Basic Concepts
Social changes, socially significant symbols of human activity, social process, active forces, restraining forces, driving forces of social change, social institutions, social problems, social contradictions, sources of contradictions, conflict, levels of social change, narrow proprietary interest, problem situation, evolutionary and revolutionary changes, spontaneous and conscious changes, short-term and long-term, planned and unplanned changes.

Purpose of information
Present development processes as a chain of continuous social changes occurring in the life of the individual and society as a social integrity.

Recommendations
First question. Speaking about the theory of social change, consider the concept of W. Moore, who represents social change as the most important changes in social structures (models of social action and social integration), including the consequences and manifestations of these changes in norms, values, cultural elements in symbols. For comparison, it is useful to consider the concept of P. Sorokin, who represents changes as processes that repeat in time, in space, in time and space simultaneously, and not just linear development trends.
Second question. When talking about the forces at work for social change, consider their structure and provide meaningful analysis. Identify the differences between the restraining and driving forces of social change, correlate the concepts: conscious and spontaneous changes. As you study material concerning the sources and levels of social change, consider the various factors that can lead to social change, both spontaneous and conscious. It is advisable to consider the levels of social change in the form of dichotomies: reactive - projective, spontaneous - conscious, purposeful - unfocused, progressive - regressive, qualitative - quantitative, voluntary - imposed, long-term - short-term, changes of various scales and levels of activity.
Third question. Consider the relationship between the concepts of “social processes” and “social changes”, point out that the latter represent a meaningful side of social processes expressed in quantitative and qualitative indicators. Emphasize that in any social process it is possible to identify certain social changes, which means that the analysis of social processes also implies an analysis of the social changes occurring in them. When analyzing the social processes of modern Russian society, remember the processes of stratification, population migration, differentiation by income, education, etc. that you already know, indicate the consequences of these processes, i.e. show the nature of social changes occurring in society.
Conclusions. Summarizing the material presented, dwell on the social changes that are taking place in modern Russian society and the consequences to which they should lead.

1. Theories of social change in sociology
The most important problem of sociology is the study of social changes, their mechanisms and directions, i.e. dynamics of social development.
The concept of “social change” means the process of transition of social systems, communities, institutions and organizations from one state to another. This is a long process, during which, as a result of the interaction of various social factors (economics, politics, culture), qualitative changes occur in society.
Social processes are a sequential change of states, the movement of elements of a social system or its subsystems. The process has a stable order of interaction, long-lasting and directed towards one or another state of the social system as some of its results. Let's put it this way: achievements or non-achievement are a characteristic of the effectiveness of the process. Each of them has stages that differ in content.
The concept of “social change” is concretized by the concept of “development”.
Development is an irreversible, directed change in material and ideal objects, their transition from simple to complex, from lower to higher.
In sociology, various types of change and development are distinguished: evolutionary, revolutionary, progressive, regressive, imitation and innovative.
Evolutionary processes are slow, smooth, quantitative transformations of objects in society.
Revolutionary ones are relatively fast, abrupt qualitative changes.
In the sociology of the 19th century, 2 trends in the study of social development were formed, depending on the choice of methodology for studying social changes: 1) social evolutionism (G. Spencer, E. Durkheim, Fr. Tönnies, R. Aron, A. Touraine, etc.; 2) revolutionism - in the sociology of Marxism and neo-Marxism (G. Marcuse, J. Habermas, R. Mills, E. Fromm, Bottomore).
In the 19th century under the influence of Darwinism, evolutionism, a system of views that recognizes the objective nature of social development, took a strong position in sociology. The main idea of ​​19th century evolutionism. consists in the existence of historical stages of human society, developing from simple to differentiated, from traditional (with manual technology) to individual (with machine technology). The movement from homogeneity to great diversity, from simple to complex forms of organization is evolution.
Social evolutionism is most clearly represented in the organic sociology of G. Spencer. G. Spencer saw the essence of the evolution of society in the complication of forms of social life, their differentiation and integration at a new level of organization.
The core of Spencer's scheme is the idea of ​​differentiation, which was understood as the inevitable division of function between parts of the system, and the selection of the most stable structural relationships. The evolution of any system consists in increasing and complicating its organization. But differentiation is always accompanied by integration, because evolutionary changes are moving in the direction of harmonization, structural and functional compliance of all elements of the system. G. Spencer connected the evolution of society with its integration, through the adaptation of all innovations of the system itself.
In E. Durkheim, the content of evolution is derived from the division of labor and is reduced to the transition from mechanical solidarity based on the underdevelopment and similarity of individuals and their functions in an archaic society to organic solidarity arising on the basis of the division of labor and social differentiation in modern society. Thanks to the latter, the interconnection of people on a higher basis is ensured, their integration into a single social organism occurs, a sense of solidarity is formed as the highest moral principle of society, and self-development of society occurs.
Within the framework of social evolutionism in the 19th - early 20th centuries. a number of theories of society as a movement from simple to complex arose. One of the first to turn to such a classification was the classic of German sociology Fr. Tennis. In his book “Community and Society,” he distinguished development based on the criteria of traditional and modern society. He applied the concept of "gemeinshaft" to the traditional peasant community, and the concept of "gesellschaft" to industrial urban society.
The "gemeinshaft" is based on family and community, with undeveloped specializations of work, religious values ​​and worldly traditions.
The Gesellschaft is based on large corporations with specialized professional roles, secular values, and the pursuit of personal gain in a society based on formal laws.

