods succeeded each other like the eternal cycle of the seasons. This circular, return movement of history is reflected in the well-known wisdom of Ecclesiastes “The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries to its place where it rises. The wind goes to the south and goes to the north, spinning, spinning in its course, and the wind returns to its circles. Augustine, in his conception of the movement of society, broke this natural circle and presented history as an ascending path that humanity makes from the bestial beginning of its history to the Earthly City, and from it to the City of God. But Augustine, of course, could not see the diversity of ways of social development, not only because he was the first theorist of social development, but, most importantly, because he lived in the closed world of the Mediterranean region. The cultures that inhabited this region differed little from each other in terms of the level and nature of their development.

For the first time, scientists, historians, and philosophers spoke about the variety of factors influencing social development in the Enlightenment, when a qualitative separation of Western European civilization from its neighboring cultures became apparent. Since that time, the unique marathon of the West begins, which led to the 20th century. to its undoubted technological and (with some reservations) social leadership. Such outstanding thinkers of Western culture as C. Montesquieu, J.-J. Rousseau, F.-M. Voltaire, T. Hobbes, J. Locke, I. Kant, G. Hegel, O. Comte, K. Marx, O. Spengler A. Toynbee and many others, studied the factors of social development. Let's try to summarize the different points of view.

1. Social development is mainly determined by the natural and geographical environment. It includes landscape, climatic conditions, availability of natural resources. One of the first to draw attention to these factors was Sh.L. Montesquieu. In his opinion, Europe has unique climatic and landscape features for development.

2. Population size as one of the main factors of social development was defined by J.-J. Rousseau. The growth of population in limited areas, he argued, leads to the need to establish social ties and take care that they do not damage each other, which inevitably ends with a social contract for the sake of general peace and free development.

3. The economic and technological factors of social development are put in the first place by the Marxist historical and philosophical doctrine. The founders of Marxism showed that the nature and pace of social development are determined by innovations in the mode of production. The most revolutionary element of the mode of production is the productive forces of society, the instruments of labor. “Steam, electricity and self-sufficiency were incomparably more dangerous revolutionaries than Barbès, Raspail and Blanqui,” wrote K. Marx. According to the classics of Marxism, over time, changes in the mode of production will lead to the fact that private, isolated forms of work and life will give way to collective activity. Following this, the nature of social relations will change, private property, money, and with them wealth and poverty will become a thing of the past, and free general labor and collectivism will reign.

4. Spiritual factors of social development became the subject of study of culturologists of the late 19th - first half of the 20th centuries. Thus, many thinkers noted that social development is closely related to the nature of society's religiosity. At the same time, they drew attention to the fact that each religion has its own way of looking at the goals and means of social development. Thus, Christianity puts the creative person at the forefront. Especially here, Protestantism clearly manifests itself, preaching that the main criterion for a person's choice by God is his work. God worked to create the world and man. Man, in turn, if he is created in the image and likeness of God, must manifest this divine nature in himself and improve his world with his work.

Buddhism, on the other hand, sees the task of man on earth in preserving the original harmony of the world and man, since it denies the Western European ideal of the hero-transformer. The Buddhist worldview was expressed in the wu-wei teaching, and as A. Panarin rightly noted, it denies the Western image of the world as a workshop where the spirit of technology reigns. In Buddhism, rather, the spirit of "embryology - the doctrine of what are the ways of natural generation and maturation of phenomena in the material bosom of the cosmos" dominates.

5. Geopolitical factors of social development are determined by the territorial location of a society, its neighborhood with other societies, their relations and struggle and interaction of cultural principles. F. Ratzel (1844-1904), a German geographer who studied the issues of "political geography", can be considered the founder of geopolitics. Geopolitical factors of development aroused particular interest among scientists during the period of the imperialist division of the world in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. At this time, the law of uneven economic, political and cultural development of countries begins to manifest itself with particular force. Some countries fall under the domination of others, the colonial system of power is finally taking shape, but at the same time, national educational thought is activated, which is looking for an explanation of the current situation and ways out of it. Then, for example, the idea of ​​Russian history is finally formed, which was formed under the influence of two opposite cultural principles of the West and the East. In 1877, on the eve of the war between Russia and Turkey, Vl. Solovyov writes the article "Three Forces", in which he designates the Russian type of development as a middle one, designed to avoid the extremes of Eastern and Western civilizations and take the best from them. About these extremes, he writes: “If the Muslim East ... completely destroys man and affirms only inhuman god, then Western civilization strives primarily for the exclusive assertion godless man". Vl. Solovyov saw the vocation of Russia in the reconciliation of East and West, in the spread of a culture where God would be humane, and man would be truly religious. One can disagree with the above words of Vl. Solovyov, as a manifestation of an extreme point of view on the Muslim East and the Christian West, but one cannot disagree with him that in the history of the development of Russian society, the geographical factor of contact between Eastern and Western civilizations played a leading role.

