The founder of the class theory of the social structure of society. Social base of the communist movement. Social structure: approaches, concept, elements

As a result of studying Chapter 4, the student should:

know

• the meanings of key concepts related to social structure;
• approaches to studying the theory of social structure;
• classification of social groups and communities, types of social mobility;
• features of the social structure and social stratification of modern Russian society;
• classification of social institutions and types of social organizations;

be able to

• apply the conceptual and categorical apparatus of sociology when analyzing various social subjects;
• distinguish between existing approaches to defining basic sociological concepts;
• highlight the characteristic features of social groups, communities, institutions and organizations;
• analyze the concept of social inequality, demonstrate its connection with the problem of social stratification and mobility;
• use sociological knowledge obtained in the field of the theory of social structure in practical activities;

own

• skills of analytical work with text;
• skills of sociological thinking in considering the realities of social life;
• critical thinking skills when analyzing the state of Russian society.

Theory of social structure of society

Social structure: approaches, concept, elements

Social structure is a stable connection between various elements of the social system. The main elements of the social structure are people who own certain positions in society (social status) and who perform certain social functions (social roles), as well as the association of these people based on their status characteristics into groups, territorial, national and other communities, etc. d. Social structure reflects the existing division of society into groups, classes, layers, communities, noting differences in the position of people in relation to each other. In turn, each element of the social structure is a complex social system with its own internal subsystems and connections.

The concept of social structure is generally used in the following main aspects. In a broad sense, social structure is the structure of society as a whole, a system of relations between all its main elements. With this approach, social structure characterizes all the numerous types of social communities and the relationships between them. In the narrow sense, the term "social structure" is most often applied to communities of a class or group nature. In this sense, social structure is a set of interconnected and interacting classes, social strata and groups.

There are many approaches to social structure in sociology. Historically, one of the first is the Marxist concept. In Marxist sociology, the leading role is played by the social class approach to the structure of society. The social class structure of society, in accordance with this teaching, is the interaction of three main elements: classes, social layers And social groups.

The key elements of social structure are classes. The class division of society is the result of the social division of labor and the formation of private property relations. The process of the emergence of classes occurs in two ways: through the formation of an exploitative elite in the clan community, which initially consisted of the clan nobility, and the enslavement of foreign prisoners of war and impoverished fellow tribesmen who fell into debt dependence.

The key feature of class is the attitude towards the means of production. Property relations, relations to the means of production (ownership or non-ownership) determine the role of classes in the social organization of labor (managers and controlled), in the system of power (dominant and subordinate), their well-being (rich and poor). It is the struggle between classes that is the driving force of social development.

Marxism divides the class into major and minor, i.e. basic and non-core. The main classes are those whose existence directly follows from specific economic relations within a certain socio-economic formation, primarily from property relations: slaves and slave owners, feudal lords and peasants, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Secondary ones are the remnants of previous classes in a new socio-economic formation or newly emerged classes that will replace the main ones and form the basis of the class division in the new formation. In addition to the main and minor classes, the structural elements of society are social strata (or strata).

Social strata are transitional or intermediate social groups that do not have a clearly defined specific relationship to the means of production and, therefore, do not possess all the attributes of a class. Social strata can be intraclass (part of a class) and interclass. The first could include the large, middle, petty urban and rural bourgeoisie, the industrial and rural proletariat, the labor aristocracy, etc.

A historical example of interclass strata is the so-called “third estate” during the maturation of the first bourgeois revolutions in Europe - the urban middle class, represented by the philistines and artisans. In modern society, this is the intelligentsia.

In turn, the interclass elements of the Marxist structure may have their own internal division. Thus, the intelligentsia is divided into proletarian, petty-bourgeois and bourgeois.

Thus, the social stratum structure does not completely coincide with the class structure. The use of the concept of social system, in accordance with Marxist sociology, allows us to clarify the nature of the social structure of society, pointing out its diversity and dynamism, despite the fact that in the conditions of ideological dictate and the prosperity of dogmatic Marxist sociology in Russian science for a long time, Lenin’s definition of classes had absolute dominance based on a purely economic approach.

V.I. Lenin’s definition of social classes sounds like this: “Classes are large groups of people that differ in their place in a historically defined system of social production, in their relationship (mostly enshrined and formalized in laws) to the means of production, in their role in social organization of labor, and consequently, according to the methods of obtaining and the size of the share of social wealth that they have."

At the same time, some Marxist sociologists understood that class is a broader formation. Therefore, the theory of the social class structure of society must include political, spiritual and other connections and relationships. From a broader perspective on the interpretation of the social structure of society, the concept of “social interests” begins to play an important role in it. Interests are the real life aspirations of people, groups and other communities, which they consciously or unconsciously guide in their actions and which determine their objective position in the social system. Social interests represent the most generalized expression of the urgent needs of representatives of certain social communities. Awareness of interests is carried out in the continuous process of social comparison occurring in society, i.e. comparison of the life position of various social groups. To better understand the concept of “class,” there is the term “radical social interests,” which reflects the presence of vital interests in large social associations that determine their existence and social position. Based on the above, we can propose the following definition of a class: classes – These are large social groups, differing in their role in all spheres of society, which are formed and function on the basis of fundamental social interests. Classes have common socio-psychological characteristics, values, and their own specific “code” of behavior.

With this approach, social strata are social communities that unite people on the basis of certain private interests.

The Marxist theory of classes as the basis of social structure in non-Marxist Western sociology is the opposite social stratification theory. Proponents of the theory of stratification believe that the concept of class may, but not always, be suitable for analyzing the social structure of societies in the past, including industrial capitalist society, but in modern post-industrial society the class approach does not work, because in this society, based on widespread corporatization production, subject to the exclusion of shareholders from the sphere of production management and their replacement by hired managers, property relations became blurred and lost their definition. What class should the CEO of a large corporation be classified in if he is nothing more than an employee?

Thus, the concept of “class” should be replaced by the term “stratum” (from lat. stratum– layer, layer) or the concept of “social group”, and the theory of social class structure of society should be replaced by theories of social stratification.

Theories of social stratification are based on the belief that a social stratum (group) is a real, empirically observable community. This community unites people in some common positions, or they may have a similar type of activity, which leads to the integration of this community into the social structure of society and distinguishes it from other social communities. The theory of stratification is based on the unification of people into groups and their confrontation with other groups based on status: power, property, profession, level of education, etc. At the same time, researchers offer various stratification criteria. R. Dahrendorf proposed to base social stratification on the political concept of “authority,” which, in his opinion, most accurately characterizes power relations and the struggle between social groups for power. On this basis, he divides the entire modern society into rulers and ruled, and managers, in turn, into two groups: owners of managers and hired managers (managers-officials). The managed group is also heterogeneous. In it, at least two subgroups can be distinguished: the highest - the “labor aristocracy” and the lowest - low-skilled workers. Between these two social groups there is an intermediate “new middle class” - a product of the assimilation of the labor aristocracy and employees with the ruling class - the managerial class.

American sociologist B. Barber stratified society according to six indicators:

• 1) prestige, profession, power and authority;
• 2) income or wealth;
• 3) education or knowledge;
• 4) religious or ritual purity;
• 5) family ties;
• 6) nationality.

French sociologist A. Touraine believes that in modern society there is no social differentiation based on attitudes to property, prestige, power, ethnicity, but it is based on access to information. Dominant positions are occupied by people who have access to more information.