2. Concepts of social development
In the twentieth century in sociology, in line with the opposition of traditional and modern society in the 50-60s. French sociologist R. Aron and American economists W. Rostow and D. Galbraith created the theory of industrial society. The basis of this theory is the idea of ​​the evolution of society from a backward agrarian traditional society with a subsistence economy and class hierarchy to an industrial society with a complex system of division of labor with mechanized and automated production, mass culture.
This theory is based on “technological determinism,” the essence of which is that all development and all changes in society are caused by technological revolutions caused by technical and scientific innovations in production. Technological revolutions entail changes in the economy, politics, and culture, but these changes are not accompanied by social conflicts and revolutions, but are resolved through social reforms.
In the 70s, the theory of industrial society was transformed into the theory of “post-industrial society”, created by the Americans D. Bell, “technotronic society”, Zb. Brzezinski, “information society” by the Frenchman J. Fourastier, O. Toffler “super-industrial society”.
According to this theory, the thesis has been put forward that society in its development goes through 3 stages: 1) pre-industrial (agrarian); 2) industrial; 3) post-industrial.
The first stage is dominated by agriculture and an authoritarian state. At the second stage - industry and industrial democracy, at the 3rd stage the service sector and meritocratic and monarchical democracy dominate.
The main motive for social change in a pre-industrial society is power, in an industrial society it is money, in a post-industrial society it is information and knowledge.
In sociology of the late XIX - XX centuries. The theory of revolutionary change in society was also widespread. Marxism proceeds from economic determinism and believes that the determining factor of social development is changes not in technology and technology, but in the economic basis of society. According to Marx, the development of society also proceeds linearly and passes through 5 stages (formations). The transition from one formation to another higher one is carried out on the basis of revolutions. The economic basis of revolutions is the conflict between the growth of productive forces and outdated production relations.
K. Marx considered revolutions to be “locomotives of history” that break down barriers to social development and serve as a powerful stimulus for positive changes in society. Revolution is the midwife of history.
A distinctive feature of Marxism was the desire to combine evolution with revolution, i.e. prove the importance of revolutionary changes for the progressive development of history.
So, in the theories of social evolution, the main factors of social change that lead to the development of society are identified - knowledge, social differentiation, solidarity, scientific and technological progress, productive forces.

Theories of civilization
However, evolutionism, traditional for sociology, turned out to be unable to explain the causes of crises and splits in societies, backward movements, and regression. The theories of cyclical development (N. Danilevsky, P. Sorokin, Oswald, Spengler, A. Toynbee) tried to explain these non-linear development processes in sociology. In these theories, the development of society does not look like a linear movement from lower to higher stages, but as a kind of cycle rise, prosperity and decline, repeating as it is completed in all societies. One of the variants of the methodology of cyclical development is the theory of cultural-historical types, the founder of which was N.Ya. Danilevsky. In this theory, the emphasis is on the multilinear development of society. Danilevsky identified 13 civilizations in history, or 13 cultural and historical types, differing in religious, cultural, political and socio-economic parameters. Each “type” goes through 4 stages of development:
1) Stage I - “unconscious”, when peoples are at the level of “ethnographic material”, i.e. have not reached their historical lease, have not developed socio-economically and culturally;
2) II period - the formation of state-legal, religious, ethnic institutions and regulators, when the formation of a cultural-historical type occurs;
3) III period - the heyday of civilization, when all the basic social systems of society were formed and fully functioning;
4) IV period - the decline and decline of civilization.
In Western sociology, the cyclical model of the development of history resulted in a paradigm of cultural-historical types, which was supplemented by the theories of Oswald Spengler and the English microhistorian A. Toynbee.
O. Spengler in his book “The Decline of Europe” identified 8 cultural and historical types of world development. Spengler calls the first stage of the rise of society “cultural.” Culture is an ascending stage of any cultural-historical type, which is characterized by an “organic” evolution of all spheres of people’s lives. The second stage - civilization, is characterized by “mechanical” evolution, i.e. leading to the “ossification” of creative principles in culture and its collapse, O. Spengler predicted the death of Western European civilization.
The theories of social development by A. Toynbee, presented in the book “Comprehension of History,” are based on the doctrine of civilizations as integral systems in the development of history. A. Toynbee identifies 6 main cultural and historical types in the history of society:
1) Egyptian, Andean; 2) Sumerian, Indus, Shan, May; 3) Babylonian, Hittite, Hellenistic; 4) Russian, Western, Arab-Muslim, Far Eastern-Japanese; 5) frozen civilizations (Eskimo, Ottoman, Spartan); 6) undeveloped civilizations (Far Eastern Christian, Far Western Christian.
According to A. Toynbee, the decisive role in the development of civilization belongs to the “Response” of peoples to the “challenge” thrown at them from the outside - by historical circumstances.
A series of consistent responses to consistent challenges ensures the development of nations. As civilization grows, the intensity of challenges from the external environment moves towards challenges from the internal system or personality.
The main criterion for growth is a progressive movement towards self-determination. The concept of cultural-historical types by P. Sorokin comes from the existence of sociocultural supersystems in the history of society. P. Sorokin identified 3 types of cultural supersystems:
1) spiritualistic, in which supersensitive reality and truth come first;
2) sensationalistic, in which sensitivity and sensation are recognized as the source and measure of all things;
3) idealistic supersystem - based on the synthesis of intuition, reason and sensuality.
P. Sorokin is the author of the concept of “sociocultural dynamics”. P. Sorokin associates the main reasons for changes in sociocultural changes with changes in the dominant worldview. The basic principles of perception of reality determined by it gradually exhaust their capabilities and are replaced by one of two other alternative worldviews. The types of sociocultural supersystems change accordingly.
However, unlike O. Spengler and A. Toynbee, P. Sorokin admitted the existence of progress in social development and noted that in the twentieth century. The process of development of a world civilization that unites all humanity is underway. This idea of ​​P. Sorokin laid the foundation for development in the 60-70s. 20th century theories of “convergence” (J. Galbraith, J. Tinbergen) and the Club of Rome. (G. Kahn, A. Pechgey, J. Forrester, D. Bell, D. Meadows).
The basis of “convergence” is the idea of ​​bringing countries and peoples closer together under the influence of the globalization of social and cultural processes in the modern world and the internationalization of economic and political activities on Earth.
The main driving force behind the rapprochement of the world is the scientific and technological revolution, which gave rise to the “information society”, which contributed to the formation of “planetary consciousness” and a way of life. Planetary unity, the sociocultural value of the world are the main essential characteristics of the modern development of the world. Thus, scientific and technological revolution is the basis of all structural changes in modern society. Scientific and technological revolution will contribute to the formation of a unified global civilization.
A unique approach to the study of social development appeared in the theory of social change by the American sociologist T. Parsons. Parsons' systemic approach reduces the essence of development to deviations from the normal state of society. Any changes in society caused by the development of production, the market, the state, and social groups lead to a change in the equilibrium in the structures of the system. If the system is able to adapt to changed conditions, then it will integrate these new formations into itself, remaining generally stable and unchanged.
If the internal and external pressure of change on the system is strong, then it will lose its balance. There is a transformation of its important structural elements (social roles, institutions, organizations). Entire subsystems - economics, politics, culture - are being modernized.
T. Parsons introduces the concept of evolutionary universals, i.e. such structures, the emergence of which indicates the emergence of a qualitatively new state of the system. Initially, 4 universals are formed in the social system:
1) communication system; 2) kinship system; 3) religion; 4) technology.
In the subsequent development of the system, such universals as a stratification structure, bureaucracy, money and market, state, and democracy are formed in it.
Accordingly, T. Parsons divided the development of society into 3 stages:
1) traditional; 2) intermediate; 3) modern society.
Parsons' systems approach makes it possible to see what phenomena, processes of change in society, lead to its structural restructuring, and what are the consequences of these changes.
So, any social system is unique in its own way and, to a certain extent, conservative, inertial due to the fact that certain innovations, which in the future can stabilize and strengthen it (this always affects the interests of people), are at first capable of disturbing the balance of elements with unpredictable consequences.
Stability is a state of a social system in which it is able to function and change, maintaining the stability of structure and functions to strong interactions from the outside. Instability is a situation where the impact (internal and external) exceeds certain critical values ​​and extraordinary actions are required to preserve the system. Stability balance criteria: maintaining optimal status among the main social groups, economic profitability and production efficiency, maintaining human potential (health, education, qualifications, etc.)
Social experience of the 20th century. indicates the greater importance of spontaneous evolutionary processes than regulated, “revolutionary” ones, but they will always interact. Since society is an integral organism with a large number of degrees of freedom, it can only change in the course of internal evolution.