6. Historical factors also have a huge impact on the development of society. History does not leave us forever. Historical events retain their traces not only in the image of things and documents collected in museums, it continues to live in its continuation in our present. She is that luggage behind your back, which is hard to carry. It has something that prevents us from moving forward, but also something that we cannot do without in the future. Therefore, countries with a long history experience particular difficulties on steep historical turns, but they move forward at a more stable pace.

7. Recently, science has become one of the main factors of social development. On the basis of scientific knowledge, which has turned into a direct productive force, a new, post-industrial mode of production is being formed, which qualitatively changes the nature of society. Social development is becoming human- and nature-oriented. And although society is now fully aware that the future is beyond our power, the present becomes our power, which largely determines the future. Technological and scientific changes in society lead to the fact that the public infrastructure will become immeasurably more complex, but in order for it to provide people with a decent existence, a free, reasonable and morally developed person, that is, a responsible person, will be required.

Thus, we have explored some of the general principles of human society and the factors contributing to its development. And this study showed us that development corresponds to human nature and through it the main human need is realized - in society and through society to show its universality.

Questions for self-control

1. What relations of people can be called social?

2. Is the progress of society real?

3. How do geographic factors influence social development?

4. What are the main criteria for the modern development of society.

Basic definitions

Individual- from lat. individuum - indivisible. A concept that reflects one of the aspects of human existence, namely, that a person is an integral being, which is, as it were, an “atom” of society. At the same time, this concept levels people, since it does not express the spiritual originality of each person. It has found particular application in sociology.

Personality- a concept that reflects the spiritual side of man. Personality is a dialectical unity of the individually unique and universal principles of human existence. Each person feels his personality as "I".

Holism- from Greek. holos - whole, whole. A doctrine that sees the world as a whole organism. According to the holistic principle, the whole precedes its parts, determines their character. The parts of the whole have no independent existence.

Civil society- a special type of society, deliberately created and managed by private owners to protect their private property (J. Locke). The structure of civil society is made up of voluntary and self-governing public organizations, and its initial element is a citizen, that is, a person endowed with free will, the right to choose based on a rational decision and an autonomous moral sense, and the duty of personal responsibility for their actions.

Diversification- from lat. diversificatio - change, variety. The growth of diversity, the expansion of objects and types of human activities.

Collective activity- such a form of activity in which the work of an individual, being divorced from the work of other members of the community, becomes meaningless.

Literature

Main

1. Gubin V.D.. Philosophy. Elementary course. Section 3. Chapter 1 and 3. M., 2001.

2. Kanke V.A. Philosophy. Historical and systematic course. M., 2005.

3. Philosophy. Textbook / Ed. V.D. Gubina, T.Yu. Sidorina, V.P. Filatov. M., 2005.

Additional

1. Berdyaev N.A. The meaning of history. M., 1990.

2. Bulgakov S.N. The main problems of the theory of progress // Works: In 2 vols. T. 2. M., 1993.

3. Volgin O.S. Justifying progress. The idea of ​​progress in Russian religious philosophy. M., 2004.

4. Hegel G. Philosophy of history . M.; L., 1935.

5. Grechko P.K. Conceptual models of history. M., 1995.

6. Kant I. The idea of ​​universal history in the world-civil plan // Works: In 6 vols. T. 6. M., 1966.

7. Condorcet J. Sketch of a historical picture of the progress of the human mind. M., 1936.

8. Laszlo E. Age of bifurcation. Comprehension of the changing world // Way. 1995, no. 7.

9. Solovyov V.WITH. The secret of progress // Works: In 2 vols. T. 2. M., 1990.

10. Solovyov V.S.. Three conversations // Works: In 2 vols. T. 2. M., 1988.

11. Sztompka P. Sociology of social change. M., 1996.

Philosophers distinguish two main ways of the progressive development of human society - evolution and revolution.

Evolution- this is a slow, gradual quantitative change in existing social relations, the economic and socio-political system, leading, ultimately, to their qualitative transformation.

The evolutionary development of society can be carried out consciously. Then they take the form of social reforms.

Reform- this is the transformation of any side of public life or public institutions while maintaining the foundations of the existing social order, carried out by the state.