Classes, representing large groups of people, are, according to Marxists, the main subjects of the historical process in the post-primitive history of mankind. The clan and community with their internally weakly differentiated community, as the social stratification of society led to the emergence of classes, broader and more stable social communities of people. In general, society is divided into different groups of people that differ from each other, for example, by age, gender, nationality, race. This is a natural, one might say, natural division, and it does not lead to social differences. Only the class division of people causes social inequality, instability and revolutions in society. Hence, great importance is attached to elucidating the reasons that cause the division of society into classes. Marxism clearly believes that the division of society into classes is due to economic reasons. Its source is the division of labor and, as a consequence, the separation of persons engaged in various types of production and the exchange of labor products between them into large groups of people. As is known, the first to be distinguished into special branches of labor are cattle breeding and agriculture, after which the labor of artisans splits off from agricultural labor, and mental labor from physical labor. The social division of labor and the development of exchange leads to the disintegration of communal joint property and the emergence of private property at the disposal of individuals. The result of such transformations is the emergence in society of classes, rich and poor, and ultimately social inequality, which in turn is a source of economic and socio-political instability.

Historically, the first form of dividing society into classes was the slave-owning formation. Although there is a gross physical form of coercion in slavery, this does not mean that it arose only through violence. Their emergence becomes possible thanks to economic factors, primarily the growth of labor productivity, due to which the existence of slaves becomes completely justified. The formation of the first classes in the history of mankind took place in the following way: firstly, the separation from their fellow tribesmen of those individuals who had power - military, administrative, religious. Then this social stratum, which gradually turned into a class, was replenished by the rich people who appeared. Secondly, through the conversion into slaves of soldiers captured during wars. Then their ranks were replenished by those who, for various reasons, primarily economic, fell into debt dependence.

The determining factor of belonging to a particular class is the presence or absence of private property. In subsequent periods, the formation of new classes took place according to a proven scheme. Those individuals who captured commanding heights in economic and socio-political life formed the ruling classes, while others who became dependent on them became oppressed classes. The management of social production in a class society is carried out by the class in whose hands the means of production are. Ownership of the means of production makes owners rich people, since each worker hired by them, in addition to the working time necessary to support himself, is also forced to spend surplus time in order to support the owner of the means of production. And since the owner is one or more persons, and the workers number in the hundreds or even thousands, the origin of the wealth becomes clear. It arises due to the exploitation of some people by others. The ruling class's possession of the means of production provides it with dominant positions in all other spheres of social life, and above all political and ideological, with the help of which it maintains its dominance.

The departure of some classes from the historical scene and the arrival of other classes is due to the need to change production relations, which become an obstacle to the development of productive forces. The ruling class loses its organizational and leadership role in production, becomes a brake on economic and social transformations, and for this reason alone must give way to a new class. All human history shows that this is exactly how the change in social-class structure took place in all socio-economic formations.

In addition to the main class-forming factor, which consists in relation to the means of production, there are others, also significant, but still inferior in importance to the first. This is the role in the social organization of labor, the methods and amounts of social income received. The ruling classes, when seizing power, first of all protect their interests, the subordinate classes are forced to perform those functions that are assigned to them by those in power. Every improvement they make in their position—increasing wages, social guarantees—is achieved through the struggle against the ruling classes, using various forms of class struggle.

The methods and amounts of income people receive are very diverse and are an essential class-forming feature, but only in conjunction with others. In itself it is not such. Taking into account the above, “classes,” according to Lenin’s definition, are large groups of people that differ in their place in a historically defined system of social production, in their relation to the means of production, in their role in the social organization of labor, and, consequently, in their methods of obtaining and the size of the share of social wealth that they have. Classes are groups of people from which one can appropriate the work of another, due to the difference in their place in a certain structure of the social economy.”

The class division of society is manifested not only in the economy, but in politics and spiritual life. In order to maintain a decisive role in economic life, the ruling class must constantly have political power in order to implement and defend the laws it needs. In spiritual and ideological terms, he is obliged to affirm those principles that correspond to his position and aspirations. Considering the variety of social differences that exist in society, at the same time, one should always highlight the main ones, which are essentially decisive. These are class ones, which, firstly, determine the nature of the existing system and its main spheres of life; secondly, classes represent the most numerous and powerful groups of people, on the relationship between which the course of the history of society, its economic, social and political life essentially depends.

The social structure of society is the totality of classes, social strata and groups and the system of relationships between them. A change in the social structure of society occurs following a change in the method of production and the associated distribution of means of production. When the mode of production changes, new classes appear in society and at the same time old classes persist for a more or less long time. Therefore, in every social structure of society, non-main, or transitional, classes usually continue to coexist, along with the main classes that are generated by the dominant mode of production in it. Their existence is predetermined either by the remnants of a previously functioning mode of production, or by the emergence of the germs of a new mode of production. Thus, analyzing previous socio-economic formations, it is easy to notice that under the slave system, along with slave owners and slaves, there were small free peasant farmers, as well as artisans. Under feudalism, as cities developed, a layer of artisans and traders grew, of which in the late Middle Ages a small part turned into capitalists, and a large part into hired workers.

One of the most important provisions of the Marxist teaching on the social structure of society is the position on the class struggle as the most important factor in social development. Marxism proceeds from the fact that the entire history of human civilization after the collapse of the primitive community is the history of the struggle between classes. According to Marxism, class struggle is the main engine of historical development, and its highest form of manifestation is social revolution. The main direction of the economic struggle of the working masses is the struggle for increased wages, improved working conditions, and an increase in the duration of paid leave. As a rule, the organizing force in this case is trade unions. Without in any way denying the class struggle and its significance in historical development, it seems to us that Marxism somewhat absolutizes its role and, to some extent, even comes into conflict with the fundamental provisions of its doctrine. It is known that the fundamental theoretical and methodological principles of Marxism are the laws of materialist dialectics, the first of which is the law of the unity and struggle of opposites. Briefly, the essence of this contradiction is that every thing, phenomenon and process contains contradictions and opposites. When they are “removed” or mutually “burned out” are neutralized, then the thing, phenomenon, process does not disappear, but continues to exist and even develop, being in relative unity. So, this unity, having a universal character, also extends to social phenomena. Therefore, we can conclude that Marxist theory itself allows not only struggle, but also unity in social processes.

social mobility- change by an individual or group of the place occupied in the social structure, movement from one social layer (class, group) to another ( vertical mobility) or within the same social stratum ( horizontal mobility). Simply put, this is a change in a person’s place in society due to the rise or fall of prestige, career advancement, change in income, etc... Such changes in a person’s position ultimately affect his behavior, the system of relations in the group, and needs , attitudes, interests and orientations.

Sharply limited in a caste and class society, social mobility increases significantly in an industrial society.

Horizontal mobility- the transition of an individual from one social group to another, located at the same level. Distinguish individual mobility- movement of one person independently of others, and group- movement occurs collectively. A type of horizontal mobility is geographic mobility- moving from one place to another while maintaining the same status. Vertical mobility- moving a person up or down the career ladder.

All social movements of an individual or social group are included in the process of mobility. According to P. Sorokin’s definition, “ Social mobility is understood as any transition of an individual, or a social object, or a value created or modified thanks to an activity, from one social position to another».