Questions for self-control
1. Expand the concept of “social process” and highlight the main types of social processes.
2. What is the difference between progress and regression, revolution and reform?
3. Distinguish the concepts of “formation” and “civilization”.
4. Name the authors of the theory of convergence.
5. What is a “cultural-historical type”?

Literature
1. American sociology. M., 1970.
3. Akhiezer A.S. Russia: criticism of historical experience. M., 1999.
4. Irkhin V.A. Introduction to the philosophy of history. M., 1998.
5. Durkheim E. Definition of social labor. Method of sociology. M., 1991.
6. Society and man: ways of self-determination. St. Petersburg, 1994.
7. Sociology and problems of social development. M., 1978.
8. Soares K.S. Society is in the process of change. // Sociological Research, 1991, No. 2.
9. Sorokin P.A. Man, civilization, society. M., 1992.
10. Toynbee A. J. Comprehension of history. M., 1991.
11. Forrester J. World dynamics. M., 1978.

100 RUR bonus for first order

Select the type of work Diploma work Course work Abstract Master's thesis Practice report Article Report Review Test work Monograph Problem solving Business plan Answers to questions Creative work Essay Drawing Essays Translation Presentations Typing Other Increasing the uniqueness of the text Master's thesis Laboratory work On-line help

Find out the price

By their nature, internal structure, degree of influence on society, social changes can be divided into two large groups - evolutionary And revolutionary. The first group consists of partial and gradual changes, which occur as fairly stable and constant trends towards an increase or decrease in any qualities or elements in various social systems; they can acquire an ascending or descending direction. All four types of changes can be evolutionary - structural, functional, processual and motivational. All spheres of society’s life are subject to evolutionary changes - economic life, various communities, political and organizational structures, value systems, etc.

Evolutionary changes can be organized consciously. In such cases, they take the form of social reforms (the 1861 reform in Russia on the abolition of serfdom). But evolutionary social changes can also be spontaneous. Such a trend may be an increase in the average level of education of the population over the last century. Evolutionary social changes do not have a linear sequence; they are scattered among other social changes and can be characterized as a cumulative process (the process of gradual accumulation of new elements and properties, as a result of which the entire social system changes). The cumulative process consists of two stages: the formation of innovations (new elements) and their selection. Innovation is the origin, emergence and strengthening of new elements. Selection is a spontaneous or conscious process by which some new elements are retained in a system and others are rejected.

Innovation (innovation) is a complex process of creating, disseminating and using a new practical means (innovation) to satisfy human needs, as well as changes in the social and material environment associated with this innovation (economic, organizational, cultural). In the phenomenon of innovation, the following elements are usually distinguished: a) the innovation itself; b) innovators, creators, c) distributors, d) evaluators, receivers. Through the prism of these elements, one can study the implementation of social innovations and identify strong and weak links in the innovation process. Social innovations are contradictory. For example, improvement fits well into existing organizational structures. Radical innovation undermines or even explodes these structures and therefore causes opposition.

Theories of social change

These theories in sociology exist in several versions. A model of social change in the tradition of structural-functional analysis was attempted by R. Merton, who was influenced by the ideas of P. Sorokin and T. Parsons. Taking the methodological principles of structural-functional analysis as a basis, Merton refused to create a general sociological theory. In his work “Social Theory and Social Structure,” he proposed a system of multiple models of functional analysis at the level of specific social systems and communities. Along with the concept of function, Merton introduced the concept of “dysfunction”, i.e. pointed out the possibility of deviation of the system from the generally accepted normative model, which may entail either a new stage in the adaptation of the system to the existing order, or a certain change in the system of norms. In this way Merton tried to introduce the idea of ​​change into functionalism.

In addition to Merton's model of social change, there are a number of other, both single-factor and multi-factor models. What all these models have in common is an attempt to clarify the conditions for the formation and development of social phenomena, i.e. in explaining cause-and-effect relationships. In the history of the development of sociological thought, a variety of reasons for social change have been indicated: natural selection (H. Spencer); geographical environment, and especially climate (G. Buckle), population (T. Malthus), race (J. A. de Gobineau), outstanding personalities (F. Nietzsche), war (A. Joseph Toynbee), technology (W. Ogborn ), division of labor and cooperation (E. Durkheim), economics (W. Rostow), ideology (M. Weber), etc. In theories of social change, the “structural-functional” model is contrasted with the “cause-and-effect” model of analysis of social change. As an alternative to normative determinism, several types of determinism (causality) have been put forward - from biological to technological and economic, but nevertheless, a general point of view has not emerged.

Theories of social conflict

Since the mid-19th century, a firm belief has emerged among philosophers and sociologists that conflict is a normal social phenomenon. The conflict approach is primarily associated with the names of Karl Marx (1818–1883) and Georg Simmel (1858–1918).

