Society is not a homogeneous, diffuse mass. Since ancient times, almost since its inception, differentiating features are clearly visible in it. Within any social whole, as a rule, individual elements (individuals) and their multi-scale associations (groups) are distinguished.

O. Comte formulated the principle according to which the division and cooperation of labor act as opposite principles, creating both poles of tension and dynamic balance within the social system. Labor cooperation arose because of the need to unite the efforts of many people to solve major social problems - to build a fortress, a ship, a cathedral, to oppose a numerous and dangerous enemy, etc.

Thanks to the division of labor, social groups are formed that differ from each other in professional and social characteristics. Consolidated within themselves, they are isolated from other groups and treat them with hidden or obvious hostility.

In other words, the unification of people was invariably accompanied by dismemberment, differentiation in accordance with a variety of principles.

The concept of stratification (from Latin stratum - layer, layer) means the stratification of society into levels, layers, or "strata", when large groups of people occupy certain places in accordance with the principles of the social hierarchy. Stratification is one of the varieties of social differentiation.

A "stratum" should be understood as a real set of people with common status features of an economic, political, demographic, cultural, etc. nature.

P. Sorokin wrote in his work "Social Stratification and Mobility" that any organized social group almost always goes through a process of internal stratification. Such stable groups, where everyone would stay on the same plane and be equal in all respects, practically do not exist. There is no complete equality either in the plant or in the animal world, and, on the contrary, the dominance of one over the other is found everywhere. Therefore, an imaginary society with complete equality of all with all is a myth that cannot be realized.

Within every social system, there are two opposing tendencies. One of them has the form of a desire to cultivate and consolidate various forms of inequality. The other looks like a desire for equality. Both of them balance each other. The social system that carries them in itself is in a state of stable dynamic equilibrium.

Inequality acts as a set of conditions that force people to occupy different places and levels in the hierarchical structures of society. It can be of several types.

• 1. Natural inequality is due to the physiological, psychophysical characteristics of people, their differences from each other in age, sex, strength, beauty, etc. It has always existed between people and will never disappear.
• 2. Social inequality has various forms and manifests itself in many areas of public life. Let us designate the most obvious of its manifestations:
  • a) in the division of labor into physical and mental;
  • b) in the ways of life - urban and rural;
  • c) in various professions, positions, social roles;
  • d) in levels of well-being, the size of property and wealth;
  • e) belonging to various socio-political circles, parties, clubs (from democratic to elite);
  • f) by the nature of social privileges, etc.

Social inequality is not something inherent in the human race. It arose along with the development of civilization.

3. Cultural inequality implies differences in the levels of education, upbringing, culture, spirituality, in the degree of giftedness with abilities and talents. People differ among themselves in the nature of needs, types of worldview, ideological convictions, religious beliefs. They themselves often turn these differences into the initial basis for various forms of social confrontation.

E. Durkheim wrote that if people by nature are not equal in the degree of giftedness with certain talents, then social influences in the form of training, upbringing, education further exacerbate this inequality. Society itself, through various signs of attention, payments and privileges, evaluates the work of someone who is mediocre and someone who is talented in different ways.

M. Weber pointed to three main types of inequality. The first is wealth inequality. The second is status inequality, in which people enjoy respect and honor to varying degrees, differ among themselves in their way of life, clothing style, taste, speech, and manners. And the third - inequality, due to the measure of power that a given person has. This measure depends on belonging to influential political circles, parties and on a number of other socio-political factors.

Inequality, taken by itself, goes back to such an objective property of everything that exists as a hierarchy.

The very phenomenon of hierarchy as subordination of different levels of the system was already known in antiquity. So, Plato in the dialogue "State" formulates the idea of ​​a hierarchy of social groups (philosophers-rulers, guards, artisans and farmers).

The actual concept of hierarchy begins to be used in relation to secular issues in the middle of the 19th century. O. Comte and P. Spencer characterize feudal society with its help. M. Weber uses it to describe the vertical structure of bureaucratic organizations. E. Durkheim speaks of social hierarchy in connection with the problem of the division of labor and social functions between individuals and groups. The concept of hierarchy becomes one of the key concepts in the concepts of the elite V. Pareto, K. Mannheim.

In the XX century. With the development of general systems theory, the concept of hierarchy begins to be used in the descriptions of various system objects for the characteristics of ordered, subordinated interactions between elements located at different levels. In social theory, it is used in the analysis of functional relationships of a predominantly vertical nature, where coordination, subordination, division of duties and rights between social subjects are assumed.

In socio-legal concepts, the concept of hierarchy serves to study complex systemic objects, including in the analysis of problems related to the hierarchy of rights, degrees of power and social control, the hierarchy of motives for law-abiding and illegal behavior, etc.

Inequality, being a particular kind of hierarchy, ensures the structuring of society, and, consequently, the strength of the social structure that makes up its core. That is why society and the state at all times sought to reproduce, organize, support and protect inequality. Particularly important in the performance of these functions was the role of the state and its institutions, the church, ideology, and the army.

At the same time, it was extremely important to find the optimal measure of inequality that is acceptable and acceptable by the mass consciousness.

The ideal of absolute equality, with all its attractiveness and temptation, is beyond the reach of humanity. And the reason for this is simple: people are not the same by nature and therefore, in accordance with their different characteristics, they are forced to occupy different places on the many ladders of social hierarchies. The mindset demanding absolute equality and bearing the name of egalitarianism arose as a result of the active efforts of the social lower classes. Where the mass consciousness demands absolute equality, it only comes to rough leveling, to vulgar forms of ochlocracy, in which the degree of civilization of social relations does not rise, but falls. And this happens because absolute equality contradicts the essence of life.

But if there is no absolute equality and cannot be, then relative equality exists. It differs from the absolute in that it implies some elements of inequality in relations between subjects. If, for example, relations between a husband and wife in a family are built on the basis of the principle of equality of rights and duties, this does not mean that when going, say, on a trip, the husband and wife carry suitcases of equal weight to the car.

One of the most common ways of social differentiation is the division of people into classes, that is, into large groups with unequal access to the means of production, wealth and power.

K. Marx made a significant contribution to class theory. He drew attention to the sharp polarization of two large social groups - the owners of the means of production (the exploiters) and the producers (the exploited). Antagonistic relations of social enmity develop between them, which make the social system unstable and inevitably lead to grandiose social upheavals. Class hostility must, according to Marx, inevitably culminate in the complete destruction of the exploiting classes.

In addition to the two antagonists, the social "top" and the social "bottom", there is also a middle class of small and medium-sized entrepreneurs. The German sociologist G. Simmel noted that the stability of the hierarchical structures of the social system largely depends on the proportion of the middle class. Being in the social space between the "tops" and "bottoms", he is able to avoid both extremes in his claims and is able to extinguish the aggressive energy of confrontation between antagonists.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Hosted at http://www.allbest.ru/

Federal State Educational Budgetary Institution of Higher Professional Education

"FINANCIAL UNIVERSITY UNDER THE GOVERNMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION"

Department of "Macroeconomic regulation"

abstract

on the topic: "Social differentiation of societyTwa"

Completed by: Dudkin A.D.

Scientific adviser: Shmanev S.V.

Moscow 2013

• Introduction
• 1. Concepts of social division
• Sorokin's theory
• Warner theory
• Weber's theory
• 2. Conflicts associated with social differentiation
• 3. Social differentiation in Russia
• Conclusion
• Bibliography

Introduction

At all times of the existence of human society, from primitive communities to modern, more complex structures, it was natural for a person to distinguish and isolate certain groups of people from others in order to increase or decrease their social and economic status. In primitive tribes, the division was relatively simple: an influential and respected leader, his close associates, ordinary members of the communities, as well as those living "outside the law", outcasts.

At subsequent stages of development, social stratification became more complicated and became more and more obvious. The division of labor, duties, the emergence of a stratum of entrepreneurs, the middle class - all this led to the inevitable expansion and complication of social ties within both society and the whole world.

What are the causes of social inequality? Modern Western sociology is dominated by the opinion that social stratification grows out of the natural need of society to stimulate the activities of individuals, motivating their activities through appropriate systems of rewards and incentives. However, this stimulation in various scientific and methodological schools and directions is interpreted differently. In this regard, one can single out functionalism, status, economic theories, etc.

Representatives of functionalism explain the cause of social inequality by differentiation of functions performed by different groups, layers, classes. The functioning of society, in their opinion, is possible only through the division of labor, when each social group, stratum, class carry out the solution of the corresponding vital tasks for the entire social organism; some are engaged in the production of material goods, others create spiritual values, others manage, etc. For the normal functioning of a social organism, an optimal combination of all types of activity is necessary, but some of them are more important from the standpoint of this organism, while others are less important. So, on the basis of the hierarchy of social functions, a corresponding hierarchy of groups, layers, classes that perform them is formed. Those who carry out general leadership and management are placed at the top of the social pyramid, because only they can maintain the unity of the state, create the necessary conditions for the successful performance of other functions.

Such a hierarchy exists not only at the level of the state as a whole, but also in every social institution. So, according to P. Sorokin, at the enterprise level - the basis of interprofessional stratification are two parameters: 1. the importance of occupation (profession) for the survival and functioning of the body as a whole; 2. the level of intelligence necessary for the successful performance of professional duties. P.A. Sorokin believes that the most socially significant professions are those that are associated with the functions of organization and control.

Consequently, high statuses and people occupying them are better rewarded, they have more power, the prestige of their occupation is higher, and the level of education should also be higher. So we got the four main dimensions of stratification - income, power, education, prestige. But because they exhaust the range of social benefits that people strive for. More precisely, not the benefits themselves (there may just be many of them), but the channels of access to them. A home abroad, a luxury car, a yacht, a vacation in the Canary Islands, etc. - social benefits that are always in short supply (i.e. expensive and inaccessible to the majority) and are acquired through access to money and power, which in turn are achieved through high education and personal qualities. Thus, the social structure arises about the social division of labor, and social stratification - about the social distribution of the results of labor, i.e. social benefits. Speaking about the differentiation of society, one cannot but say about Russian society, which, at the moment, cannot be imagined without stratification division. Social differentiation was originally one of the foundations for the creation of a post-communist society in our country, one of the conditions for the formation of a fundamentally different view of man on the world.