P. Sorokin distinguishes two types of social mobility: horizontal and vertical. Horizontal mobility is the transition of an individual or social object from one social position to another, lying at the same level. In all these cases, the individual does not change the social stratum to which he belongs or his social status. The most important process is vertical mobility, which is a set of interactions that facilitate the transition of an individual or social object from one social layer to another. This includes, for example, a career promotion, a significant improvement in well-being, or a transition to a higher social stratum, to a different level of power.

Society can elevate the status of some individuals and lower the status of others. And this is understandable: some individuals who have talent, energy, and youth must displace other individuals who do not have these qualities from higher statuses. Depending on this, a distinction is made between upward and downward social mobility, or social ascent and social decline. Upward currents of professional, economic and political mobility exist in two main forms: as individual ascent, or the infiltration of individuals from their lower stratum into a higher one, and as the creation of new groups of individuals with the inclusion of groups in the upper stratum next to or instead of existing groups of that stratum. Similarly, downward mobility exists in the form of both pushing individuals from high social statuses to lower ones and lowering the social statuses of an entire group. An example of the second form of downward mobility can be the decline in the social status of a group of engineers, which once occupied very high positions in our society, or the decline in the status of a political party that is losing real power, in the figurative expression of P. Sorokin, “ the first case of decline resembles the fall of a man from a ship; the second is a ship that sank with everyone on board».

The mechanism of infiltration in vertical mobility. In order to understand how the process of ascension occurs, it is important to study how an individual can overcome barriers and boundaries between groups and rise upward, that is, increase his social status. This desire to achieve a higher status is due to the achievement motive, which every individual has to one degree or another and is associated with his need to achieve success and avoid failure in the social aspect. The actualization of this motive ultimately gives rise to the force with which the individual strives to achieve a higher social position or to maintain his current position and not slide down. The realization of the power of achievement depends on many reasons, in particular on the situation in society. It is useful to consider the analysis of problems that arise when implementing the achievement motive, using the terms and ideas expressed by K. Levin in his field theory.

In order to achieve a higher status, an individual located in a group with lower statuses must overcome barriers between groups or strata. An individual striving to get into a higher status group has a certain energy aimed at overcoming these barriers and spent on crossing the distance between the statuses of higher and lower groups. The energy of an individual striving for a higher status is expressed in the force F with which he tries to overcome barriers to a higher stratum. Successful passage of the barrier is possible only if the force with which the individual strives to achieve a high status is greater than the repulsive force. By measuring the force with which an individual strives to penetrate the upper layer, it is possible to predict with a certain probability that he will get there. The probabilistic nature of infiltration is due to the fact that when assessing the process, one should take into account the constantly changing situation, which consists of many factors, including the personal relationships of individuals.

The term "structure" in relation to human society began to be used in the 19th century. The concept of “social structure” was introduced into theoretical sociology in the late 1920s and early 1930s. The first attempt to divide social structure into positions occupied by individuals, members of society, was made by the American anthropologist Ralph Lauren (1893-1953). He called each of these positions a status. Since then, the terms “position”, “position” and “status” have been used interchangeably.

As we have already found out, in sociology (and not only in it, but, perhaps, in any other social science), the greatest debate flares up around fundamental concepts. The category “social structure” did not escape the same fate. At the same time, different points of view are put forward. For some sociologists, and there are many of them, social structure is seen as any repeating pattern of social behavior. Any repeated action over time turns either into a habit when it comes to an individual, or crystallizes into an institution. If the residents of the country have been accustomed for years to walk on the right side of the street and return on the left side, then gradually all traffic becomes right-handed, the government issues laws and instructions regulating compliance with such rules, and the entire infrastructure of society, its laws, institutions and institutions take this norm into account as mandatory in its activities. In this case, it is quite possible to consider social structure as the result of the existence of long-term, orderly and typical connections between individuals and institutions of society. Apparently, this is the origin of the repeated attempt to compare society with a machine or an organism.

Social structure in sociology is analyzed in close connection with the concepts of status, social institutions and social change.

In the theory of structuration by E. Giddens, structure is understood as a set of rules that are both the result and the condition of an individual’s action. The subject at the same time creates the rules, reproduces them, follows them. In this case, institutions act as social practices extended in time and space. Thus, social structure is a mechanism

nisms of maintaining sustainable forms of social action, created in the process of repetition of actions. Repeated actions form a structure that guides and controls subsequent actions.

The difference in views and approaches most likely reflects not personal preferences or the search for scientific truth, but the specialist’s belonging to one or another ideological camp, theoretical direction, methodological orientation or scientific school. In particular, R. Mills understood social structure as a combination of institutional orders, i.e. a set of institutions in various spheres of society. For J. Bernard and L. Thompson, social structure is a special order (location) of institutions that helps people

interact and arrange living together 1 . These sociologists have a so-called institutionalist approach.

On the contrary, P. Berger and T. Luckman, adherents of phenomenological sociology, are confident that social institutions do not have ontological status, and therefore objective existence. The social structure that is derived from them is also deprived of this quality. And in general, well-known sociologists believe, a person constructs the world around him himself - from his expectations, stereotypes, rules, traditions. This is how a spider weaves its web. Since social structures are constructed by man himself, they exist only for him alone. Elephants or rhinoceroses cannot see them. In this sense, social structures, social systems and institutions are not only relative to our existence, but they are also immaterial. Let's say, a huge boulder on the road is objective and material, since not only a person, but also an elephant and a rhinoceros walk around it.

A generalization of all points of view gives two main options for interpreting social structure. The first one can be called structuralist, and second - interactionist. In many ways they are opposite to each other. For structuralists, social structure exists independently of the will, consciousness and behavior of people; for others, structure is inextricably linked with consciousness and behavior, moreover, it is the result of people’s subjective intentions and actions.

The conventional designation of the first approach as structuralist is explained by the fact that it can include representatives of a wide variety of ideological and methodological orientations, similar to each other only in that they generally have the same understanding of social structure. Within the framework of the structuralist approach, there are two major sociological schools (directions): the structural-functional approach (E. Durkheim, T. Parsons, R. Merton, etc.) and the Marxist (K. Marx, F. Engels, etc.)

For representatives Marxist approach, including its Soviet variety, the social structure of society is created by a combination of large social groups of people, primarily social classes. Hence the second name - “class structure of society.” Thus, the initial building blocks of the social structure of society here are real population groups.

Bernard J., Thompson L.F. Sociology. Nurses and their Patients in a Modern Society. Saint Louis, 1970.

The Marxist view of society is firmly established in Russian science. In the reference literature of the late 1980s and early 1990s. a definition of social structure is provided, which combines the principles of group and institutional approaches: social structure is “a set of interconnected and interacting social groups, as well as social institutions and relations between them” 2.

For representatives structural functionalism on the contrary, the initial building blocks are positions - cells-cells in the social structure, which are subsequently occupied by people. The structure holds positions together, but not the individuals themselves. Structures are not uniquely associated with specific individuals, but form set of positions participation of individuals in the system. Filling certain positions means for participating individuals the acquisition of some social status 3 .

Structure here is a rigid frame that holds together fixed cells, the function of which can be performed by social statuses, institutions, institutions. Positions, more often called statuses, are the main structural elements, and what they perform is called function. In accordance with this, the very division into structures and functions becomes very conditional: what from one point of view appears as a structure, from another is a function, and vice versa.