Theories based on the ideas of K. Marx about the role of conflict in the life of society and its revolutionary transformations are called dialectical theories of conflict. In modern sociology, the representative of this tradition is the German sociologist Ralf Dahrendorf (b. 1929). The scientist considers social conflicts to be the result of resistance to the relations of domination and subordination existing in any society.

However, unlike classical Marxism, where the basis of social conflict is the opposition of economic interests of antagonistic classes (slave owners and slaves, feudal lords and peasants, capitalists and proletarians), R. Dahrendorf considers social conflict as a universal property of social systems, a natural product of their structure and integration.

Suppressing the conflict, according to R. Dahrendorf, is the path to its aggravation. And the “rational regulation” of social conflict contributes to controlled evolution, i.e. controlled changes in society. Although the causes of conflicts have always existed and will always exist, a liberal society, according to Dahrendorf, can reconcile them at the level of competition between individuals, groups and classes. Given this, the “rational curbing” of social conflict, Dahrendorf believes, should be one of the main objectives of politics.

Conflict theories that go back to the concept of G. Simmel are called functional theories of conflict. This version of the conflict approach in sociology belongs to the concept of the famous American scientist Lewis Coser (1913–2003), who defined social conflict as an ideological phenomenon that expresses the aspirations and experiences of social groups and individuals in the struggle for power, limited resources, change in status, redistribution of income, revaluation values, etc. He emphasized that any society has obvious or potential social conflicts, which act as a defining element of social interaction and contribute to the destruction or strengthening of social ties. If in “closed” societies social conflicts divide society into hostile groups or hostile classes, undermine the foundations of collective consent, threaten the destruction of social ties and the social system itself through revolutionary violence, in “open”, “pluralistic” societies these conflicts have a “way out”, and social institutions protect social harmony.

The value of conflicts, their positive function, according to L. Coser, lies in the fact that they protect society from stagnation and provide the opportunity for social innovation.

Proponents of social conflict theories explain the causes of conflicts in different ways. Thus, the French scientist A. Touraine sees them in the psychological characteristics of individuals and various social communities. K. Boulding, L. Kreisberg, M. Crozier and others believe that social conflicts are caused by confrontation between groups pursuing incompatible goals. D. Bell believes that class struggle, as the most acute form of social conflict, is associated with the redistribution of income.

Unlike K. Marx, who emphasized the antagonistic nature of social conflicts, since he considered, as noted above, primarily conflicts between antagonistic classes, most conflictologists view conflicts as non-antagonistic contradictions that can be resolved.

• Cm.: Merton R. Social theory and social structure. M.: ACT, 2006.

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.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

FEDERAL STATE BUDGET EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION

HIGHER PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION

RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PUBLIC SERVICE UNDER THE PRESIDENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION NIZHNY NOVGOROD INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT

Faculty of State and Municipal Administration

Department of Theory of State and Law and Comparative Law

in the discipline "Philosophy"

on the topic: “Modern theories of social change”

Completed by: student gr. Gk-315

Semyanova A.N.

Scientific adviser:

Shcherbakov S.A., Art. teacher

Nizhny Novgorod 2015

Introduction

1.3 Evolutionary theories

1.4 Social Darwinism

Chapter 3. Historical materialism

3.1 Criticisms

Chapter 4. Factors influencing changes

4.1 Physical environment

4.2 Political organization

4.3 Cultural factors

4.4 Analysis of episodes of change

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

Throughout most of the 20th century. social processes, including in our country, are characterized by rapid and large-scale modifications, often occurring in the form of deep crises: economic, political, social and national identity and violent intergroup, interethnic, interstate conflicts. This nature of social processes requires an adequate development of sociological theory, and therefore, from the middle of the 20th century. there was a return of theoretical interest in the problems of changing society as a historical integrity. This interest, which at one time stimulated the creation of the theories of O. Comte, K. Marx, G. Spencer, ceased to be decisive in classical theoretical sociology at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. The return of interest in changing society was manifested in the creation of a number of theories: the sociocultural dynamics of P. Sorokin, the evolution of the social system of T. Parsons, post-industrial society (D. Bell and others), modernization (M. Levy and others), etc.

The most important problem of social theory is the same as that of all social sciences - the explanation of specific processes of social life. It is the results of empirical research that can shed light on philosophical contradictions. It is especially harmful, according to Giddens, to reduce social theory to specific questions or generalizations of a higher order and to present the matter in such a way that social theory must resolve all these questions. There are several traditional interpretations of the term “theory,” the unacceptability of which I would like to immediately clarify. In logical empiricism and positivist philosophy, the only acceptable form of theory is a system of deductively interrelated laws or generalizations. In its immediate meaning, such a system is used quite rarely in the natural sciences. Those who would like to apply such an understanding to the social sciences must admit that there is as yet no social theory at all. Its structure is a perspective of the distant future.

A weaker version of this position is that “social theory” must consist of generalizations if it aims to explain content. What passes for “social theory,” then, must consist rather of universal conceptual schemes or specific explanatory assumptions. In the last few years, there has been a peculiar change in the current waves in sociological theory. Throughout the 1960s -1980s. the concept of modernization has been a constantly criticized, but essentially the dominant paradigm for theorists of social transformation. In the 1980s an alternative to it was the postmodern paradigm of social transformation. Throughout the 1990s. the concepts of modernization and postmodernization were pushed into the background by the rapidly gaining popularity of the concept of globalization. Since the mid-1990s. Another alternative paradigm is spreading among part of the sociological community - the concept of virtualization.

It is important to distinguish between two types of generalizations. Firstly, generalizations known to direct participants in social situations and used by them in life. In this case, the analyst does not actually “discover” these generalizations, but only manifests them, gives them a discursive form. Generalizations of the second type, on the contrary, refer to circumstances about which the participants in the events know nothing, but which have a significant influence on them. It is common knowledge that so-called “structural sociologists” prefer generalizations of the second type.

Humanity has existed on Earth for about half a million years. Agriculture - a necessary basis for the existence of settled settlements - has only been around for about twelve thousand years. The history of civilizations goes back no more than six thousand years. If you mentally imagine the entire existence of humanity as one day, it turns out that agriculture was invented at 23 hours 56 minutes, civilizations appeared at 23 hours 57 minutes, and modern societies at 23 hours 59 minutes 30 seconds. However, in these thirty seconds, perhaps as many changes occurred as in the entire “day of humanity.”