1. Concepts of social division

Speaking of social differentiation, first of all, I would like to describe the modern concepts of social division.

Sorokin's theory

The famous sociologist P.A. Sorokin considered stratification as an integral characteristic of any complexly organized society. He saw the essence of stratification in the unequal distribution of economic resources, power and influence, rights and obligations among members of society. According to this sociologist, three main forms of stratification could be distinguished - economic, political and professional. Economic stratification was due to the unequal distribution of material and financial resources. The political one was associated with unequal access to power, and the basis of professional stratification was formed by the division of social labor and the formation of various professions, among which more and less preferred ones stood out.

Sorokin studied the features of social stratification in various societies. Considering economic stratification, he analyzed two hypotheses, which were formulated respectively by Karl Marx and Vilfredo Pareto. According to Marx, as capitalism developed, so did the stratification of society. Wealth was increasingly concentrated in the hands of large owners, which was accompanied by the impoverishment of large sections of the population. In contrast, Pareto put forward the idea that in all societies the share of economic wealth in the hands of the ruling class is relatively constant. But, as Sorokin showed in his study, in the end, both of these hypotheses were not supported by historical facts. The nature of economic stratification could change over time, but no permanent trend could be found in such changes.

In addition to the concepts of social division, Sorokin also introduced the concept of social mobility. Social mobility is a change in the place occupied by a person or a group of people in the social structure of society. The more mobile a society is, the easier it is to move from one stratum to another, the more stable it is, according to supporters of the theory of social stratification.

There are two main types of social mobility - vertical and horizontal. Vertical mobility involves movement from one stratum to another. Depending on the direction of movement, there is upward vertical mobility (social uplift, upward movement) and downward vertical mobility (social descent, downward movement). Promotion is an example of upward mobility, dismissal, demolition is an example of downward mobility.

With a vertical type of mobility, a person can make both rises, for example, from a cashier to a bank manager, and falls. An entrepreneur can lose part of his fortune, move to a group of people with lower incomes.

Having lost a qualified job, a person may not find an equivalent job and, in connection with this, lose some of the features that characterize his former social status. Horizontal mobility involves the movement of a person from one group to another, located at the same level, on the same step.

With this type of mobility, a person, as a rule, retains the main features of the group, for example, a worker moved to work in another enterprise, retaining the salary level and the same rank, or moved to another city; the same in terms of the number of inhabitants, etc. Social movements also lead to the emergence of intermediate, boundary layers, which are called marginal.

Warner theory

Lloyd Warner, in his book Yankee City, presented the first large-scale empirical study of social stratification in the United States. Warner followed the Weberian tradition of status groups. He attempted to develop a standard index of status characteristics (a Standard Index of Status Characteristics), starting from such points as education, place of residence, income and origin. All these factors, according to Warner, are used by Americans in assessing their social value, in choosing friends for themselves and for their children. In contrast to Marx, Warner relied heavily on "subjective" criteria for stratification, i.e. on how members of a particular community (community) assess each other's social position than on such "objective" differences as, for example, income.

Warner's main merit in dividing American society into classes is considered to be a theory in which groups consist of individuals with the same prestigious rank. It was Warner who put forward the idea of ​​the existence of a six-class structure (“reputation theory)” instead of the usual two or three-class structure, which included:

· The upper layer of the upper class - were rich aristocrats.

The lower layer of the upper class - included people of high income, but they did not come from aristocratic families, they flaunted their wealth, managed to “grow through the asphalt, have a strong character, arrogance and phenomenal enterprise.

· The upper layer of the middle class - consisted of highly educated people engaged in intellectual work, and business people with high incomes: doctors, lawyers, owners of capital.

· The lower layer of the middle class - represented mainly by "white collars" (secretaries, clerks, clerks, cashiers).

· The upper layer of the lower class - were "blue collars" (skilled workers and other manual laborers).

The lower stratum of the lower class - included the poorest and most outcast members of the community, very similar to the lumpen proletariat (homeless vagrants, beggars and unemployed).

Warner defined classes as groups that are believed to exist by members of society and are located respectively at the highest or lowest levels.

Weber's theory

The famous sociologist Max Weber, conducting many years of research that laid the foundation for his theory of social stratification, brought to it his own, completely different from the vision of other theorists, a three-dimensional approach. The basis of his three dimensions of social stratification are: economy, power and prestige. Subsequently, these three dimensions were called autonomous by him. According to the theory of Max Weber, it is property, or rather, the types of its ownership, that make it possible for the emergence of economic classes, in which there are measures of access to power, the formation of political parties, and the prestige of some of them creates status groups.

Weber defines class as the ability of an individual to gain access to various goods and income in market conditions. Simply put, a class includes individuals with starting positions, professions, incomes, and access to resource opportunities. This sociologist, not without reason, believed that classes take place only in a society with a capitalist system, since it is precisely this system that is determined by market relations. But in the conditions of the market, individuals are divided into two types: the first offer goods and services, and the second only labor. In turn, the former differ from the latter only in the quantitative possession of property. Like other theorists of sociology, Max Weber does not in any of his works clearly classify the structure of the society he studied, in particular, the capitalist one. Therefore, most sociologists who study the work of this theorist give us completely different lists, depending on their own interpretation. According to the general opinion, the classifications determined on the basis of the works of Weber by Radaev and Shkaratan are considered the closest. It looks like this:

Working class;

Petty bourgeoisie;

Intelligentsia and engineering and technical workers;

Administrative and managerial personnel;

Owners;

Landlords;

Entrepreneurs

The economic component, mentally divided into two parts, makes it possible to attribute to one of the parts the owners with an invariably positive attitude and the proletariat with its negative attitudes due to the lack of property and, by and large, qualifications for its possible implementation in market conditions. With such a stratification in the center, a middle class is formed, which includes small owners and people who have certain skills and knowledge required in market conditions. The next division according to Weber's theory is the division based on prestige and the resulting vertical of status groups, in other words, the hierarchy. The basis in which communities serve, in which the concept of honor is formed, defined as any of the qualities appreciated by a large number of individuals in the community. Often this kind of assessment was associated with a class difference, in which property should be noted, or rather, the quantitative possession of it played an important role, and possibly the dominant one, but both people with property and those without property could be included in one status group. Max Weber considered the acquisition of honor (prestige) in status groups possible only by firmly assigning strictly exclusive activities to group members, imposing a ban on other individuals doing the same, in other words, monopolizing any benefits. This was manifested within the groups in the following way - the possibility of wearing certain clothes, jewelry, insignia, the production of a certain product, recreation separate and different from other individuals of the group to emphasize the exclusivity of members of this particular status group and possible strengthening and increasing the distance between groups. Also, to create exclusivity, marital relations of persons within the same circle and similar measures of isolation through exclusivity were widely used. All this led to the formation of a progressive isolation of the status group. Weber considered the third basis for social division to be differences in power, in turn giving rise to the emergence of parties in which people united according to their beliefs. According to Weber, a person belonging to a certain group has equal amounts of power, wealth and prestige, which are independent of each other. Parties, on the other hand, represent interests according to the status position of the individuals included in them and, of course, with the possibility of replenishing their ranks from their own status groups, but an optional condition for the formation of parties is class or status orientation, but rather loyalty to any status groups ideally.

Weber's only expressed agreement with other theorists who have studied the theory of sociological stratification is the acceptance of the existence of social differentiation as an axiom.

2. Conflicts associated with social differentiation

social inequality differentiation society

It is obvious that social differentiation generated by the difference in income, status, opportunities inevitably leads to conflicts in society. In this case, the conflict will be the clash of opposing goals, positions, opinions and views of the subjects of social interaction. Understanding the causes of conflicts occurring in society, one can not only solve the problems of these specific conflicts, but also in general analyze the main consequences of the social differentiation of society.

Each of the sociologists studying the issue of social differentiation and conflicts associated with this concept, sought to give his own classification, supplementing or curtailing existing knowledge.

So, Max Weber gave a classification according to the direction of the conflict: purposeful and value-oriented. Purposeful actions strive for success, using the external world as a means, value-oriented actions do not have any goal and are valuable in themselves. The way of thinking of people of the first type of actions is the following: “I seek, I achieve by using others”, the second type of actions is “I believe in some value and I want to act for this ideal, even if it harms me.” The difference between the value and purposeful type of activity is that the goal is understood as the idea of ​​success, which becomes the cause of the action, and the value is the idea of ​​duty, which becomes the basis of the action. People in their actions can be both goal-oriented and value-oriented, but, nevertheless, they act in certain social relations not in isolation.

Karl Marx studied the theory of social conflict and came to the conclusion that conflict is inevitable in any group, organization, society. The main reason for the emergence of the conflict, Marx singled out the deficit and unfair distribution of resources and, of course, power. The negative consequences of the conflict are predetermined and a priori.

Georg Simmel, who is considered the founder of theoretical conflictology, argued that conflict in society is inevitable, because conflict is a natural component of some social processes. But unlike Marx's theory, in Simmel's theory conflict did not necessarily lead to negative consequences and destruction of social systems. The conflict also brought positive aspects to society - the strengthening of social systems, their cohesion. Simmel considered possible sources of conflict not only a clash of interests, but also the manifestation of hostility and aggression towards each other by people. Based on this, he singled out the factors guiding the nature of the conflict - the instincts of hatred and love.