Both approaches within the framework of the structuralist variant assume that structure is primary and people are secondary. In management, structuralism corresponds to the classical approach, according to which it is first necessary to create a well-planned structure of the organization, expressed in its job chart, and then select performers. It is not a person who paints a place, but vice versa.

True, there are known discrepancies between these approaches. For K. Marx, the source of transformation of the social structure of society is the nature of the dominant mode of production, i.e. economics and technology. For T. Parsons, structure is associated with norms and social relations: norms bind social relations into a rigid structure, which should be called social structure.

“A structure is a set of relatively stable standardized relationships of elements. And since the element of the social system is the actor, the social structure is a standardized system of social relations of actors with each other” 4. Acting people have expectations of each other, these expectations constitute an indispensable condition for the action of each actor, part of his situation, and “systems of standardized expectations, considered in relation to their place in the general system and permeating the action deeply enough so that they can be accepted without evidence as legitimate, are conventionally called institutions” 5 .

It is a stabilizing part of the social structure. Institutions most clearly embody the types of general value integration of a system of action. Parsons associated two processes with social structure - social

2 Brief dictionary of sociology. M., 1988. P. 392.

Anurin V.F. Fundamentals of sociological knowledge. N. Novgorod, 1998. P. 115.

4 Parsons T. On the structure of social action. 2nd ed. M., 2002. P. 320.

5 Ibid. P. 319.

ation and social control and understood it as “institutionalized patterns of normative culture.” In 1964, his fundamental work “Social Structure and Personality” appeared, where he argued that the source of changes in social structure is culture, which includes values, meanings, beliefs, and symbols.

Structuralism is anti-psychological, objectivist in nature, since it seeks to explain the behavior of an individual or group in terms of their place in the social structure. Another feature of it is connected with this - the recognition of the determining role of social structure in relation to its constituent elements 6 . One of the leading representatives of structural functionalism, R. Merton, believed that inequality of power and wealth plays a decisive role in the formation of social structure. Inequality forms a hierarchy of social strata, which create a class structure. Therefore, the social structure can be considered as a structure of power, where the decisive positions are occupied by the class of owners, who managed to institutionalize their own interests into laws governing the behavior of all members of society.

In contrast to this for symbolic interactionism social structure is formed in everyday communication and interaction of people 7 . Once people stop interacting, structure disappears. It is not something durable and independent of people’s consciousness, but rather mobile and amorphous.

Thus, the two sociological perspectives - structuralist and interactionist - view the social structure of society differently.

For structural functionalism, the social structure of society exists independently of the will and consciousness of people as something stable, frozen. It, like a huge empire stretching over all its subjects, is independent of the personalities, subjective emotions and actions of people. This is not to say that structuralists ignore, and interactionists highlight, the role of social interaction between people. Both approaches start from this, but see the object from different angles. Structuralists try to discover in the rapidly changing fabric of human actions and actions some stable elements, a kind of invariants of social action, and, having grouped them, call them social structure. Interactionists believe that social interaction is indecomposable by nothing and in any way; it is created. Interaction is a creative act action, projection of their values, beliefs, habits, emotions, meanings. The fabric of social interaction is being recreated anew, and what exists now will not exist tomorrow. If there is anything stable in it, it is rather the ways of creating this fabric, the procedures and algorithms of interaction, or, to put it differently, social practices.

^ Modern Western Sociology: Dictionary. M., 1990. P. 335.

See: Berger P.L. Invitation to Sociology: Humanistic Perspective / Trans. from English; Ed. G.S. Batygina. M., 1996.

So, structural functionalism does not refuse to consider the social interactions of people. They are important to him in the same way that they are important to symbolic interactionism.

In other words, in the first case, people enter into relationships and interact only after they occupy the cells assigned to them in the social structure. The teacher shows a certain attitude towards the student only after he has taken up the post of teacher, but not before.

On the contrary, in the second case, social structure is a consequence of human interaction, and not its cause. Someone can instruct, teach life (act as a guru), advise and impart wisdom regardless of whether he holds the post of teacher or not, since teaching or mentoring for him is an integral feature of his way of life. In everyday life, teacher-student relationships occur much more often than is prescribed by the school charter: parents teach children, elders teach younger ones, wife teaches husband (and vice versa), officer teaches soldiers, police officers teach offenders, etc.

Following this logic of reasoning, in human society in ancient times stable types of instructive interaction should have developed (in a tribe, old people taught young people) and only after many millennia did they acquire an institutional form (the formation of a school as an institution) and organized a rigid framework of the social structure of society.

It is difficult to say which of the two points of view is more correct. They both reflect objective reality from the right positions, but illuminate it from different angles. The scientistic and humanistic perspectives of sociology do not contradict or reject each other, although their methodological principles are contradictory. They must be considered according to the principle of complementarity. Both approaches are necessary to create a complete picture of social reality.

Without detracting from the merits of any of them, nevertheless, in this chapter we will take the structural-functional approach as the basis for understanding the social structure of society. Its advantage is that it deals with current society, which has ready-made structures and established institutions that have become such powerful factors in social life that they have literally suppressed the will of individuals. In modern society, structures are not created from the everyday practices of communication and relationships of people.

From a scientistic perspective social structure - This anatomical skeleton of society. Structure is understood as a set of functionally interrelated elements that make up the internal structure of an object. However, in sociology there is no consensus on what exactly or who exactly should be considered an “element” of society. For example, A.R. Radcliffe-Brown understood social structure as general, regular relationships between elements in the form of individual people, and for S.F. Neil's elements were roles. A significant part of sociologists, in particular functionalists, propose to consider social institutions as organized patterns of social behavior as elements of social structure. Functional relations between social institutions, representing a huge and invisible social web, in fact, create the social structure about which many polemical copies have been broken.

In our opinion, the elements of social structure are social statuses And roles. Their number, order of arrangement and nature of dependence on each other determine the content of the specific structure of a particular society. It is clear that the social structures of ancient and modern societies are very different.

Although structure describes a stable, immobile moment in the structure of society, it changes historically. Mobility is given to it by social roles that are fulfilled in the process of interaction between individuals.

The multidimensionality of the social structure is also manifested in the fact that it can be considered in three levels (Fig. 25) - functional (as an ordered set of spheres of social activity, social institutions and other forms of social life), organizational (as a set of connections that form various types of social groups ; the units of analysis are collectives, organizations and their structural elements) and, finally, as a system of orientation of social actions (the units of analysis here are goals and means, motives, incentives, norms, patterns, programs and subprograms of social action) 8.

Rice. 25. Three theoretical models of social structure:

A- Marxism: social structure- set of real groups:

6 - structural functionalism: social structure- set of positions:

in symbolic interactionism: social structure- result of human interaction

Based on the above theoretical approaches to social structure, formed over many years in world sociology, the authors present their own vision of this topic.

In a broad sense, social structure is the form or pattern of social relations in groups, and it does not specify what kind of groups they are - humans, hominids or ants. It is assumed that social structure characterizes relationships in groups not only of social animals and people (who can be considered the highest type of social animals), but also of living beings in general, for example, a flock of birds or a colony of viruses.

Philosophical Encyclopedia. M., 1970. T. 5. P. 142-144.

In a narrow sense, social structure refers only to people, but also characterizes the form of relationships in groups and communities - from small groups and social organizations to society as a whole.