The pace of change occurring in the modern era is well demonstrated by the pace of technological progress. As economic historian David Landis writes:

Modern technology not only produces more and faster, it creates objects that were simply not possible with the automated methods and craft workshops of the past. Even the best Indian spinner could not produce a thread as fine and even as the modern mule machine; in the eighteenth century, all the forges of Christendom, even with their combined efforts, could not produce sheet steel in such quantity and quality as one modern rolling mill. But most importantly, modern technology has created things that no man of the past could possibly have imagined or understood: the camera, the automobile, the airplane, the entire range of electronic devices from the radio to the high-speed computer, the nuclear power plant, and so on almost ad infinitum. The result was a tremendous increase in the volume and variety of goods and services, and this alone changed the way people lived more than anything else since the discovery of fire.

The way of life of our time and modern social institutions are radically different from even their closest analogues in the past. In just two or three centuries in history, this minute, humanity managed to put an end to the social order that had determined its life for thousands of years.

Over the past half-century, the pace of change has not slowed, but rather accelerated, and the future of our generation is less certain than that of any that came before. The living conditions of previous generations were not safe; people were always threatened by hunger, disease, and natural disasters. Today in industrialized countries we are almost completely protected from such problems, concerns about our future of a different kind. They are generated by those social forces that we ourselves have given free rein to.

Objectives: Explore contemporary theories of social change.

Objectives: introduction to the theory of evolution of social change; analysis of factors of social change.

Chapter 1. The concept of social change

social being public

1.1 Judgment of the philosopher Herolitus

In a sense, everything is constantly changing. Every day is a new day, every moment is a new moment in time. The Greek philosopher Heraclitus said that “you cannot step into the same river twice. The second time the river will be different, because the previous water has flowed away, and the person has subtly changed.” In a sense this is true, but each of us is usually inclined to believe that the river and the person will be the same in both cases. There remains a sufficient degree of inconsistency in the contours of the riverbed, as well as in the personal and physical characteristics of the person standing on its bank with wet feet, so that both the river and the person, despite the changes that have occurred, can be considered the same.

To determine the significance of change, it is necessary to establish how much the deep structure of a given object or situation has changed over a certain period of time. In human society, in order to decide to what extent and in what way a system is subject to the process of change, it is necessary to determine the degree of modification of the basic institutions over a certain period. Any accounting of change involves identifying what remains stable, since this is the basis against which changes are determined. In today's world there are phenomena that go back to the distant past. Major religious systems, such as Christianity and Islam, are still based on ideas and practices that originated two millennia ago. At the moment, most modern social institutions are changing much faster than the institutions of traditional society.

Let us consider various attempts to interpret the changes that influenced the course of world history as a whole; We then turn to the question of why the modern period is characterized by particularly profound and rapid social changes.

1.2 Theory of social change

Among the theoretical models that have been used to understand the general mechanisms of change throughout human history, two stand out in terms of their importance and significance. The first is social evolutionism, an approach that attempts to establish connections between biological and social changes. The second is historical materialism, a concept dating back to Marx, later developed and expanded by many other authors.

1.3 Evolutionary theories

All evolutionary concepts of social change start from one obvious fact. If we compare the different types of human societies encountered throughout history, it becomes clear that there is a general movement towards increasing complexity. The hunter-gatherer tribes that we find in the early stages of human development (though some of them still exist) had a simpler structure than the agricultural societies that arose in later historical periods. For example, hunter-gatherer tribes did not have the distinct ruling groups or political authority common in agricultural societies. Traditional states were even more complex and larger-scale: they already had a pronounced class division, as well as developed political, legal and cultural institutions. Finally, industrial societies emerged, surpassing in their complexity any previous type: the number of special institutions and organizations in these societies is unusually large. Analyzing the process of complication, researchers often resort to the concept of differentiation.

As societies become more complex, areas of social life that previously existed together begin to differentiate, that is, to separate from each other. The increasing differentiation and complexity of human society, evolutionists argue, can be compared with the processes of formation of biological species. Biological evolution is also directed from simple to more complex.

In the process of biological evolution, development from simple organisms to more complex ones is explained on the basis of the concept of environmental adaptation - how well animals are adapted to their material environment. More complex organisms have a greater ability to adapt and survive in their environment than simpler ones. Hence, evolutionists say, the parallel between biological development and the successive change of historical types of society is obvious. The more complex a society is, the more “survival” it has.

1.4 Social Darwinism

In early theories of social evolution, which emerged in the 19th century, evolutionism was often associated with progress, i.e. movement towards more morally perfect forms of society. One of the variants of this trend, which gained particular popularity at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, was social Darwinism. As its name suggests, Social Darwinism was influenced by Charles Darwin's work on biological evolution. This theory states that between human societies there is the same struggle for existence as between biological organisms. Modern Western societies have gained the upper hand in this struggle and thus represent the highest stage of social progress achieved by humanity. Some authors used the ideas of Social Darwinism to justify white supremacy over blacks, developing "scientific" evidence for racism; this theory was used to support the dominant position of the West. The “high point” of its popularity occurred during the “Scramble for Africa” between the European powers before the emergence of modern “field” anthropology, which for the first time demonstrated the diversity of human cultures and thereby debunked the “Eurocentric” worldview that underlay Social Darwinism. By the end of the 1920s, social Darwinism was completely discredited, and along with it, the popularity of social evolutionism in general fell.

1.5 Single-line and multi-line evolution

The theories of social evolution of the 19th century often tended to be unilinear, asserting the existence of a single line of development of human society, from simple to more complex. It was assumed that all societies, ascending the path of evolution, should go through the same stages of development. In the last few decades, there has been a kind of revival of evolutionary theories in sociology, but the emphasis is no longer on unilinearity, but on multilinearity. Multilinear theories suggest that there may be different paths of development leading from one type of society to another. According to these views, different types of societies can be classified according to their level of complexity and differentiation, but there is no single path followed by all societies.

Proponents of multilinear evolution theories also believe that increased adaptation to the environment is a major mechanism of change. They believe that each subsequent type of society is more effectively adapted to its environment than the previous, simpler one. For example, agrarian societies are more efficient at providing a constant supply of food than hunter-gatherer tribes. But, nevertheless, modern evolutionists avoid interpreting the improvement of the ability to adapt as “progress”.