Ralf Dahrendorf defines contemporary conflict as a conflict between resources and claims. Economic progress alone will not eliminate either unemployment or poverty. The majority class has found a relatively comfortable existence, defends its interests in the same way as other ruling classes did, does not seek to break the circle of deprivation of people who have sunk to the position of declassed. On the contrary, in troubled times, he actively pushes some of his fellow citizens beyond the threshold of society and keeps them there, protecting the position of those inside. Like the previous ruling classes, they find enough reasons for the need for such boundaries and are ready to "let in" those who accept their values. At the same time, they prove that there should be no boundaries between classes. They want to remove the barriers that divide society, but are completely unprepared to do anything about it. The majority class draws boundaries not only horizontally, but also vertically (racial-ethnic problem). Dahrendorf writes that the charms of a multi-ethnic society were wasted for the majority, who are more concerned about maintaining interracial barriers than about achieving openness. This state of society is a step back in the history of the development of citizenship. Affirmative action is needed: providing minorities and other disadvantaged with some social benefits in education and employment. A new type of "tarnished" liberalism has emerged, abandoning the great gains in the field of universal civil rights and norms in order to satisfy the separatist demands of national minorities. Minority rights were initially misunderstood and consequently turned into minorities.

Lewis Coser, approaching the problem of conflict, agrees with the works of G. Simmel, whose monograph "Conflict" is built around the main thesis: "Conflict is a form of socialization." For L. Koser, conflicts are not social anomalies, but necessary, normal natural forms of existence and development of social life. In almost every act of social interaction lies the possibility of conflict. He defines conflict as a confrontation between social subjects (individuals, groups) arising from a lack of power, status or means necessary to satisfy value claims, and involving the neutralization, infringement or destruction (symbolic, ideological, practical) of the enemy. The subject that causes the vast majority of conflicts are real social benefits recognized by both parties as such. The main causes of the conflict are the lack of resources and the violation of the principles of social justice in their distribution. The initiators of the aggravation of relations and bringing them to the point of conflict are most often representatives of those social groups that consider themselves socially disadvantaged. The more stable their confidence in this, the more actively they initiate conflicts and the more often they clothe them in illegal, violent forms.

As can be seen, the authors of social theories adhere, for the most part, to two opposite poles: conflicts in society, generated by various forms of differentiation, can be both negative for society, leading to irreversible changes, and neutral, being a special form of socialization for strata.

Modern conflictology has formulated the conditions under which a successful resolution of social conflicts is possible. Firstly, it is a timely and accurate diagnosis of the causes of the conflict. Secondly, it is a mutual interest in overcoming contradictions on the basis of mutual recognition of the interests of each of the parties. The third, indispensable condition is the joint search for ways to overcome the conflict. Here it is possible to use a whole arsenal of means and methods: direct dialogue of the parties, negotiations through an intermediary, negotiations with the participation of a third party, etc. The final, post-conflict stage is of great importance. At this stage, efforts must be made to finally eliminate the contradictions of interests, goals, attitudes of the warring parties, and the socio-psychological tension between them must be eliminated.

Based on the above, I would like to note that the most effective way to reduce the level of tension in society associated with differences in strata is to facilitate the transition from one social group to another; what, in general, is implemented in modern society and the mechanism for this continues to improve.

3. Social differentiation in Russia

Despite the fact that the Russian economy after the collapse of the Soviet Union took on a clearly market and Western outlines, one cannot speak of the ongoing differentiation of society in the "Western" direction. The creation of a "middle class", free enterprise, the privatization of former state property - everything that political power was so striving for, although it reflected obvious changes in society in the process of leaving the communist system, it has its own unique features.

The formation of a post-industrial society in Russia is manifested not only in the creation of an information-technological basis for material and spiritual production, but also in the development of market relations based on various forms of ownership, a change in the mechanism of state regulation, a significant increase in the role of the service sector, large-scale concentration of production while lagging behind small and medium business. The economic reforms carried out in recent decades have most directly affected the state of social groups and strata.

The most significant changes have taken place in the content of social groups identified on the basis of the criteria of position in the system of social production, division and sphere of application of labor. First of all, I mean the new parameters of the economically active population, which is most directly related to the production of goods and services. Statistical data show that a steady trend in the development of social differentiation in post-industrial countries has been an increase in the labor force (for example, in the USA it changed from 125.8 million people in 1990 to 153 million people in 2010); however, directly opposite changes took place in Russian society - a decrease in the quantitative parameters of the economically active population from 75.1 million people. in 1990 to 72.9 million people. in 2003 and only by 2010, it was possible to reach the figure of 75.4 million people, which was a reflection of the crisis development of the economy in this period. Also, I would like to cite the following data on the social gradation of Russian society: despite the steady growth in the number of employed people in the world (for example, in the USA - from 118.8 million people in 1990 to 139.0 million people in 2010), the dynamics of the average annual number of people employed in the economy in Russia was characterized by ambiguous indicators: 1990 - 71.2 million people, 2000 - 65.1 million people, 2010 - 69.8 million pers. The reduction in production volumes during the crisis led to a decrease in the parameters of the employed labor force. At the same time, the quantitative indicators of the unemployed group and its share in the economically active population increased from 3.9 million people. in 1990 to 5.6 million people. in 2010, which was largely a consequence of the ongoing processes of industrialization of the country.

Analyzing the works of well-known sociologists, one can come to the conclusion that in any developing society there is a so-called class of "entrepreneurs", which is a significant transition to a new round of development of economic relations. However, modern statistics indicate the opposite: the results of population censuses indicate that the absolute majority of those employed in the economy are employed (2002 - 58 million people (95%), 2010 - 61.6 million people). people (94%) We should also not forget about the spontaneous and extremely rapid formation of a class of entrepreneurs in Russia (their quantitative composition increased to 1.4 million.) The formation of large owners and the possibility of them receiving ultra-high incomes is directly related to the reckless privatization of state property, the transfer to the private sector of the extraction and sale of natural resources, and the redistribution of power. It also does not contribute to the development of entrepreneurship in modern Russia, judicial and criminal law: for example, according to Forbes magazine, every fifth convict in Russia in 2012 He received a sentence precisely because of his entrepreneurial activity - whether it was incorrect accounting, speculative transactions, or the simple desire of state authorities to maintain a monopoly in a particular area of ​​activity.

Also, the aforementioned “polarization” leads to a certain intensity of relations in society: in a short period in Russia, a ruling class (large owners, top managers, politicians) was formed, characterized by an ultra-high level of income, and a lower class, uniting hired workers performing the functions of performing labor in various spheres of social production and characterized by a low level of income (according to this indicator, up to 70% of the population can currently be classified as a lower class).

Finally, I would like to provide information on the created "middle class", which unites individuals characterized by a standard level of income and consumption, with a fairly high level of education, professional status, and certain political and moral values. The specificity of the Russian reality lies in the fact that, despite the development of small and medium-sized businesses and the increase in the educational level of the population, representatives of these groups are characterized by a low property status and income level. In this regard, at present, one can only raise the question of the formation of a middle class in Russia, subject to the implementation of an appropriate state policy, but not the full functioning of this class as a subsystem of society.

Conclusion

Summing up, I would like to say that the modern differentiation of society is the result of complex social, political and economic processes that have taken place in the societies of various countries of Europe, Russia, Asia and the United States during the period of their existence and, in many respects, determined by them.

It is obvious that, over time, there is a decrease in the pressure of the spiritual and moral spheres on the freedom of thought and speech of a person, there is a creation of new strata, new categories of social division, the existence of which is unthinkable in the realities of past centuries. There is, in the literal sense, the evolution of society, which is based on the ideas and thoughts of past centuries, but introduces its own, fundamentally new, adjustments.

However, despite the strong softening of the framework, today it is impossible to declare an unambiguous victory of reason over differentiation - and people still evaluate each other not so much by moral and personal qualities, but by internal systems of evaluation and categorization, taking into account precisely the social and class classification.

I believe that one of the most important directions in the evolution of the social differentiation of society in the coming years should be the rejection of the categorization scheme of thinking and evaluation by social elements of each other and the transition to a new system that guarantees even greater freedom of self-expression and self-determination.

Bibliography

1. Belokrylova O. S., Mikhalkina E. V., Bannikova A. V., Agapov E. P. Social science. Moscow: Phoenix, 2010.

2. Kasyanov VV Social science. Moscow: Phoenix, 2009.

3. Kokhanovsky V.P., Matyash G.P., Yakovlev V.P., Zharov L.V. Sociology for secondary and special educational institutions. Tver, 2008.

4. Kravchenko A. I. Social science. Moscow: Russian Word, 2006.

5. Kurbatov V. I. Social science. Rostov n/a: Phoenix, 2008.

6. Rosenko Svetlana Ivanovna: “Society as a whole. Social development ": M.: EKSMO, 2012.

Hosted on Allbest.ru

Similar Documents

Social differentiation and social inequality as the basis of the theories of social stratification and mobility. Concept, essence and types of social responsibility. General characteristics, main causes and stages of social conflicts, ways to resolve them.

abstract, added 05/19/2010


Theoretical and methodological foundations of the study of social differentiation of the population, its concept, essence and causes. The current state and main directions for improving the level and quality of life of the population in Russia. Forms and types of social inequality.

term paper, added 01/21/2015


Stratification concepts, social differentiation of populations into classes in a hierarchical rank. The main forms of stratification and the relationship between them, the causes of social inequality. The ratio of inequality, equality and justice.

abstract, added 11/17/2010


Social inequality arising from social differences and differentiation. Factors of social difference. Natural differences between people. Fundamentals of differentiation of society. The structure of social stratification. Basic principles of division.

presentation, added 12/11/2016


Comparative characteristics of social inequality in Russia and Brazil. The study of social differentiation. Measuring economic inequality across population groups. The study of the poverty line and the level of material security in the state.

term paper, added 10/11/2014


Characteristics of the main systems of social stratification. The study of stratification tendencies of modern Russian society. Analysis of the problem of the origin of social inequality. Marx's class theory. Social mobility: channels and mechanisms.

abstract, added 02/13/2016


Inequality between strata of society. Social differentiation of society. The division of society into social groups that occupy different positions in society. Social inequality as a stimulus for a person to self-development and achieve their goals.

abstract, added 01/27/2016


Characterization of the foundations of forecasting the social structure of society, consideration of its role in the sustainable development of society in the context of market transformations. Analysis of trends and prospects for the development of the social structure of society in the Russian Federation.

term paper, added 04/09/2015


Changing the social stratification of Russian society in the course of the development of democratic reforms. Differentiation of incomes of the population and polar stratification of society. Marginalization of society as a loss of connection with one's social, national-ethnic group.

presentation, added 04/12/2015


Analysis of the role of the processes of integration and differentiation in the formation and development of society in the context of the social system, their functions and systemic significance, practical significance. Ways of classifying social communities. The concept of classes and social strata.