Each species of living beings, of course, and humans too, has not one, but many models of social (intra-group) relations. For example, the social structure of chimpanzees depends on the habitat: populations inhabiting the border of the savanna, unlike their forest relatives, form close-knit and numerous communities, and are less likely to split into small groups in search of prey. The variability of social structures is due to many things: environmental conditions, time of year and actual weather conditions (for example, unprecedented drought or abundance of rain), the presence of neighboring communities (i.e. population density) or a second closely related group laying claim to similar food resources. Thus, during periods of severe drought, herds of anubis baboons form unusual groups for themselves, which resemble the harems of hamadryas baboons 9 .

Having summarized everything that has been created in foreign and domestic science in the field of the theory of social structure, we will try to connect this concept with another one mentioned above - the concept of social space. With its help, we depicted all the positions that a person or group can occupy in society. And they are called social statuses.

At the intersection of axes OYw(Asocial space (Fig. 26) a new concept is being formed - “social structure of society”.

Rice. 26". Social structure of society in two dimensions as a unity of social stratification and social composition of the population

Social structure must be understood in at least two meanings. IN broad meaning social structure is the totality of all social groups and layers, including classes, and in a narrow sense - the totality of functionally interrelated statuses that exist in a given society at a given historical moment. In other words, in the first case this is the sum of the axes OYw OX, and in the second, the sum of points (called statuses in sociology) in social space.

4 Butovskaya M.L. Evolution of man and his social structure // Nature. 1998. No. 9.

The social structure of society includes not only strata, groups, but also institutes. There is no place to place social institutions on the two axes of the Cartesian coordinate system - they are both already filled. Social institutions cannot be placed on the same axis with social composition or social stratification, since this is a completely special phenomenon.

Social Institute is a set of norms and institutions regulating a certain sphere of social relations. Social institutions organize human activity into a certain system of roles and statuses, establishing patterns of human behavior in various spheres of public life. For example, a social institution such as a school includes the roles of teacher and student, and a family includes the roles of parents and children. Certain role relationships develop between them. These relations are regulated by a set of specific norms and regulations. The most important norms are enshrined in law, others are supported by traditions, customs, and public opinion. Any social institution includes a system of sanctions - from legal to moral and ethical, which ensure compliance with relevant values ​​and norms and the reproduction of appropriate role relationships.

Social institutions streamline, coordinate many individual actions of people, give them an organized and predictable character, and ensure standard behavior of people in socially typical situations.

Thus, an institution is not the same as a social class, such as the rich class, or a social group, say, all pensioners. Both are aggregates of people. A social institution is a mechanism or a set of institutions, but not a mechanical set of elements. It is worth taking a closer look at any institution, or better yet, a social organization, and we will see clearly established control, planning, accounting, staff, buildings and equipment, management hierarchy and much more, which is not found either in classes or in demographic or professional groups.

Since they have different essences, a third axis should be introduced OZb diagram of social space (Fig. 27).

Instead of a two-dimensional social space, we get a three-dimensional one. The third axis is the entire set of social institutions. Let us briefly characterize them.

Social structure represents one of three subject areas - structure, organization, personality - which together form a single whole and form fundamental knowledge of general sociology. The social structure with its numerous substructures (socioprofessional, sociostatus, socioregional, socioethnic) depicts statics of society, his "social skeleton". Against, social organization shows social life in development, which always occurs through the emergence and resolution of contradictions, the clash of interests of various groups, through the struggle of historically obsolete, exhausted forms and new, just emerging ones. We are talking about the “social physiology” of society, its historical dynamics.

At the intersection of structure and organization is the personality. It is considered by sociology not in terms of individually unique traits

(this is the task of psychology), but in social-typical terms. In other words, in sociology, a person is not so much a part of a small contact group, but rather a typical representative of a large social group, a bearer of the norms, traditions, values, interests and relationships inherent in this group.

Rice. 27. Three-dimensional social image system structures of society

Social structure- a set of statuses and roles that are functionally interconnected. Status is the social position of an individual in society. A role is a model of behavior corresponding to a given status, its dynamic characteristic. The content of the status is revealed through a set of rights and obligations. Teacher - status in the education system. He is obliged to transfer new knowledge to students, evaluate and check the level of their knowledge, and monitor their discipline. In turn, the responsibility of students is to regularly attend school, learn new knowledge, do homework, etc. Both the teacher and the student have their own rights. The set of rights and responsibilities of a teacher is the content of the “teacher” status, the set of rights and responsibilities of a student is the content of the “student” status. The status of a teacher makes sense only in relation to the status of a student. They are interconnected functionally (the function of the teacher is to transmit knowledge, the student’s function is to assimilate it). For his colleagues, the teacher is simply a comrade. The status of “soldier” only makes sense in relation to the status of “commander”, etc. Statuses occupy a certain place in the status hierarchy. It is created by public opinion. In society, the status of a banker is valued above the status of a plumber, etc. The place in the hierarchy is called rank. Status ranks can be high, medium and low.

The higher the rank, the more society values ​​status, the greater privileges, benefits, honors, symbols, awards and prestige it is endowed with. The rank of status can acquire formal consolidation, or legitimation. In this case it is called a title, rank. Baron, lord, prince, count - titles of the highest statuses in feudal society, which received formal recognition. Officer is a generic title (rank), the varieties of which are colonel, major, lieutenant, etc. Most status ranks in society are not formally established; they exist only in the mass consciousness as some assessments. Every person

several statuses and social roles: father (mother), man (woman), engineer, trade union member, middle-aged person, Russian, Orthodox, republican, etc. A person behaves according to his status, i.e. performs a role that is determined by social norms from society and expectations (expectations) from surrounding people. There is no status without a role and no role without status. Each status is an empty cell, like a cell in a honeycomb. All cells are linked together functionally - by mutual rights and responsibilities.

SOCIAL STRUCTURE is also the totality of all functionally related statuses that exist at a given historical time in a given society.

If we arrange the entire set of empty cells, connected to each other, on a plane, we obtain the social structure of society.

In primitive society there are few statuses: leader, shaman, man, woman, husband, wife, son, daughter, hunter, warrior, gatherer, child, adult, old man. In principle, they can be counted on one hand. And in modern society there are about 40,000 professional statuses alone, more than 200 family-marriage-related relationships (brother-in-law, daughter-in-law, cousin... continue the list yourself), many hundreds of political, religious, economic ones. There are 3000 languages ​​on our planet, and behind each of them there is an ethnic group - a nation, people, nationality, tribe. And these are also statuses. They are included in the demographic system along with gender and age statuses.

Thus, the social structure is built on the principle of “one status - one cell.” When the cells are filled with individuals, we get one large social group for each status. In modern society there are millions of drivers, engineers, postmen, tens of thousands of professors, doctors, etc.

The totality of large social groups (filled statuses) gives a new concept - social composition of the population. If large social groups are arranged vertically and arranged according to the degree of inequality of income, power, education and prestige, then we get another concept - "social stratification". Thus, stratification is the same statuses, but grouped according to other criteria and arranged along “shelves” (strata) from top to bottom. A sample of stratification is the class stratification of society.