Chapter 2. Tolkog Parsons' Theory of Evolution

One of the most influential theories of our time is the theory developed by Talcott Parsons. He proposes that social evolution be considered an extension of biological evolution, although the actual mechanisms of both are different. Both types of evolution can be understood in terms of so-called evolutionary universals, that is, those types of development that are found in at least a few cases under conditions independent of each other and significantly increase viability. An example of an evolutionary universal in the natural world is vision. It did not just appear in some random, isolated corner of wildlife, but developed independently in several species. The ability to see allows an immeasurable increase, compared to blind species, in the range of reactions coordinated with environmental changes, and therefore has enormous adaptive value. At higher stages of biological evolution, vision becomes a necessary characteristic of all animals.

In human culture, Parsons notes, communication is fundamental; its basis is language. Thus, language is the first and most important evolutionary universal; We know of no human societies that do not have language. Three other universals that are found even in the earliest forms of social life are religion, kinship, and technology. These four universals are associated with aspects so important for human society that without them no process of social evolution is possible.

According to Parsons's view, social evolution can be understood as a process of progressive differentiation of social institutions as societies develop from simple to complex. Early types of society exhibit a very low level of differentiation and are characterized by what Parsons calls "constructive symbolism." In this case, we are talking about the existence of a set of symbols, mainly of a religious nature, that permeate almost all aspects of social life. As an example of a culture at a lower stage of social evolution, Parsons (like Durkheim) considers the tribes of the Australian aborigines. These societies are structured solely on the basis of kinship relationships, which, in turn, express religious views and are also associated with economic activities. The personal property of individuals in these societies is very small; the institution of tribal leaders does not exist in any discernible form; There is also no production, as livelihoods come from hunting and gathering.

The next stage of evolution is the level of “developed primitive society.” In this type, egalitarian relations are replaced by a system of stratification, and along with class division there is often an ethnic one. In developed primitive societies, a special production system based on cattle breeding or agriculture arises, as well as permanent settlements. Religion begins to be separated from other aspects of social life and falls under the jurisdiction of a specific social group of priests or priests.

Moving further along this scale we find what Parsons calls "intermediate societies." With this term he refers to societies that most other authors call civilizations or traditional states, such as ancient Egypt, Rome and China. Such societies are associated with the emergence of writing and literacy. Religion becomes even more complex, leading to the development of systematic theology, and appears completely separate from political, economic and family relations. Political leadership takes the form of state administrations, headed by the aristocracy. At this stage, a number of new evolutionary universals emerge: special forms of political legitimacy, bureaucratic organizations, monetary exchange and a special system of laws. The emergence of each of them, Parsons argues, greatly increases the ability of society to integrate large masses of people into its composition.

Industrial societies occupy the highest level in Parsons' evolutionary scheme. They are much more differentiated than intermediate societies. The political and economic systems are clearly separated from each other, as well as from the legal system and religion. The emergence of mass democracy creates the possibility of involving the entire population in participation in the political process. Industrial societies have much greater territorial integrity than previous types, and are separated from each other by clear boundaries. The exceptional vitality generated by the institutions of industrial societies is well confirmed by the fact of the worldwide spread of the industrial order, which led to the almost complete disappearance of early types of social order.

Chapter 3. Historical materialism

The Marxist interpretation of social change is somewhat similar to evolutionary theories: in both cases it is assumed that the basis of change is interaction with the material environment. According to Marx, every society is based on an economic base, or infrastructure, changes in which entail corresponding changes in the superstructure of political, legislative and cultural institutions. Marx does not use the concept of “adaptation”, which, apparently, could seem too mechanistic to him. According to his point of view, a person is characterized by an active attitude towards the world, a desire to manage it and subordinate it to his own goals; people do not simply “adapt” and “fit” into their environment.

The key to understanding social change is the ways in which people create increasingly complex and advanced production systems, increasing their influence on the material world, subordinating it to their goals. Marx describes this process as the growth of the productive forces, or, in other words, the level of economic achievement of society. According to his point of view, social changes can occur not only as processes of gradual development, but also as revolutionary upheavals. Periods of gradual restructuring of the productive forces and other institutions are replaced by phases of sharp revolutionary transformations. We are talking about the so-called dialectical interpretation of changes. The most significant changes are manifested precisely in collisions, struggles and cataclysms.

Changes occurring in the productive forces cause tension in the institutions of the superstructure, and the stronger these tensions, the more urgent the need for a complete and comprehensive transformation of society. The class struggle becomes increasingly acute and ultimately leads either to the collapse of existing institutions or to the transition to a new social order through political revolution.

As an illustration of Marx's theory, we present an analysis of the history of Europe during the period of replacement of feudalism with industrial capitalism. The feudal economic system was based on small-scale agricultural production, and the main social classes were the aristocracy and the serfs. As trade and technology developed, shifts began in infrastructure. This led to the emergence of a new system of economic relations associated mainly with capitalist industrial enterprises in cities. A number of contradictions arose between the old agricultural economic structure and the emerging capitalist industrial system. The more acute these contradictions became, the more tension other institutions experienced. The conflict between the aristocracy and the new capitalist class eventually led to a revolution, which meant the establishment of a new type of society. In other words, capitalism replaced feudalism.

3.1 Criticisms

Marx's ideas certainly help explain many major historical shifts. Numerous historians and sociologists who do not consider themselves "Marxists" accept much of Marx's interpretation of the collapse of feudalism and the origins of modern capitalism. However, Marx's theory as a general approach to the analysis of social change has significant limitations. It is not clear how well other historical transformations fit into such a scheme. For example, some archaeologists tried to explain the development of early civilizations based on Marx’s theory). They argued that civilizations emerged when the development of the productive forces was sufficient to allow a class society to emerge. At best, this view is very simplistic, since traditional states arose mainly as a result of military expansion. Political and military force were for the most part a means, rather than a result, of acquiring wealth. In addition, Marx's theory turned out to be completely untenable in explaining the emergence of the largest eastern civilizations of India, China and Japan.

Max Weber criticized both evolutionary theories and Marx's historical materialism. Attempts to interpret the entire historical process in terms of adaptation to the material world or in terms of economic factors, he argues, are doomed from the outset to failure. While these factors are certainly important, they can by no means determine all developmental processes. No “single-factor” theory of social change can claim to explain the entire diversity of social development of mankind. In addition to the economy, other factors are no less, and often more, important, including military force, methods of government, and ideology.