It can often be observed that there is a relationship between the development of individuality and social interest, which consists in the fact that the level of this development rises as the circle to which the latter extends expands. If we have before us two social groups M and N, sharply different from each other both in their characteristic features and in their mutual mood, but each of which in itself consists of homogeneous and closely interconnected elements, then ordinary development causes among the latter ever-increasing differentiation; the differences between individuals in outward and inward inclinations and their expression, which were originally minimal, are sharpened by the need to secure a livelihood, over which there is a struggle, in ever more peculiar ways; competition creates, as you know, the specialty of the individual. However different the starting point of this process in the groups M and N, it must nevertheless gradually liken them to each other. It can be assumed in advance that with an increase in the dissimilarity of the constituent parts of the group M among themselves and the dissimilarity of the constituent parts of the group N among themselves, in each of them it will be possible to find an ever-increasing number of manifestations similar to manifestations in the other; the deviation in all directions from the norm, which hitherto had significance for each complex in itself, must necessarily bring the members of one group closer to the members of another. This will happen already because, no matter how different social groups are in themselves, the forms of differentiation are the same or similar to each other: relations of simple competition, the combination of many weak against one strong, the predominance of individual members, the progression in the development of once tied individual relations, etc. .d. The operation of this process - from a purely formal side - can often be observed in that international sympathy that aristocrats have for each other and which, in a strange way, does not depend on the specific content of their being, which in other cases is of decisive importance for attraction and repulsion. After the process of social differentiation has led to the separation of the high from the low, the purely formal fact of a certain social position establishes between the members whom it characterizes and who belong to the most diverse groups, internal and often external relations.

Added to this is the fact that with this differentiation of the social group there will be a growing compulsion and inclination to go beyond its original boundaries in spatial, economic and spiritual terms and to establish, in view of the increasing individualization and the resulting repulsion of the elements of the group, along with the initial centripetal existing in a separate group - the centrifugal tendency as a bridge thrown over to other groups. A few examples will suffice for this process, which is already self-evident. Although initially the spirit of strict equality dominated the workshops, limiting, on the one hand, the production of an individual member to those quantitative and qualitative limits that were respected by all other members, and on the other hand, trying to protect everyone with the help of rules governing sale and exchange, from so that the other does not surpass him, it was impossible to maintain this state of undifferentiation for a longer time. The craftsman, having become rich due to some circumstances, no longer wanted to be subject to restrictions: to sell only his own products, trade in only one place and keep a very limited number of apprentices, etc. But as soon as he won this right, often through hard struggle, two things had to happen: first, the initially homogeneous mass of the members of the workshop had to be differentiated more and more definitely into rich and poor, capitalists and workers; after the principle of equality was once violated so much that one had the right to make the other work for himself and freely, according to his personal abilities and energy, relying on his knowledge of relations and on his account of chances, choose his own market for sale - namely, personal qualities , given the opportunity to develop, should rise and lead to ever sharper specialization and individualization within the partnership and eventually to its disintegration. On the other hand, this transformation led to a further expansion beyond the former sales area; By virtue of the fact that the producer and merchant, previously united in one person, differentiated from each other, the latter acquired an incomparably greater freedom of movement, and commercial relations, hitherto impossible, began. Individual freedom and increased production are in interaction. Thus, in the coexistence of guild restrictions and large-scale factory production, as was the case, for example, at the beginning of this century in Germany, it always proved necessary to give the latter freedom of production and trade, which could or was wanted to be collectivistically limited to circles consisting of smaller and tight industries. Thus, the development that started from narrow, homogeneous guild circles proceeded in a twofold direction and, in its duality, had to prepare their disintegration: firstly, towards individualizing differentiation and, secondly, towards an ever-growing expansion. The history of the emancipation of the peasants in Prussia, for example, presents a similar process in this respect. The hereditarily subservient peasant, as he was in Prussia until about 1810, occupied, both in relation to the land and in relation to the master, a peculiar middle position; the land, although it belonged to the latter, but in such a way that the peasant was not deprived of certain rights to it. On the other hand, although he had to serve a corvee in his master's field, he cultivated along with this the land granted to him for himself. With the abolition of serfdom, a certain part of the land, which hitherto belonged to the peasant with limited rights, was transferred to him in full and free ownership, and the landowner could only count on hired workers, who were now recruited mainly from the owners of the smaller patches of land that they had. bought up. And so, if the peasant, under the former relations, combined in himself the separate features of the owner and the worker for others, now a sharp differentiation has appeared: one part has turned into pure owners, and the other into pure workers. It is self-evident how in this way the free movement of the personality and “the establishment of more distant intercourse was brought about; this was influenced not only by the destruction of external attachment to a piece of land, but also by the position of the worker as such, hiring here and there, and on the other hand, and free possession, which makes alienation possible and at the same time commercial migration, etc. . This is how the observation expressed in the first sentence is substantiated: differentiation and individualization weakens the connection with the near, in order to establish in return a new connection - real and ideal - with a more distant one.

In the world of animals and plants we find an attitude quite corresponding to this. In the breeds of our domestic animals (this also applies to cultivated plants) it can be seen that individuals of the same subdivision differ more sharply from each other than individuals of the corresponding subdivision, which are in a state of nature; on the contrary, divisions of the same genus, as a whole, stand closer to each other than species of uncultivated breeds. Thus, the process of development, which increases through cultivation, causes, on the one hand, a more vivid manifestation of individuality within the department to which it belongs; on the other hand, rapprochement with foreign departments and the discovery of similarities with a wider collectivity that goes beyond the group, originally homogeneous. It is quite consistent with this statement that the breeds of domestic animals among uncultured peoples have a much more character of isolated species than those varieties that are bred by civilized peoples; because the former have not yet reached in the process of development that point which, as a result of longer domestication, reduces the differences between departments because it increases the differences between individuals. And in this the development of animals corresponds to the development of their masters: in less civilized epochs, individuals belonging to the same genus are as uniform and similar to each other as possible; on the contrary, genera as a whole oppose each other as alien and hostile: the closer the synthesis within one's own kind, the sharper the antithesis with another's kind; with the progress of culture, the differentiation between individuals increases and the approach to the alien species increases. This is fully consistent with the fact that the broad uneducated masses of a cultured people are more homogeneous among themselves and, on the contrary, differ from the masses of another people by sharper characteristic features than either happens among the educated people of both peoples. And with regard to the reflexes that this relation evokes in the observing spirit, the same thing must take place, and moreover on the basis of the important psychological rule that impressions are different, but belonging to the same genus and combined into a certain whole, merge between themselves and thereby paralyze each other, so that an average impression is formed; one extreme quality balances the other, and just as the most diverse colors form together a colorless white color, so the variety of very unequally gifted and acting persons leads to the fact that the whole into which the representation unites them acquires a more indifferent character, devoid of sharply defined one-sidedness. . Friction between strongly pronounced individualities, which actually leads to Balance or conflicts, also occurs in the subjective spirit.

Generalizing this idea, we can express it in such a way that in each person ceteris paribus the individual and the social stand, so to speak, in an invariable proportion, which only changes its form: the closer the circle to which we surrender, the less individual freedom we have; but on the other hand, this circle itself is something individual, and precisely because it is small, it separates itself from others by sharp boundaries. This shows up very clearly in the social structure of the Quakers. As a whole, as a religious principle characterized by the most extreme individualism and subjectivism, Quakerism unites the members of the community in a structure and way of life that is most uniform, democratic, and, if possible, excludes all individual differences; but on the other hand, it is completely devoid of understanding of the higher state unity and its goals, so that the individuality of the smaller group excludes, on the one hand, the individuality of individual members, on the other, belonging to a larger group. Consequently, the individual is allowed for them only in the social, and they find themselves socially bound in the individual. And according to this: if the circle in which we act and to which our interests belong expands, then this gives more scope for the development of our individuality; but as parts of this whole we have less originality, and the whole as a social group is less individual.