Social status is a generic concept. Its varieties are demographic (nationality, race, gender, age), family-related (husband, wife, son, daughter, father, nephew, father-in-law, mother-in-law, cousin, stepbrother, widow, bachelor, unmarried, bride, etc.) .d.), economic (entrepreneur, owner, employee, capitalist, businessman, etc.), professional (engineer, driver, miner, banker, etc.), religious (priest, parishioner, believer, etc.) etc.), political (liberal, democrat, voter, etc.), territorial-settlement (city dweller, villager, temporarily registered, etc.). These groups of statuses form substructures of the social structure of society. As a result, we have economic, political, religious, demographic, professional, family-kinship, territorial-settlement structures of society. Each of these substructures can be divided

look at it from a different angle - as institutional spheres. Family and kinship structure describes the institution of family and marriage, professional and economic - the most numerous and heterogeneous - form several social institutions at once - state and law, production, education. Religious structure refers to the institution of religion. Only demographic and territorial-settlement structures do not create social institutions.

So, the three fundamental concepts of sociology - “social structure”, “social stratification” and “social institutions” - are closely related to each other due to statuses and roles. The historical mechanism common to all of them is the social division of labor. The deepening division of labor and specialization created a whole variety of statuses and roles.

The social structure can rightfully be called collective status portrait (similar to individual), or status portrait of society.

One can depict the social structure as status cells tightly fitted to each other, where one cell is one name of status (mother, Russian, miner, student, etc.). We left all statuses existing in society (and there are tens of thousands of them) empty - like the cells of a beehive not filled with honey (Fig. 28). There are no people, there are only empty statuses: one name - one status. A collection of empty ones, i.e. statuses not filled by people, forms the social structure of society. But only in the narrow sense of the word.

Rice. 28. Social structure- the totality of all statuses existing at a given historical moment in a given society

So let's do it conclusion: The first building blocks of the subject of sociology and social structure are statuses. They give a static picture of society. But this is not surprising, because the term “structure” precisely implies limitations.

a valuable number of elements rigidly interconnected like a crystal lattice.

Like an individual, any society at any historical moment has a status portrait characteristic only of it - the totality of all statuses that exist in it. Primitive society has no more than two dozen of them. Russian society in 1913 had in its social structure such statuses that disappeared after the revolution of 1917, for example, emperor, police chief, nobleman.

Thus, the collective status portrait (social structure of society), as well as the individual status portrait (status set), are very individual. They tell literally everything about a given society, its culture and economy, the level of development at a given historical moment. By comparing collective portraits of different societies in one era, say France and Russia in the 17th century, or one society in different eras, for example Muscovite and Kievan Rus, one can make many interesting observations.

unique.

Finalize

Class is a natural historical phenomenon of society, an element of the social structure, since it acts as a stable carrier of economic, political, and ideological relations. Class formation is a complex historical process, the result of social stratification.

The category “class” is most actively used in Marxism. In general, Marx, as follows from his works, derived the most important feature of class from its place in the system of social relations, in social production, and considered the exploitation of one class by another to be an essential manifestation of class relations.

Later, in 1919 V.I. Lenin gave a fairly definite formulation of classes, which was widely used in the Marxist theory of the 20th century: “Classes are large groups of people that differ in their place in a historically defined system of social production, in their relationship (mostly enshrined and formalized in laws) to the means of production , according to their role in the social organization of labor, and therefore, according to the methods of obtaining and the size of the share of social wealth that they have. Classes are groups of people from which one can appropriate the work of another, due to the difference in their place in a certain structure of the social economy.”

In general, in the 20th century. Repeated attempts are made to provide a more specific understanding of social class, bringing it into line with the real changes characteristic of capitalist society of this period. Thus, M. Weber, unlike K. Marx, refuses an expanded interpretation of class, moving the content of this concept to the economic space.

Weber reduces the basic regulator of class relations to “property” and to “lack of property”;

Between the polar classes of owners and the working class, Weber sees the presence of a so-called middle class.

According to R. Dahrendorf, class structure is derived from the structure of power, and the category of class is determined through the relationship of power.

Despite the difference in approaches to defining the concept of social class, in Western sociology and political science of the 20th century. common features can be seen. The main signs of identifying a class among non-Marxist theorists are: the attitude of people to the means of production, the nature of the appropriation of goods in conditions of market relations.

Class is understood in two senses: broad and narrow. IN broad meaning class means a large social group of people who own or do not own the means of production, occupying a certain place in the system of social division of labor and characterized by a specific way of generating income.

Since private property arises during the birth of the state, it is believed that already in the Ancient East and ancient Greece there were two opposing classes - slaves and slave owners. Feudalism and capitalism are no exception - and there were antagonistic classes: exploiters and exploited. This is the point of view of K. Marx, which is still adhered to today not only by domestic, but also by many foreign sociologists.

IN narrow meaningClass - any social stratum in modern society that differs from others in income, education, power and prestige. The second point of view prevails in foreign sociology, and is now acquiring the rights of citizenship in domestic sociology as well. In modern society, based on the described criteria, there are not two opposite, but several transitional strata, called classes. Some sociologists find six classes, others count five, etc. According to a narrow interpretation, there were neither classes under slavery nor under feudalism. They appeared only under capitalism and mark the transition from a closed to a covered society.

Although ownership of the means of production plays an important role in modern society, its importance is gradually declining. The era of individual and family capitalism is becoming a thing of the past. The 20th century is dominated by collective capital. Hundreds or thousands of people can own shares in one company. There are more than 50 million shareholders in the United States. And although ownership is dispersed among a huge number of owners, only those who hold a controlling stake are able to make key decisions. Often they are senior managers - presidents and directors of companies, chairmen of boards of management. The managerial stratum is gradually coming to the fore, pushing aside the traditional class of owners. The concept of “managerial revolution”, which appeared thanks to J. Bernheim in the middle of the 20th century, reflects the new reality - the “splitting of the atom”, property, the disappearance of classes in the old sense, the entry into the historical arena of non-owners (after all, managers are hired workers) as leading class or stratum of modern society.

However, there was a time when the concept of “class” was not considered an anachronism. On the contrary, it just appeared and reflected the onset of a new historical era. This happened at the end of the 18th century, when a new historical force loudly declared itself - the bourgeoisie, which decisively pushed the noble class into the background. The emergence of the bourgeoisie on the historical stage previously had the same revolutionary impact on society as the emergence of the managerial class has today.

The Industrial Revolution of the 18th and 19th centuries destroyed the feudal system and brought to life social forces that led to the formation of the class system. While the number of the clergy, nobility and peasantry either did not increase or decreased, the number of the third estate increased sharply. The development of trade and industry gave rise to new professions: entrepreneurs, merchants, bankers, merchants. A large petty bourgeoisie emerged. The ruin of the peasants and their move to the city led to a reduction in their numbers and the emergence of a new stratum that feudal society did not know - hired industrial workers.

Gradually formed new type of economy - capitalist, which corresponds to a new type of social stratification - class system. The growth of cities, industry and services, the decline in power and prestige of the aristocracy and the strengthening of the status and wealth of the bourgeoisie radically changed the face of European society. New professional groups that entered the historical arena (workers, bankers, entrepreneurs, etc.) strengthened their positions and demanded privileges and recognition of their status. Soon they became equal in importance to the previous classes, but they could not become new classes. The term “estate” reflected a historically receding reality. The new reality was best reflected by the term “class.” It expressed the economic status of people who were able to move up and down.

The transition from a closed society to an open one demonstrated the increased ability of a person to independently make his own destiny. Class restrictions collapsed, everyone could rise to the heights of social recognition, move from one class to another, with effort, talent and hard work. And although only a few succeed in this, even in modern America, the expression “self-made man” holds steady here.