If Weber's view is correct (and many agree), then no single theory can explain the nature of all social change. When analyzing such changes, at best, two goals can be achieved. First, we can identify some factors that have a consistent and broad influence on social change across many contexts. Second, we can develop theories that explain specific phases or “episodes” of change, such as the emergence of traditional states. Evolutionists and Marxists were not wrong in emphasizing the importance of environmental and economic factors in social change, it was just that both emphasized them to the exclusion of other possible influences.

Chapter 4. Factors influencing change

The main types of factors that can influence social change can be grouped into three groups: physical environment, political organization and cultural factors.

4.1 Physical environment

As evolutionists have rightly emphasized, the physical environment often has a significant impact on the development of social organization in human society. This is especially noticeable in extreme conditions, when the existence of people is determined by climatic conditions. The customs and way of life of the inhabitants of the polar regions certainly differ from the customs and way of life of the inhabitants of the subtropics.

Less extreme physical conditions also often affect society. For example, the indigenous population of Australia throughout its history was engaged only in hunting and gathering, because there were no plants suitable for regular cultivation or animals that could be domesticated on the continent. As for traditional civilizations, most of them arose in very fertile areas, such as river deltas. Other factors are also important, such as the possibility of unhindered communication by land or the availability of sea routes. Societies cut off from the world by mountain ranges, deserts or impenetrable jungles remained relatively unchanged for a very long time.

The direct influence of the natural environment on social change is not as great as it may seem. There have been cases where people with the most primitive technology created productive economies in rather inhospitable conditions. Conversely, hunters and gatherers often inhabited very fertile regions but did not engage in any form of pastoralism or agriculture. This means that it is hardly possible to talk about the existence of a direct and permanent connection between the natural environment and the type of production system of a given society. Therefore, evolutionists’ emphasis on the decisive role of adaptation to the environment turns out to be less fruitful than Marx’s thesis about the influence of production relations on the processes of social development. The type of production system obviously has a strong influence on the nature and level of changes occurring in society, but it does not have the absolute significance that Marx attributed to it.

4.2 Political organization

Another factor that significantly influences social change is the nature of political organization. In hunter-gatherer tribes, the influence of this factor was minimal, since political power as a special force mobilizing the community did not exist there. In other types of social order, the presence of various political bodies of leaders, kings, governments, etc. had a noticeable impact on the direction of social development.

Political systems are not, as Marx argued, an expression of the economic organization of society, since completely different types of political order can exist in societies that have the same production systems. For example, the modes of production that existed in small-scale pre-state pastoral societies were not very different from those that existed in large traditional states, and a successful ruler could increase the wealth of the tribes under his control through territorial expansion. Conversely, a monarch who failed in a similar attempt could lead society to economic collapse and disaster.

The most important factor in political influence on social change is military force. In fact, it played a fundamental role in the emergence of most traditional states and continued to greatly influence their subsequent survival and expansion. However, the connections between the production level of a society and its military strength are again not direct. For example, a ruler can spend all his resources on creating a powerful army, even if this leads to the impoverishment of the rest of the population

4.3 Cultural factors

These include religion, styles of thinking and consciousness. As we have already seen, religion can be both a conservative and a progressive force in social life. Many forms of religious belief and practice acted as barriers to change because they emphasized the need to adhere to traditional values ​​and rituals. However, as Weber notes, religious beliefs often helped mobilize society for change.

Among the cultural factors influencing the nature and pace of change, the nature of the communication system is of particular importance. The invention of writing influenced social processes in several ways. It made it possible to keep records, establish stricter records of material resources, and create social organizations on a large scale. In addition, writing changed the perception of the past, present and future. Societies with writing record past events and recognize that they have a “history.” An awareness of history can serve as an impetus for a sense of the general “line of development” that a given society follows and which various social groups can strive to preserve and continue.

When talking about cultural factors, it is necessary to take into account the influence of leadership. In certain periods of history, the role of a leader, an individual genius, can be truly unique. To be convinced of this, it is enough to remember Jesus, the greatest religious figure of all times, Julius Caesar, a brilliant politician and commander, Newton, the creator of a new science and philosophy. A leader who is able to pursue original and dynamic policies, to win over the masses, or to change traditional ways of thinking is able to bring about a genuine revolution in the existing order of things.

However, an individual can achieve leadership and succeed in his endeavors only when social conditions are favorable for this. Hitler, for example, was able to seize power in part because Germany in the early 1930s was going through a time of crisis and controversy. If circumstances had been different, he would undoubtedly have remained an insignificant, unknown figure in one of the petty political sects.

4.4 Analysis of episodes of change

The influence of the various factors we have just mentioned varies depending on time and place. We cannot single out any one of them as determining the social development of all mankind, but theories can be built regarding special cases or individual episodes of change. As an illustration, let us use Robert Carneiro's interpretation of the origins of the first traditional states, or civilizations. Carneiro agrees with the statement that wars played a major role in the formation of traditional states; he notes that among societies at a certain level of social development, war becomes commonplace and cannot in itself explain the emergence of states.

According to Carneiro's point of view, war can lead to the formation of a state if a people or tribe owns a limited physical space, as was the case in ancient Egypt (the Nile Delta), in the Mexican Valley or in the mountainous coastal valleys of Peru . Under such conditions, war places enormous strain on scarce resources. Migration from the area is difficult due to its physical isolation. As a result, the traditional way of life cannot withstand the strain, and this encourages certain groups to seize power over their fellow tribesmen and establish centralized control over production. Thus, the entire territory is united under a single government, which concentrates all administrative means in its hands and forms the basis of the future state.

This theory is interesting and important because it helps explain a significant number of cases of the emergence of states. However, not all of the early states arose in closed territories like those described by Carneiro, and later forms of traditional states were also often formed in completely different conditions.

Once established, states stimulate a kind of chain reaction, with other nations building their own political systems based on their example.

The fact that Carneiro's theory helps explain only a limited number of examples of the emergence of traditional states is not a reason to abandon it.

It is universal enough to be meaningful and useful. Moreover, one theory should not be expected to, with some refinement, be able to explain a wider range of phases of social transformation than the one it describes.

Conclusion

The main problem of social theory is the same as that of all social sciences - the explanation of specific processes of social life. The pace of change occurring in the modern era is well demonstrated by the pace of technological progress.