If thus the tendencies towards individualization, on the one hand, and towards undifferentiation, on the other, remain so much the same that it is relatively indifferent whether they manifest themselves in a purely personal area or in the sphere of the social community to which the person belongs, then an increase in individualization or its opposite in one area will require their reduction in another. Thus, we come to the most general norm, which is found most often with differences in the size of social groups, but is found, however, in other cases. So, for example, we notice in some peoples in which everything extravagant, exaggerated, impulsively bizarre, a slavish attachment to fashion strongly predominates. The folly committed by one is imitated by all others. On the other hand, other peoples with a more moderate, soldier-like way of life, which on the whole is far from being so diverse, have, however, much stronger individualistic aspirations and differ from each other in their monotonous and simple way of life much sharper and more distinctly than the first with their motley, changeable way of life. So, on the one hand, the whole has a very individual character, but its parts are very similar to each other; on the other hand, the whole is more colorless, stands farther away from everything extreme in its formation, but its parts are strongly differentiated from each other. At the present moment, however, it is mainly that correlative relation that stands in connection with the scope of the social circle and usually combines the freedom of the group with the bondage of the individual that is important to us; a good example of this is the co-existence of a communal bond with political freedom, as we see in the Russian structure of the pre-tsarist period. Especially during the era of the invasion of the Mongols in Russia, there were a large number of territorial units, principalities, cities, rural communities, which were not at all interconnected by a uniform state connection, and thus each of them as a whole enjoyed great political freedom; but on the other hand, the attachment of the individual to the communal community was the closest, so that there was no private ownership of land at all, and only one commune owned it. Close confinement in the circle of the community, which deprived the individual of personal possession, and, of course, often the right to personal transfer, corresponded to the absence of relations that connected with the wider political circle. The circles of social interests lie concentrically around us; the closer they embrace us, the smaller they must be. But man is never a purely collectivistic being, just as he is never a purely individual being; therefore, of course, here we are dealing only with a greater or lesser degree, and only with separate aspects and determinations of existence, on which development is revealed in the transition from the predominance of one to the predominance of the other. And this development may have stages in which belonging simultaneously to both a smaller and a larger social circle is expressed in characteristic consequences. If, therefore, belonging to a closer circle is in general less conducive to the maintenance of individuality as such than belonging to the largest possible collectivity, then, from a psychological point of view, it should be noted, however, that within a very large cultural community, belonging to a family contributes to individualization. The individual cannot shield himself from the totality; only under the condition that he gives himself one part of his absolute "I" to several others and unites with them, can he still retain a sense of individuality and, moreover, without excessive isolation, without a feeling of bitterness and alienation. Even when he expands his personality and his interests with the personality and interests of a whole series of other people, he opposes himself to the rest of the whole in the person of, so to speak, a larger mass. True, life outside the family, in a wider circle, gives the individual a wider field - in the sense of eccentricity and abnormality of every kind; but for differentiation, which then benefits the vastest whole itself, which is the consequence of strength, and not the consequence of the absence of resistance to one-sided impulses - for it, belonging to a closer circle within a wider one is often useful, often being, of course, only a preparation and transition. . The family, whose meaning is at first politically real, and with the growth of culture becomes more and more psychologically ideal, provides its member as a collective individual, on the one hand, with a preliminary differentiation that at least prepares him for differentiation as an absolute individual, with on the other hand, a defense by which the latter can develop until it is able to resist the most extensive collectivity. Membership in the family in higher cultures, where the rights of individuality and the rights of the widest circles are simultaneously recognized, is a mixture of the characteristic meaning of a close and wider social groups.

If I pointed out above that the larger group gives more room for extreme development and cultivation of individualism, misanthropic solitude, quirkiness and capricious forms of life, unceremonious selfishness, then this is only a consequence of the fact that the larger group makes less demands on us, cares less about individual people, and therefore poses fewer obstacles to the full development of even the most perverted impulses than a closer group. Therefore, the size of the circle carries only negative guilt - and it is not so much about development within the group, but about development outside it, to which a large group gives its members more access than a smaller group. While here we have before us unilateral hypertrophies, the cause or effect of which is the weakness of the individual, we see, however, that it is precisely in the one-sidedness that belonging to a larger group brings with it that an immeasurably powerful source of strength lies and, moreover, not only for the totality, but and for an individual member. The clearest evidence of this is the uncountable number of times observed fact that persons who have grown old acting in one particular circle, immediately after leaving it, lose the strength with which they have so far performed their work quite satisfactorily; this happens not only because a given amount of strength, not following the more familiar paths, cannot adapt to those that are again indicated to it, and consequently decays, but because the whole person in all his activities, even those lying outside his vocation, freezes in the majority of such cases, so that later it may seem to us that the organism itself has long ceased to have the forces necessary for its activity, and could develop only in this definite form that ability, which, in fact, is already more not typical; in the same way they approximately imagined that the life force produces, along with the natural forces residing in the constituent parts of the body, also a special force for chemical and physical actions, which is especially characteristic of the form of the organic. Just as this force has now been eliminated from life and the sum of forces that it seemed to produce has been reduced to a special combination of previously known forces that keep it in a natural cycle, similarly it will be necessary to recognize that the energy concentration of the forces of the personality and that increase in strength, which gives us a vocation, and which the consequences of leaving it seem to testify to, is only a particularly favorable adaptation and disposition of forces that a person also possesses in ordinary time; for form does not produce force. But just as in reality life is, after all, precisely this special combination and concentration of natural forces, incomparable with anything else, so the vocation creates, precisely in the way it disposes, the forces of the individual, their manifestations and expedient combinations, which otherwise would not be possible. And since this specific formation can take place for an individual only within a large group organized according to the principle of a high division of labor, it becomes again obvious on this path how closely dependent on life within the largest circle is the strengthening and full development of personality. .

From the further development of this dependence, it becomes clear to us that a strong development of individuality and a high respect for it are often combined with a cosmopolitan way of thinking, that, on the contrary, belonging to a closely limited social group creates an obstacle to both. And the external forms in which that way of thinking is expressed follow the same pattern. The Renaissance, on the one hand, formed in Italy a perfect individuality, on the other hand, developed a way of thinking and moral moods that go far beyond the closer social circle; this is directly expressed, for example, in the words of Dante, that with all his passionate love for Florence, the world is for him and for those like him a fatherland, just like the sea is for fish; indirectly and, so to speak, a posteriori, this is proved by the fact that the forms of life created by the Italian Renaissance were accepted by the whole civilized world, and moreover, precisely because they gave individuality, whatever its kind, hitherto unheard-of scope. As a symptom of this development, I will only point to the disrespect for the nobility in this era. The nobility only enjoys real significance as long as it represents a social circle, which, being more closely united inside, is the more energetically isolated from the rest of the mass, and, moreover, both upwards and downwards; the denial of its significance testifies to the abolition of both signs, testifies, on the one hand, to the recognition of the value of the individual, to whatever circle she belongs by birth, on the other hand, to the leveling of the nobility by those above whom it placed itself before. Both really found expression in the literature of that time.

Among other things, these correlations explain the suspicion of heartlessness and selfishness that so often falls on great people - because the objective ideals that inspire them, go far beyond the limits of the narrower circle that encompasses them and the possibility of this lies precisely in the fact that their individuality rises high above the average social profile; in order to be able to see so far, one must look over the heads of those who are near.

The best-known analogy to this relationship is the mutual connection that exists between republicanism and tyranny, between leveling and despotism, both in order of succession and in order of simultaneity. Every social order which derives its character from the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie. In all these examples, our correlative relationship between individualistic and collectivist tendencies thus assumes a different form: the expansion of the circle stands in connection with the development of personality, not for the members of the circle itself, but in connection with the idea of ​​a higher personality, to whom, as it were, the individual will is transferred, and who, on the other hand, like the saints in other respects, assumes representation.

Thus, for example, the idea of ​​an omnipotent Roman state had as its correlate the fact that, along with ius publicum, there existed ius privatum; the self-made norm regulating this all-encompassing whole demanded a corresponding norm for the individuals it contained. There was only, on the one hand, a community in the broadest sense of the word, on the other, an individual; ancient Roman law does not know any corporations, and this spirit remains in general characteristic of it. On the contrary, in German law there are no other legal provisions for the community than those that exist for individuals; but these aggregates are not of that comprehensive character, as in the Roman state, they are smaller and are caused by the changing and varied needs of individuals. In small communities there is no need for such a separation of public law from private law, because the individual in them is more closely connected with the whole.

If we say: the more interest a person arouses, not as an element of society, but as an individual, and, consequently, those of his properties that are inherent in him only as a person, the closer should be the connection that attracts him, so to speak, through the heads of his social group to everything human in general and brings him closer to the idea of ​​the ideal unity of the human world - then this is only a conclusion from the indicated relationship between the individual moment and the social. A good example for this correlative relationship is the teaching of the Stoics. But this goal in its content is determined, of course, by the idea of ​​a universal reason, passing through everything individual. And to this reason, the realization of which in the individual is the ideal of the Stoics, every person participates; transcending all national borders and social boundaries, it binds with bonds of equality and brotherhood everything that bears the name of man. The fact that the doctrine of the equality of all men often enters into alliance with extreme individualism becomes clear to us from this reason and from the following. It is quite natural from a psychological point of view that the terrible inequality in which individual people were born in certain epochs of social history gave scope for movement in two directions: firstly, towards the right of the individual, and secondly, towards universal equality, because more the broad masses are usually deprived to the same degree of both. I even think that nothing psychologically can contribute more to the idea of ​​universal equality than a clear consciousness of the essence and value of individuality, of the fact that each person is an individual with characteristic properties that cannot be found a second time in the same combination; whatever these features may be in their content, the form of individuality is inherent in each person and determines his value according to the moment of rarity. Thus, a formal equality is created: precisely insofar as each is something special, he is equal to each other. If absolute individuality is rejected, then individual people are considered only as the sum of their properties and, of course, turn out to be just as different as these latter; but if these properties are something secondary in comparison with the main thing, namely with the personality, freedom and immortality of the soul, which, moreover, as, for example, in Rousseau, is distinguished from the very beginning by perfect kindness, perverted only by education and society, then equality of all human beings is a natural conclusion. However, this metaphysical significance of personality obviously leads to neglect of its empirical content, which, in fact, is of great importance. But since progressive socialization stands in a natural and intrinsically necessary relation to progressive individualization, the relation we have just described is always pernicious where it is carried out in practice. Revolutionary movements, such as the Anabaptist movement or the movement of 1789, come to their logical and ethical inconsistencies because, although they raise the lower totality to the position of a higher one, they do not at the same time protect the rights of the individual. In particular, the French Revolution, through its attitude towards Rousseau, shows how easily the recognition of the metaphysical significance of the individual leads to the neglect of its real significance, and how, as a result, socialization, which started from the first, also suffers. Already among the cynics, a similar correlation between cosmopolitanism and egoism is revealed precisely in the fact that they throw out the intermediate term of patriotism, which is necessary for most people in order to direct egoism in the direction of altruism. The applicability of this formula of the relation between the rise of the individual and the expansion of the social group to moral relations can be further presented in the following form. Both, however, will be favored by the widening of the circle for which the work is intended. Just as in the theoretical field the objective truth is that which constitutes the truth for the genus, in which it must and will be possible, if we ignore the transient psychological obstacles, to convince the genus, similarly, ideals and interests are objective for us insofar as they are relevant to the widest possible range of stakeholders; everything subjective, one-sided is eliminated from them due to the fact that they turn to the largest possible number of subjects, in which the individual person disappears as such and which returns consciousness to the matter itself. I do not consider it too bold to interpret an interest connected with the matter itself, an impersonal, ideal interest, in the sense that it arose from a maximum of interests converging in it; from this he receives his transfigured character, which, apparently, stands above everything personal. Therefore, it can also be pointed out that the activities in which the most thorough and disinterested deepening in one's task and complete devotion to the cause are most often found - I mean the problems of science, art, great moral and practical problems - in their manifestations appeal to the widest public. If, for example, it is said that science should be pursued not for its usefulness or any "purposes" in general, but for its own sake, then this can only be an inaccurate expression, because an activity from the results of which people would not feel any benefit, no use - would not be ideal, but meaningless; it can only mean the psychological layering and mutual paralysis of countless individual interests, in contrast to which the pursuit of the interests of a narrower circle, recognized and realized separately, is usefulness or expediency. The less the producer knows his consumers, the more exclusively is his interest directed only at the height of the reward he can get from them; the more impersonal and qualityless the opposing public is for him, the more this corresponds to the exclusive desire for a qualityless result of work - money; If we do not take into account those higher areas in which the energy of labor stems from abstract idealism, then the worker will invest in his work the more his personality and his moral interest, the more he personally knows and the closer the circle of his customers stands to him, as it only happens in undeveloped relationships. With the increase in the size of the group for which he works, with the increase in the indifference with which he alone can resist it, various factors that limited economic egoism disappear. Human nature and human relationships are largely arranged in such a way that the more an individual's relationships go beyond a certain volume, the more he focuses on himself.