Thus, money and commodity-money relations played the role of a detonator. They did not take into account class barriers, aristocratic privileges, or inherited titles. Money equalized everyone, it was universal and accessible to everyone, even those who did not inherit wealth and titles. A society dominated by ascribed statuses gave way to a society where achieved statuses began to play the main role. That's what it is open society.

Classes and estates in pre-revolutionary Russia. Before the revolution in Russia it was official class, rather than a class division of the population. It was divided into two main classes - tax-paying(peasants, burghers) and tax-exempt(nobility, clergy). Within each class there were smaller classes and layers. The state provided them with certain rights enshrined in law. They were guaranteed only insofar as the classes performed certain duties, for example, grew grain or were engaged in crafts. The apparatus of officials regulated relations between classes, which was his “duty.” Thus, the class system was inseparable from the state system. This is why we can determine estates as socio-legal groups that differ in the scope of rights and obligations in relation to the state.

According to the 1897 census, the entire population of the country, which is 125 million people, was distributed into the following classes: nobles- 1.5% of the total population, clergy - 0,5%,merchants - 0,3%,philistines - 10,6%,peasants - 77,1%, Cossacks- 2.3%. The first privileged class in Russia was considered the nobility, the second - the clergy. The rest were not among the privileged. The nobles were divided into hereditary and personal. Not all of them were landowners; many were in public service. Landowners constituted a special group - landowners(among the hereditary nobles there were no more than 30% landowners).

Gradually, as in Europe, independent social strata - the embryos of classes - are formed within the estates.

In connection with the development of capitalism, the once united peasantry at the turn of the century was stratified into poor people (34,7%), middle peasants (15%), wealthy (12,9%), kulaks(1.4%), as well as small and landless peasants, who together made up one third. They were a heterogeneous formation bourgeois - middle urban strata, which included small employees, artisans, handicraftsmen, domestic servants, postal and telegraph employees, students, etc. From among them and the peasantry came Russian industrialists, small, medium and large bourgeoisie. True, the latter was dominated by yesterday's merchants. The Cossacks were a privileged military class that served on the border.

The October Revolution easily destroyed the social structure of Russian society, many old statuses disappeared - nobleman, bourgeois, tradesman, police chief, etc., therefore, their bearers - large social groups of people - disappeared. The objective and only basis for the emergence of classes - private coherence - has been destroyed. The process of class formation, which began at the end of the 19th century, was completely eliminated in 1917. The official ideology of Marxism, which equalized everyone in rights and financial status, did not allow the restoration of the estate or class system. As a result, a unique historical situation arose: within one country, all known types of social stratification - slavery, castes, estates and classes - were destroyed and not recognized as legitimate. Officially, the Bolshevik Party declared a course towards building a classless society. But, as we know, no society can exist without a social hierarchy, even in its simplest form.

Belonging to a social stratum in slave-owning, caste and class-feudal societies was fixed by official legal or religious norms. In pre-revolutionary Russia, every person knew what class he belonged to. People were, as they say, assigned to one or another social stratum.

In a class society the situation is different. The state does not deal with issues of social security of its citizens. The only controller is the public opinion of people, which is guided by customs, established practices, income, lifestyle and standards of behavior. Therefore, it is very difficult to accurately and unambiguously determine the number of classes in a particular country, the number of strata or layers into which they are divided, and the belonging of people to strata. Criteria are needed that are chosen quite arbitrarily. This is why, in a country as sociologically developed as the United States, different sociologists offer different typologies of classes. In one there are seven, in another there are six, in the third there are five, etc., social strata. The first typology of US classes was proposed in the 40s. XX century American sociologist L. Warner. L. Warner conducted sociological research in American cities using the method of participant observation and, based on subjective self-assessments of people regarding their social position according to 4 parameters: income, professional prestige, education, ethnicity - he identified in the ruling social groups: higher, higher intermediate, middle-high , intermediate-intermediate, intermediate-high, intermediate-intermediate.

Other schemes are also proposed, for example: upper-higher, upper-lower, upper-middle, middle-middle, lower-middle, working, lower classes. Or: upper class, upper-middle class, middle and lower-middle class, upper working class and lower working class, underclass. There are many options, but it is important to understand two fundamental points: there are only three main classes, no matter what they are called: rich, wealthy and poor; non-primary classes arise from the addition of strata or layers lying within one of the major classes.

More than half a century has passed since L. Warner developed his concept of classes. Today it has been replenished with another layer and in its final form it represents a seven-point scale.

Upper-highestClass includes "aristocrats by blood" who immigrated to America 200 years ago and over many generations amassed untold wealth. They are distinguished by a special way of life, high society manners, impeccable taste and behavior.

Lower-higherClass consists mainly of the “new rich” who have not yet managed to create powerful clans that have seized the highest positions in industry, business, and politics. Typical representatives are a professional basketball player or a pop star, who receive tens of millions, but who have no “aristocrats by blood” in their family.

Upper-middleClass consists of the petty bourgeoisie and highly paid professionals - large lawyers, famous doctors, actors or television commentators. Their lifestyle is approaching high society, but they cannot afford a fashionable villa in the most expensive resorts in the world or a rare collection of artistic rarities.

Middle-middle class represents the most massive stratum of a developed industrial society. It includes all well-paid employees, moderately paid professionals, in a word, people of intelligent professions, including teachers, teachers, and middle managers. This is the backbone of the information society and the service sector.

Upper-lowerClass includes semi- and semi-skilled workers employed in mass production, in local factories, living in relative prosperity, but in a manner of behavior significantly different from the upper and middle classes. Distinctive features: low education (usually complete or incomplete secondary, specialized secondary), passive leisure (watching TV, playing cards or dominoes), primitive entertainment, often excessive consumption of alcohol and non-literary language.

Lower-inferiorClass are the inhabitants of basements, attics, slums and other places unsuitable for living. They either have no education or only primary education; most often they eke out odd jobs, begging, and constantly feel an inferiority complex due to hopeless poverty and humiliation. They are usually called the “social bottom”, or underclass. Most often, their ranks are recruited from chronic alcoholics, former prisoners, homeless people, etc.

Comparing Western and Russian society, many scientists (and not only them) are inclined to believe that in Russia there is no middle class in the generally accepted sense of the word, or it is extremely small. The basis is two criteria: 1) scientific and technical (Russia has not yet moved to the stage of post-industrial development and therefore the layer of managers, programmers, engineers and workers associated with knowledge-intensive production is smaller here than in England, Japan or the USA); 2) material (the income of the Russian population is immeasurably lower than in Western European society, so a representative of the middle class in the West will turn out to be rich, and our middle class ekes out an existence at the level of the European poor).

List of used literature.

1. Kravchenko A.I. Sociology. - Ekaterinburg: Business book. - 1998.
2. Kravchenko A. I. Sociology and political science: Textbook. aid for students avg. prof. Textbook establishments. - M.: Publishing center "Academy"; Craftsmanship; Higher school - 2000.
3. Fundamentals of modern philosophy / Ed. RosenkoM.N.- St. Petersburg: Publishing House "Lan" - 2001.
4. Political Science: Textbook / Ed. BobkovaV.A. and Braima I.N.- Mn.: “Ecoperspective” - 2000.
5. PotashevaG.A. Sociology and political science: Textbook. - M.: MGIU - 2000.
6. Sociology: Textbook for law schools. - St. Petersburg: Lan Publishing House, St. Petersburg University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia - 2001.
7. Philosophy / Ed. Zhukova N.I.. - Mn.: STC "API" - 2000.
8. Philosophy / Under. ed. KokhanovskyV.P.- Rostov-on-Don “Phoenix” - 1998.