The reforms are aimed at improving various spheres of public life, at improving the economic, social, political situation of the population and expanding opportunities to meet their basic needs.

Directions of reforms in modern Russia:

^ social - pension reform, implementation of national projects: "Health of the nation", "Maternity capital", "Housing for a young family", "Education", etc.;

^ political - changes in the political sphere of public life, in the Constitution, in the electoral system, the fight against corruption, etc.;

^ economic - privatization, measures to overcome the financial crisis, monetary reforms;

^ in the spiritual sphere - education reform, an attempt to create a national idea that integrates Russians, the revival of historical traditions, the promotion of citizenship, patriotism, etc.

The degree of reformist transformations can be very significant, up to changes in the social system or the type of economic system: the reforms of Peter I, the reforms in Russia in the early 90s. 20th century

Evolution can be carried out spontaneously, for example, as a result of the division of labor, there was a division of duties and roles between people, this gave rise to a process of differentiation in society.

Another example is the constant process of raising the average standard of living of the world's population. In this case, innovation plays a significant role.

Innovation- an ordinary, one-time improvement associated with an increase in the adaptive capabilities of a social organism in certain conditions.

Thus, the mechanism of evolution follows from the very nature of human society - the need for self-realization and improvement of society, improving the quality of life.

However, social evolution, under certain circumstances, sometimes encounters such obstacles that it is impossible to remove with the help of reforms, and then society takes the path of social revolution.

Revolution- a radical, qualitative change in all or most aspects of public life, affecting the foundations of the existing social system.

Signs of a revolution:

• these are radical changes, as a result of which there is a radical breakdown of the social object;
• are of a general, fundamental nature;
• usually rely on violence;
• organized consciously;
• cause unusually strong emotions and mass activity.

Revolution- the seizure by violent methods of state power by the leaders of mass movements and its subsequent use for large-scale reform of all spheres of public life.

G. Hegel did not consider the revolution a violation of the normal course of history. On the contrary, a revolution is a natural interruption in the continuity of the historical process, a leap in the development of society. But the revolution, in his opinion, plays a predominantly destructive role in history, freeing society from the barriers that hinder its free development. Positive creativity is realized only through gradual development.

The theory of revolution has been developed most thoroughly in Marxism. Karl Marx argues that the social revolution sweeps away all obstacles from the path of historical progress and opens up new horizons for it. It means a gigantic leap in social development, a transition to new, more progressive forms of social life. Therefore, revolutions are the "locomotives of history."

The economic basis of the social revolution is the conflict between the productive forces and production relations.

Opponents of Marxism actively developed the idea of ​​the inefficiency of social revolutions. Revolutions, in their opinion, can turn into their opposite and, instead of liberation, bring new forms of violence and oppression to the peoples.

According to P. Sorokin, the revolution is the worst way to improve the material and spiritual conditions of life of the masses, because it does not increase, but reduces all basic freedoms, does not improve, but rather worsens the economic and cultural situation of the working class. The philosopher prefers the evolutionary path of development of society.

social revolution is an extreme form of resolving social contradictions. It does not arise at the will or arbitrariness of individuals or parties, but is a necessary consequence of the previous development of society and becomes historically necessary only in the presence of certain objective conditions and circumstances. Now only extreme extremists consider revolution as the only means of transforming society. Modern Marxists have abandoned the revolutionary methods of struggle for power and rely mainly on democratic and parliamentary forms.

A revolution can be viewed as a radical transformation in any area of ​​human activity, entailing a radical, fundamental, deep, qualitative change, a leap in the development of society, nature or knowledge, associated with an open break with the previous state.

There are revolutions:

• neolithic(transition from a mining to a producing economy, i.e., the birth of agriculture and cattle breeding);
• industrial(transition from manual labor to machine labor, from manufactory to factory);
• cultural(fundamental changes in the spiritual life of society, the transformation and change of the basic values ​​of the dominant way of life and way of life);
• "green"(the process of introducing the achievements of scientific and technological progress in agriculture, ways, methods and means of a sharp increase in crop productivity, its prerequisite

was introduced in the mid-1950s. new hybrid high-yielding varieties of food crops; demographic (fundamental changes in the reproduction of the population in the process of its historical development); scientific (a radical change in the process and content of scientific knowledge, associated with the transition to new theoretical and methodological premises, to a new system of fundamental concepts and methods, to a new scientific picture of the world, as well as with qualitative transformations of the material means of observation and experimentation, with new ways of assessing and interpreting empirical data, with new ideals of explanation, validity and organization of knowledge).