Ethical consideration, continued even further into the realm of the individual and the social, shows that the correlative relationship we have established retains its significance even at the extreme points of both. What are called duties towards oneself, both in the sense of precept and in the sense of prohibition, is the same thing that, on the other hand, is usually considered the dignity and duty of "man in general." Self-preservation, self-control, true self-respect, self-improvement—all these are duties which, at least in this abstract form, have no special relation to the narrower social circle that imposes on us in other cases—in various places— different - duties of a special nature. Not only do they matter in all possible respects, but their teleological definition extends to the widest and most general circles with which we generally come into contact and can come into contact. We must fulfill such duties to ourselves, not as men belonging to this or that circle, but as men in general; and there is no doubt that the general humanity that imposes them on us is only a wider social circle, as opposed to a narrower one, which requires from us the services of more direct, more specific in relation to third parties. Precisely because they are accustomed to thinking that duty is always duty towards someone, it is represented as duty towards oneself whenever one feels it, without being tangibly related to other people.

In a slightly different turn, which has in mind not so much the goal of morality as its origin, it is presented in this way. We distinguish, following the example of Kant, moral heteronomy, i.e. moral behavior, based on an external mandate, and moral autonomy, which does the same from an internal impulse and only for the satisfaction of its own sense of duty. But just as every obligation, in its end, is an obligation towards someone, and this someone is originally an external person, so also in its origin it is an external prescription, which only as a result of a long process passing through the whole history of the species, turns into a sense of purely internal duty. It was evidently necessary to use the entire multitude of individual external impulses in order to erase from consciousness the origin of individual moral precepts; because we notice everywhere that the genesis of an individual phenomenon is psychologically attached to it as long as this phenomenon takes place under certain conditions alone, but that it acquires psychological independence as soon as we observe that the same thing is caused by many and diverse previous conditions. The psychological connection with each individual of them is broken insofar as the phenomenon enters into connection with other conditions. A thousand times, even in individual life, we can observe that a certain coercion must only be applied often enough and from many enough sides so that a habit is already created and, in the end, an independent, no longer in need of coercion, inclination to perform a given action. The same happens through inheritance. The more diverse are the relations within the genus from which coercion to socially useful actions grows, and the more often it is practiced, the sooner these relations will be felt as necessary in themselves and will be carried out according to the seemingly autonomous inclination of the individual - so that here the greatest multitude, the widest range of impulses, is presented as something highly individual, thanks to the ejection of intermediate spheres. One glance at the content of moral autonomy is enough to confirm this dependence. Narrower and more specific duties do not usually appeal directly to this autonomy; on the contrary, insofar as our duties are broader in content, they depend only on a personal sense of duty. Investigating how what should be done "from purely moral motives" differs from the external prescriptions of the state, the church, mores, we always find that it turns out to be universal to all mankind - it does not matter whether this has a general qualitative meaning, as in duties towards to the family, or quantitative, as in the duty of universal philanthropy. Special targets have special performers; universal - an individual is obliged to carry out from personal motives. Autonomous morality contains what is good "in itself"; but this is only what is good for a person in general, i.e. for the maximum population. I think it can be argued that, again using Kant's expressions, there is a gradual transition from the statuary to the autonomously prescribed, paralleling the transition from a smaller social circle to a larger one. It should be borne in mind that this process is continuous, that not only the extremes of individualism and cosmopolitanism are psychologically and ethically in contact with each other, but that already on the way to them, leading from the social group, the distances traveled in both directions usually correspond to each other. And this holds true not only for individuals, but also for collective individuals. The history of the development of family forms gives us many confirmations for this, for example, the following. When the matriarchal family (as Bachofen and Lippert reconstructed it) was supplanted by the importance given to male power, at first the family was united not so much because the father was its producer, but because of the dominance that he enjoyed. over a certain number of people, among whom were not only his blood descendants, but also those who came from outside, bought, and entered the family through marriage, and their whole families, etc. and who were all together under one authority. From this original patriarchal family, a new one, based solely on blood relationship, was differentiated later, in which parents and children formed an independent cell. This family was, of course, much smaller and more individual than the first, extensive, patriarchal; however, precisely because of this, it became possible to unite them into one, already much larger state entity. The first, more ancient, group could in any case satisfy their needs both in obtaining means of subsistence and in waging war; but as soon as it broke up into small families due to individualization, the union of the latter into a larger group became possible and necessary for obvious reasons, and Plato only continued this process in the same direction, destroying the family in general in order to bring the state community, as such , to the maximum of cohesion and strength.

The same thing has already been observed in the animal world, namely, that the propensity to form a family stands in inverse proportion to the propensity to form larger groups; the relationship of monogamy and even polygamy contains something so exclusive, the care of offspring is so absorbed by the parents that further socialization in such animals suffers from it. Therefore, among birds, organized groups are relatively rare, while, for example, wild dogs, among which complete mixing of the sexes and mutual alienation after the act is dominant, live mostly in closely knit flocks, and among mammals, in which both family and social inclinations, we have always noticed that during periods of predominance of the former, i.e. during mating and childbearing, the latter are significantly weakened. At the same time, the union of parents and cubs in one family is the closer, the smaller the number of the latter; I will only point to the obvious example that within the class of fish, those whose offspring are completely left to themselves lay innumerable millions of eggs, while fish that hatch eggs and build nests, in which, therefore, the rudiments of family cohesion are found, lay only a small number of eggs. In this sense, it has been argued that social relations among animals do not proceed from marriage or parental relations, but from relations of fraternal blood relationship, since the latter give the individual much more freedom than the former, and therefore make him more inclined to closely join a wider circle, which appears to him primarily in the person of these lateral relatives, so that belonging to the animal family was considered the greatest obstacle to joining the wider animal society.

How great, however, the interaction between the disintegration of smaller groups and the expansion of socialization, on the one hand, and the self-assertion of the individual, on the other, reveals further in the field of family forms the disintegration of the patriarchal grouping in Ancient Rome. When civil rights and duties in wartime and peacetime began to belong to the sons in the same way as to the father, when the first got the opportunity to acquire personal importance, influence, spoils of war, etc., then this created such a crack in the patria potestas, which should have been more and more split the patriarchal attitude and, moreover, in the interests of a broader state expediency, in the interests of the right of a larger whole over each of its members, but at the same time in the interests of the individual, who, through relation to this whole, could receive that meaning, which was incomparably more limited until then, a patriarchal attitude. And from a subjective point of view, if one takes into account the sense of individuality, then a not very complex psychological consideration shows how much life in a wider circle and interaction with it develops personal consciousness to a much greater extent than life and interaction in a more limited circle. Exactly what and in what the personality reveals itself is a change of individual feelings, thoughts, activities; the more evenly and calmly life goes on, the less extreme manifestations of feeling in life deviate from its average level, the less strongly the feeling of personality manifests itself; but the stronger the fluctuations of these extremes, the stronger the person feels as a person. Just as the constant is always established only in comparison with the changeable, just as only a change of accidents reveals the stability of a substance, so, obviously, the "I" is felt as abiding and stable during all changes in psychological content, especially when precisely these changes provide for this especially many reasons. As long as mental excitations, especially excitations of the senses, are few, the "I" merges with them, remains hidden in them; it rises above them only insofar as, thanks to the multitude of diverse things, it becomes clear to our consciousness what is common to all this, just as the highest concept rises above individual phenomena, not when we know only one incarnation of it or a small number of them, but only after becoming acquainted with very many of them, and in doing so, it becomes the higher and purer, the more clearly there is a mutual elimination of what is different in them. However, this change in the contents of the "I", which, strictly speaking, only marks the latter for consciousness as an immovable pole in the stream of mental phenomena, will be incomparably more lively within a large circle than during life in a closer group. True, it may be objected that it is precisely differentiation and specialization within the former that plunges the individual into a much more one-sidedly uniform atmosphere than is the case with a lesser division of labour; however, even if we recognize this as a negative point, our remark is still essential for the thinking and will of individuals; excitations of feeling, which are of particular importance for subjective self-consciousness (Ichbewusstein), take place precisely where each individual member is highly differentiated and is surrounded by other members also highly differentiated, and therefore comparisons, frictions, specialized relations bring to life a multitude of reactions. , which remain hidden in a close, undifferentiated circle, but here, precisely because of their multiplicity and diversity, they increase the sense of self-personality or, perhaps, evoke it for the first time.