Be careful! Do not submit downloaded work to your teacher.

Teachers always check the uniqueness of the submitted work. You can use this work to prepare your project or order unique.

Finalize

• Next material →

  Human integrity

• ← Previous material

  Franciszek Skaryna as a mentor of the “people of the paspalitag”

"Theory of the social structure of society"

I. Social structure of society and its elements

Any society appears not as something homogeneous and monolithic, but as internally divided into various social groups, layers and national communities. All of them are among themselves in a state of objectively determined connections and relationships - socio-economic, political, spiritual. Moreover, only within the framework of these connections and relationships can they exist and manifest themselves in society. This determines the integrity of society, its functioning as a single social organism, the essence of which was revealed in their theories by O. Comte, G. Spencer, K. Marx, M. Weber, T. Parsons, R. Dahrendorf and other sociologists. It can be said that social structure of society represents the totality of those connections and relationships into which social groups and communities of people enter among themselves regarding the economic, social, political and spiritual conditions of their life.

The development of the social structure of society is based on the social division of labor and relations of ownership of the means of production and its products.

Social division of labor determines the emergence and continued existence of such social groups as classes, professional groups, as well as large groups consisting of people from the city and countryside, representatives of mental and physical labor.

Ownership relations for the means of production economically consolidate this internal division of society and the social structure emerging within it. Both the social division of labor and property relations are objective socio-economic prerequisites for the development of the social structure of society.

The great role of the division of labor in the life of society, in the emergence of various types of human activity, the development of material production and spiritual culture was rightfully pointed out in their time by O. Comte and E. Durkheim, Russian thinkers M.I. Tugan-Baranovsky, M.M. Kovalevsky, P.A. Sorokin et al. A detailed doctrine of the role of the social division of labor in the historical process, including in the development of the social structure of society, is contained in the socio-economic theory of Marxism, which also reveals the role of property relations in this process.

TO basic elements of the social structure of society can be attributed:

Classes that occupy different places in the systems of social division of labor, relations of ownership of the means of production and distribution of the social product. Sociologists of different directions agree with this understanding;

Residents of towns and villages;

Representatives of mental and physical labor;

Estates;

Socio-demographic groups (youth, women and men, older generation);

National communities (nations, nationalities, ethnic groups).

Almost all elements of the social structure are heterogeneous in composition and, in turn, are divided into separate layers and groups, which appear as independent elements of the social structure with their inherent interests, which they realize in interaction with other subjects.

So the social structure in any society is quite complex and is the subject of attention not only by sociologists, but also by representatives of such a science as social management, as well as politicians and government officials. It is important to understand that without understanding the social structure of society, without a clear idea of ​​what social groups exist within it and what their interests are, i.e. in which direction they will act, it is impossible to take a single step forward in the leadership of society, including in the field of economics, social, political and spiritual life.

This is the significance of the problem of the social structure of society. Its solution must be approached on the basis of a deep understanding of social dialectics, scientific generalization of historical and modern data from social practice.

II. Social relations and types of social structures

1. Social relations

Relationship The social groups and communities of people existing in society is by no means static, but rather dynamic; it manifests itself in the interaction of people regarding the satisfaction of their needs and the realization of interests. This interaction is characterized by two main factors:

1) the very activity of each of the subjects of society, directed by certain motives (these are what the sociologist most often needs to identify);

2) those social relations into which social actors enter in order to satisfy their needs and interests.

We are talking about social relations as an aspect of the functioning of the social structure. And these relationships are very diverse. In a broad sense, all social relations can be called social, i.e. inherent in society.

In the narrow sense social relations act as specific relationships that exist along with economic, political and others. They develop between subjects, including between social groups, regarding the satisfaction of their needs for appropriate working conditions, material goods, improvement of life and leisure, education and access to objects of spiritual culture, as well as medical care and social security. We are talking about meeting the needs in the so-called social sphere of people’s life, the needs of reproduction and development of their vital forces and their social self-affirmation, which consists, in particular, in ensuring the basic conditions for their existence and development in society.

The most important aspect of the functioning of the social sphere of society is the improvement of the social relations between people that arise here.

2. Types of social structures

Depending on the level of development of the division of labor and socio-economic relations, various types of social structures.

So, the social structure slave society consisted of classes of slaves and slave owners, as well as artisans, traders, landowners, free peasants, representatives of mental activity - scientists, philosophers, poets, priests, teachers, doctors, etc. It is enough to recall the vivid evidence of the development of scientific thought and spiritual culture of Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome, a number of countries of the Ancient East, to be convinced of how great the role of the intelligentsia in the development of the peoples of these countries. This is confirmed by the high level of development of political life in the ancient world and the famous Roman private law.

Evidence of professions and activities within the slave economy in one of the Mediterranean countries is of interest:

In addition to the slaves working on the estates, there were managers, treasurers, gardeners, cooks, bakers, confectioners, managers of formal and ordinary utensils, clothing, sleeping bags, barbers, porters, bathhouse attendants, massage therapists, fullers, dyers, weavers, seamstresses, shoemakers, carpenters, blacksmiths, musicians, readers, singers, scribes, doctors, midwives, builders, artists, numerous servants without special professions.

This largely typical picture eloquently testifies to the level of division and specialization of labor in ancient slave societies, and to their professional and social structures.

Social structure feudal society is clearly visible in the development of European countries of the pre-capitalist era. It represented the interrelation of the main classes - feudal lords and serfs, as well as classes and various groups of the intelligentsia. These classes, wherever they arise, differ from each other in their place in the system of social division of labor and socio-economic relations.

A special place in it is occupied by estates. In Russian sociology, little attention is paid to estates. Let's look at this issue in a little more detail.

Estates are social groups whose place in society is determined not only by their position in the system of socio-economic relations, but also by established traditions and legal acts. This determined the rights, duties and privileges of such classes as secular feudal lords and the clergy. In France, which provided a classic example of the division of feudal society into estates, along with the two indicated estates of the ruling class, there was an unprivileged third estate, which included peasants, artisans, merchants, representatives of the emerging bourgeoisie and proletariat. Similar classes existed in other countries.

In Russia there were such classes as the nobility, clergy, peasantry, merchants, and petty bourgeoisie. The leading of these classes - the nobility, which is now much talked about and written about, appeared in the 12th-13th centuries. as part of the feudal military service class (domestic people), who were in the military service of the Russian princes. Since the 14th century these courtyard people (nobility) began to receive land - estates - for their service. In the 17th century The nobility made up the bulk of Russian feudal lords, in whose interests serfdom was formalized, approved by the Council Code of 1649 during the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich, the father of Peter I.

Catherine II did a lot for the noble class. By her order in 1775, the privileges of the nobility were secured by the so-called Charter of Grant. In the same year, the body of noble class self-government was approved - the noble assembly, which existed until 1917. The noble meetings met once every three years and resolved pressing issues in the life of this class. There were provincial and district noble assemblies, at which leaders of the nobility, police officers and other officials who dealt with the affairs of the nobility were elected.