Differentiation of parts is necessary even if the group is to grow in a given space and under limited living conditions, and this necessity exists even in those areas to which the pressure of economic relations is completely alien. For example, while the most complete penetration of the religious idea into life prevailed in the most ancient Christian communities, and each function was raised to its sphere, the dissemination among the masses could not but lead to a certain surface and profanity; the secular, with which the religious has been mixed, has now received too great a quantitative predominance for the component religious element attached to it to immediately and completely impose its stamp on it. But at the same time, monasticism was formed, for which the worldly things receded completely into the background, and, moreover, so that life could be filled with exclusively religious content. The unity of religion and life broke up into a secular and spiritual state, a differentiation was formed within the circle of the Christian religion, which was absolutely necessary for the further existence of the latter, if it was to go beyond the initial narrow boundaries. When Dante preaches the sharpest dualism between secular and ecclesiastical regimes, complete mutual independence between religious and state norms, he puts this in direct and real connection with the idea of ​​a world monarchy, the complete unification of the entire human race into one organic whole.

Where a large whole is formed, so many tendencies, strivings and interests meet simultaneously that the unity of the whole, its existence as such, could cease if differentiation did not distribute what is essentially different among different individuals, institutions or groups. . An undifferentiated co-existence gives rise to claims to the same object, which become hostile, while in complete disunity, co-existence and confinement within the same framework is much more possible. It is the attitude of the church to other elements of common life, and not only to the state, that often reveals this. Thus, for example, while the Church was considered and is considered both the source and the guardian of knowledge, the science revived in it in the end always became in relation to it in a certain opposition; it came to the most opposite claims, striving to establish the truth about a certain subject, and to "two different truths", which in any case were the beginning of differentiation, but precisely insofar as they led again to those worse conflicts, the closer the union of church and science was considered. Only when both are completely separate can they get along well with each other. Only differentiation, transferring the function of cognition to other organs, different from the organs of religious functions, makes possible their coexistence with the increase in them that exists in a vast group unit.

A phenomenon, at first glance, the opposite, also leads to our main idea. Precisely where elements, already differentiated or prone to differentiation, are compelled against their will to belong together to a certain unity embracing them, the result is not infrequently just heightened quarrelsomeness and stronger mutual aversion; broad general frameworks, which, on the one hand, require differentiation in order to maintain their existence in this form, create, on the other hand, mutual friction of elements and such a discovery of opposites that would not have formed within this unity without forcible constraint. elements and which easily leads to its disintegration. However, even in this case, the union in one large community is a means, albeit a temporary one, leading to individualization and its realization. Thus, it was precisely the world-power politics of the medieval empire that unleashed and even brought to life the particularism of peoples, tribes, and princes; the establishment of uniformity and unification into one large whole, which they aspired to and which were partly realized, - for the first time created, strengthened, brought to consciousness what they, of course, had to decompose later - the individuality of the parts.

For this, the relationship between individualization and generalization (Veraal-gemeinerung) can be found examples in the external realm as well. If everyone dresses as he likes, regardless of the clothes that are characteristic of his occupation and rank, then this is, on the one hand, more individual, and on the other, more universal, since that clothing has in mind something different. , covers a narrower group, with special distinctive features, the disintegration of which is at the same time a sign of broad socialization and individualization. The following case shows even more clearly that the relationship between the appearance of the individual and the expansion of the group takes place not only in real behavior, but also in the psychological mode of representation. We learn from travelers, and to a certain extent we can easily observe it ourselves, that at the first acquaintance with some foreign tribe, it seems that all the individuals belonging to it are so similar to each other that they cannot be distinguished, and moreover the more this tribe differs from us in relation to Negroes, Chinese, etc. This difference takes possession of the consciousness so much that, in comparison with it, their individual differences completely disappear. But they stand out the more, the longer the acquaintance with these people, who at first seemed the same; and, accordingly, the constant consciousness of the general and basic difference between us and them disappears; as soon as they are not for us a more closed and homogeneous unity within their limits, we get used to them; observation shows that they seem to us the more homogeneous, the more heterogeneous they appear on acquaintance with them: the general similarity that binds them to us increases as we recognize their individual differences.

The formation of our concepts also proceeds in such a way that at first a certain number of objects are combined and united according to very prominent features into one category and sharply contrasted with another concept, which was formed in the same way. But to the extent that, along with these primarily attention-grabbing and defining qualities, there are also others that individualize the objects contained in the originally formed concept, the sharp boundaries between concepts must fall. The history of the human spirit is full of examples of such a process, and one of the most outstanding examples is the transformation of the old generic theory into the doctrine of the origin of species. The former point of view assumed such sharp boundaries between the genera of the organic world, saw such an insignificant essential similarity between them, that it could not believe in a common origin, but only in separate creative acts; This point of view satisfied the dual need of our spirit (on the one hand, for unification, and, on the other hand, for distinction), by including in one single concept a large number of identical individual phenomena, but on the other hand, it delimited this concept all the more sharply from all others, and thus Thus, according to the starting point of the above formula, it balanced the fact that it took little account of the individuality within the group, by individualizing this group with all the more definiteness in comparison with others and excluding all general similarity among large classes or in the whole organic world. The new point of view pushes this relation in both directions; it satisfies the desire for unification through the idea of ​​the universal unity of all living things, the idea that produces the entire multitude of phenomena from the original embryo on the basis of blood relationship; it satisfies the propensity for differentiation and specification by considering each individual as a special stage of this process of development of everything living that is subject to independent research; imparting vagueness to the former frozen boundaries between genera, it at the same time destroys the imaginary essential difference between purely individual and generic properties; thus, it considers the universal in a still greater generality, and the individual in an even greater individuality, than was available to the previous theory. And this is exactly the additional relation that is revealed in real social development.

The psychological development of our knowledge also reveals this twofold trend in the most general terms. On the one hand, thinking in a less cultured state is unable to rise to higher generalizations, to comprehend laws that retain their significance everywhere and from the intersection of which a separate individual phenomenon is formed. On the other hand, he lacks the sharpness of understanding and that loving devotion through which individuality as such can be understood or even only perceived. The higher the soul stands, the more perfectly it differentiates in both these directions: the phenomena of the world do not give it rest until it decomposes them into such general laws that any isolation completely disappears and not a single, even the most remote, combination of phenomena will oppose this. decomposition. But no matter how accidental and fleeting these combinations may be, they are still there, and one who can bring to his consciousness the universal and eternal elements of being must clearly grasp the form of the individual in which they occur, because it is only the most accurate insight into an individual phenomenon makes it possible to realize those universal laws and conditions that intersect in it. The vagueness of thinking interferes with both, since the constituent parts of a phenomenon do not decompose for it with sufficient clarity to make it possible to cognize both the individual peculiarity of the phenomenon and that higher regularity that is inherent in it along with others. In a deep connection with this is the fact that anthropomorphism in the worldview disappears to the extent that, for knowledge, the equality of people with all other creatures in the face of the law of nature is revealed; for as soon as we cognize that higher to which we ourselves and everything else are subject, we refuse to imagine and consider all the other beings in the world according to the special norms of that random combination that we ourselves compose. The independent meaning and justification of other phenomena and events in nature disappears with the anthropocentric method of consideration and receives its coloring entirely from the color that lies on humanity. Only elevation to that which stands above itself, to the most universal natural regularity, creates that justice in the world outlook, which cognizes and recognizes each object in its separate existence, in its individuality. I am convinced of this: if all the movements of the world were reduced to the laws governing everything, inherent in the mechanics of atoms, we would know more clearly how each being differs from all others.

This epistemological and psychological relationship expands, although retaining the same form of development, as soon as it touches not the laws of nature, but metaphysical universalities. Here, along with the ability of the mind to distract, the mood of the soul grows from its innermost depths the flower of metaphysics, creates that penetrating joint life with the phenomena of the world, which makes us vaguely anticipate the most universal, super-empirical vital forces that restrain the world from within. And the same depth, together with the accumulation of sensations, often inspires us with that sacred timidity in the face of the individuality of internal or external phenomena, which just does not allow us to seek in transcendental concepts and images some refuge from the difficulty, or even from the inexplicability of this experience. We are not interested in where this fate comes from and where it leads, but that it is so peculiar, incomparable with anything else in its given combination. While the highest metaphysical generalizations owe their origin to the refined life of feeling, it is precisely the latter that often turns out to be too captured by the perception and contemplation of all the particulars of the empirical world and has a tender enough organization to notice all these fluctuations, opposites and oddities in the relations of the individual, past which the with his sensations, a person who does not feel so sharply and is content only to look and be surprised at this changeable play of individual moments. It is hardly necessary for me to say that such a differentiation is presented with the greatest completeness by aesthetic talent; on the one hand, it tries to find a compensation for earthly imperfection in the construction of an ideal world in which pure typical forms live; on the other hand, it tries to plunge into that which is the most peculiar, the most individual in phenomena and their destinies. In the same way, in the practical moral field, in the performance of duties, the heart responds and attaches itself with the greatest warmth to the narrowest and then to the widest Circles: on the one hand, to the closest circle of the family, on the other hand, to the fatherland; on the one hand, to individuality, on the other, to a worldwide civil community; duties towards intermediate circles, however close and united they may be, do not evoke that warm and sincere feeling that is associated with these poles of social life and which reveals their inner belonging from this side as well. And just as it is with the optimistic mood of devotion, so it is with the skeptical-pessimistic mood: it easily combines despair in its own "I" with despair in the widest totality, too often suffers a feeling of inner worthlessness arising from pure subjective moments, on the world as a whole. What lies in between, individual aspects and regions of the world can be discussed objectively and even optimistically. Conversely, a pessimism that refers only to these separate parts may not concern either the self itself or the world as a whole.

the stratification of society into various, often warring groups on national, property, socio-cultural, religious, political and other grounds that can lead to rivalry and conflicts.

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

DIFFERENTIATION SOCIAL

differences between macro- and microgroups, as well as individuals, distinguished for many reasons. Attitude to D.s. constitutes the specifics of different ideologies, political. currents and cultures At one extreme is the attitude towards D.s. as an independent value, a source of social diversity; many social environments, levels gives a person the opportunity to choose, encourages him to be active and at the same time provides complementarity or a constructive contradiction of different ways of life. Hence the dynamism and multivariance of societies. development. In this context, particular attention is paid to individual differences. Recognition of the self-worth of each individual, its uniqueness, and hence the right to their own self-affirmation, to autonomy in a group, community, ethical. sense means high mutual tolerance, wide space for personal sovereignty. In the political In a sense, this means the developed freedom of vertical and horizontal mobility, the special status of a minority, as well as the individual's acceptance of responsibility for his own destiny, for the risk of his own choice. At the opposite pole - the attitude towards D.s. as a vice about-va, a source of injustice and mass conflicts. Called D.s. property and status inequality inevitably leads to exploitation, the class struggle of the oppressed against the oppressors. Therefore, D.s. needs to be overcome, and about-in - in the alignment of any social. differences. The individual in this orientation acts as an element of the whole, his value is determined by his contribution to the whole (organization, common labor). Between both poles, intermediate variants of attitude towards D.s. Grounds for D.s. can refer both to objective signs (economic, professional, educational, demographic, etc.), and to signs of mass and individual consciousness. These grounds do not always coincide. So, certain groups of consciousness - macro- and microgroups - cover different professional, age and other groups (for example, by ideology, cultural predilections). Analysis of D.s. very important for social management. processes. Especially in the transition periods of development about-va. Such an analysis is of great importance, for example, to determine the social. bases of reforms, i.e. search of that category of the population, on which this or that reform can be based. For example, the commercialization of the national economy requires the allocation of the so-called. social-active element of the society as a structural entity, which is the carrier of the innovative principle in the society. In process of development about-va one bases for D.s. may grow (e.g. property, ideologies, etc.) etc.), while others are able to disappear (class), social. the value of the third is smoothed out (sex), and the variability of the fourth may increase (religious). See also Concepts of social differentiation. Lit .: Prigogine A.I. Perestroika: transitional processes and mechanisms. M., 1990. A.M. Prigogine

social community

Structural elements of society

One of the most common approaches to the formation of the social structure of society is the allocation of various types of social communities as the initial element.

social community- a really existing, empirically fixed set of individuals, distinguished by relative integrity and acting as an independent subject of social action. There is another definition of a social community, when it means all existing social associations, whose members are connected by common interests and are in direct or indirect interaction.

Social communities are distinguished by a variety of specific historical and situationally determined types and forms. Communities differ:

§ by the number of elements that make up the community (from two elements to many millions)

§ according to the duration of existence (from short-term, existing less than the long life of one generation of people, to long-term, existing for many generations)

§ according to the density of ties between members of the association (from closely knit teams to nominal associations)

According to the totality of features, social communities can be divided into two types - mass and group. Mass communities are different from group ones, first of all, by the quality and degree of interaction. Signs of mass community are the following features:

§ associations are amorphous formations with fuzzy dividing boundaries

§ to combine the nature of the uncertainty of the quantitative and qualitative composition, it is characterized by heterogeneity and intergroup nature

§ the association is characterized by a situational way of formation, the association is not stable, but rapidly changing

Mass communities are the crowd, political and social movements, various associations.

Due to the amorphous composition, mass generalities not considered as a structural social-group structure of society.

Group communities(social groups) differ from mass groups in closer interaction and act as the main elements of the structure of society.

[edit] Social group

Social group - a set of people who have a common socially significant feature, common interests, values ​​and norms of behavior that develop within the framework of a historically defined society.

According to Robert Merton: "A social group is a collection of individuals interacting with each other in a certain way, realizing themselves as part of a group and recognized as members of this group from the point of view of other people". In this case, belonging to a particular social group is considered as the basis for self-identification of a person.

Social groups, in turn, are divided by scale and degree of cohesion into large and small, primary and secondary.

Large groups - large associations of people, characterized by the presence of common interests and spatial disunity. Large groups include ethnic groups, classes, territorial communities, professional groups, social strata.

Small groups - small in composition associations, whose members are connected by common activities and are in direct, immediate, personal communication. The characteristics of small groups are small composition, spatial proximity of members, commonality of group values, norms and patterns of behavior, informal control over the behavior of group members. Examples of small social groups are a family, a school class, a student group, a sports team, a brigade, a gang.

Secondary groups - social groups whose members interact indirectly, as a rule - through membership in any institutions and organizations.

Primary groups are small social groups whose members are in direct direct interaction.

All large groups are secondary.

Small social groups can be both primary and secondary. Secondary small groups, as a rule, are united by a common function and are characterized by the absence of emotional contacts.

The main elements of the social group structure can be various types of social groups, identified for various reasons. This complicates the formation of a unified social group structure of society, and gives rise to various approaches.

[edit] Approaches to the formation of the social group structure of society

Traditional approach includes several substructures:

§ demographic substructure (gender, age)

§ ethno substructure (tribe, nationality, nation)

§ territorial substructure (urban and rural population, region)

§ class substructure (classes and social groups)

§ family substructure

Socio-economic approach, defended, in particular, by Russian scientists Tatyana Zaslavskaya and Rozalina Ryvkina, understands the social structure of society as the people themselves, organized in various types of groups and performing certain social roles in the system of economic relations.

As part of the approach, it also identifies a number of substructures:

§ ethno-demographic substructure

§ socio-territorial substructure

§ family-economic substructure

§ organizational and managerial substructure

§ social and labor substructure

§ professional and job substructure

Pitirim Sorokin's approach. Considering the social structure of society, Sorokin proposed a scheme for identifying the initial elements of the structure, depending on the nature of the values ​​that unite individual groups of communities that act as these elements.

The main forms of unorganized and semi-organized groups based on non-permanent values:

§ externally organized groups

§ crowd, public

§ nominal conglomerates

The most important one-sided groups built on the same set of values ​​are:

§ biosocial (racial, gender, age)

§ sociocultural (genus, territorial neighborhood, language group, trade union, economic group, religious group, political group, ideological group, elite group)

The most important multi-stakeholder groups built around a combination of two or more sets of values ​​are:

§ class

The series of values ​​that have developed in an organized group consolidate the rights and obligations of each member of the group in relation to others, the functions and roles of members, as well as prestige and social status.

Social differentiation

The word "differentiation" comes from a Latin root meaning "difference". Social differentiation is the division of society into groups occupying different social positions. Many researchers believe that social stratification is inherent in any society. Even in primitive tribes, groups were distinguished according to sex and age, with their inherent privileges and duties. There were also an influential and respected leader and his entourage, as well as outcasts living "outside the law". At subsequent stages of development, social stratification became more complicated and became more and more obvious. It is customary to distinguish between economic, political and professional differentiation. Economic differentiation is expressed in the difference in incomes, living standards, in the existence of rich, poor and middle strata of the population. The division of society into rulers and ruled, political leaders and the masses is a manifestation of political differentiation. Professional differentiation can be attributed to the allocation in society of various groups according to the nature of their activities, occupations. At the same time, some professions are considered more prestigious than others.

Thus, clarifying the concept of social differentiation, we can say that it means not just the allocation of any groups, but also a certain inequality between them in terms of their social status, scope and nature of rights, privileges and duties, prestige and influence. Can we fix this inequality? There are different answers to this question. For example, the Marxist doctrine of society proceeds from the necessity and possibility of eliminating this inequality as the most striking manifestation of social injustice. To solve this problem, it is necessary first of all to change the system of economic relations, to eliminate private ownership of the means of production. In other theories, social stratification is also regarded as evil, but it cannot be eliminated. People should accept such a situation as an inevitability. According to another point of view, inequality is regarded as a positive phenomenon. It makes people strive to improve social relations. Social homogeneity will lead society to death. At the same time, many researchers note that in most developed countries there is a decrease in social polarization, an increase in the middle strata and a reduction in groups belonging to the extreme social poles. Reflect on the above points of view, try to correlate them with real socio-historical processes.

social stratification

social stratification(from Latin stratum - layer and facio - I do) - one of the basic concepts of sociology, denoting a system of signs and criteria of social stratification, position in society; the social structure of society; branch of sociology. The term "stratification" entered sociology from geology, where it refers to the location of the layers of the earth. But people initially likened the social distances and partitions existing between them to layers of the earth, floors of arranged objects, tiers of plants, etc.

Stratification- this is the division of society into special layers (strata) by combining various social positions with approximately the same social status, reflecting the prevailing idea of ​​social inequality in it, built horizontally (social hierarchy), along its axis according to one or more stratification criteria (indicators of social status). The division of society into strata is carried out on the basis of the inequality of social distances between them - the main property of stratification. Social strata line up vertically and in strict sequence according to indicators of wealth, power, education, leisure, consumption. In social stratification, a certain social distance is established between people (social positions) and a hierarchy is built from social strata. Thus, the unequal access of members of society to certain socially significant scarce resources is fixed by establishing social filters on the borders separating social strata. For example, the allocation of social strata can be carried out according to the levels of income, education, power, consumption, the nature of work, spending free time. The social strata identified in society are evaluated in it according to the criterion of social prestige, which expresses the social attractiveness of certain positions. But in any case, social stratification is the result of a more or less conscious activity (policy) of the ruling elites, who are extremely interested in imposing on society and legitimizing

©2015-2019 site
All rights belong to their authors. This site does not claim authorship, but provides free use.
Page creation date: 2016-08-20