The modern way of life and modern social institutions are radically different from even their closest analogues in the past. In just two or three centuries in history, this minute, humanity managed to put an end to the social order that had determined its life for thousands of years. All evolutionary concepts of social change start from one obvious fact. If we compare the different types of human societies encountered throughout history, it becomes clear that there is a general movement towards increasing complexity. Theories of social evolution of the 19th century often tended towards unilinearity, arguing for the existence of a single line of development of human society, from simple to more complex.

According to Parsons's view, social evolution can be understood as a process of progressive differentiation of social institutions as societies develop from simple to complex.

Changes occurring in the productive forces cause tension in the institutions of the superstructure, and the stronger these tensions, the more urgent the need for a complete and comprehensive transformation of society. The class struggle becomes increasingly intense and leads either to the collapse of existing institutions or to the transition to a new social order through political revolution.

The emphasis by evolutionists on the decisive role of adaptation to the environment turns out to be less fruitful than Marx’s thesis about the influence of production relations on the processes of social development.

Bibliography

1. Sorokin P. Sociological theories of modernity. M., 2010.

2. Sociology and modern Russia / Ed. A.B. Goffman. M.: State University Higher School of Economics, 2010. 188 p.

3. Strauss A., Corbin J. Fundamentals of qualitative research / Transl. from English T.S. Vasilyeva. M.: URSS, 2011. 256 p.

4. Thesaurus of sociology: thematic words.-reference book/Ed. Zh.T. Toshchenko. M.: UNITY-DANA, 2013. 487 p.

5. Toynbee A. Comprehension of history. M., 2011.

6.Leave to stay: Sociologist in the field: Collection of articles/Ed. V. Voronkova and E. Chikadze. St. Petersburg: Aletheya, 2012. 148 p.

Posted on Allbest.ru

...

Similar documents

abstract, added 10/16/2010


An analysis of the social sciences that study cognition. The influence of social changes occurring in society on the essence of philosophical teachings, attempts to predict them. Criticism of the sociology of knowledge as a “passive theory of knowledge.” Features of natural science methods.

abstract, added 03/23/2010


Real philosophical humanism highlights an ideal that determines the meaning of human life in its individual, personal and universal, social parameters. Meaning, nonsense and values ​​of life in philosophy. Ways of understanding human existence.

abstract, added 04/30/2008


An analysis of the essence of the approach of Russian religious philosophers to social life, which reveals an internal spiritual meaning behind various phenomena and events of social life, which makes it possible to further in-depth analysis of social phenomena.

abstract, added 09/14/2010


Characteristic features of the essence of human existence, the study of which has taken shape in a special philosophical discipline - ontology (the study of existence, its types, attributes and principles). Features of the forms of human existence. A person's lifestyle and life choices.

abstract, added 05/17/2010


Life is one of the forms of being and one of the highest forms of movement. Knowledge of life. Views on the origin of life and its development. Natural scientific ideas about life and its evolution. The theory of spontaneous generation. Panspermia theory.

abstract, added 12/07/2006


Philosophy about the meaning of human life, the problem of life in the history of science, modern ideas about the origin of life. Approaches of humanism and pragmatism, atheistic, existentialist, nihilistic and positivist views on the problems of life and death.

test, added 11/15/2010


The problem of suicide in philosophy and medicine. Factors influencing the phenomenon of suicide. Religious factor. Social factors. Attitudes of some social groups towards suicide. Middle-aged generation. The youth.

abstract, added 05/12/2002


The meaning of the concept "society". Patterns, driving forces of social changes. General characteristics of social reality and social man in his social qualities. Specifics of philosophical analysis of society and its structure as a system.

thesis, added 04/21/2009


Conceptual foundations of globalization. Expansion and deepening of social connections and institutions in space and time. Globalization as a trend of modern world development. Ways and possibilities for solving global problems and preserving life on the planet.

Tabachnikova M.B.

THEORETICAL CONCEPTS OF EVOLUTIONARY

CHANGES IN SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS

Change characterizes the form of existence of objects and phenomena, any movement and interaction, transition from one state to another, including spatial movements of bodies and internal transformations of forms. It is important that change covers all development processes, including the emergence of new phenomena. The philosophical concept of “change” covers both quantitative and qualitative transformations of the bodies themselves and the laws of motion of matter.

Change as a philosophical category is on a par with such basic concepts as development, growth, evolution. But, in our opinion, these basic concepts are most fully revealed in systemic methodology, from the standpoint of a systemic vision of objects of change, development, growth and evolution. Therefore, we believe it is important to clarify the concept of “system” and build subsequent definitions around this category. With all the diversity of the concept of “system” and the simultaneous coexistence of more than 40 definitions, we propose to distinguish 3 basic blocks of characteristics of the term:

Structural;

Spatial;

Temporary or dynamic.

The structural characteristics of the system are revealed by R. Ackoff, A. Malinovsky, S. Nikanorov, A. Teslinov and determine the essence of the system through its structure. It is emphasized here that a system is not just a set or a collection of elements, objects, phenomena or processes, but also an orderly relationship between them. Structure is understood as a relatively stable fixation of connections between elements of the system. And if the structure reflects the mechanism of operation of the system (according to Ackoff, how the system works), then the study of the function and properties of the system provides an understanding of system principles and explains why the system works. But the essential properties and functions of a system are determined by the connections and interactions of its elements (i.e., its structure), and therefore the system is a whole that cannot be deduced linearly from the properties and functions of its elements.

From our point of view, in the structural aspect, an economic system can be defined as a set of economic objects and subjects, interconnected and interacting with each other in the spheres of production, distribution, exchange and consumption, forming a single whole. We emphasize that we put a sign of identity between the economic and socio-economic systems, because We are guided in our research by the principle of anthropocentrism, according to which a person, his goals, needs and attitudes are key in the structure of the economic system.

The spatial characteristics of the system are defined in the works of S. Beer, J. Clear, B. Clemson, W. Ashby, G. Kleiner and emphasize the role of the environment and the observer, researcher in determining the system. It is the researcher who identifies a relatively stable part of the surrounding world (identification space) with the help of identifying features that make it possible to define, highlight a system in space, determine its external and internal connections, external and internal environment, its openness and closedness. Revealing the essence of the system paradigm, J. Kornai emphasizes that each economic system serves as an arena for the interaction of politics, economics, culture, psychology, etc. Thus, the definition of identification spaces and identification features of the economic system, in our opinion, completely depends on observation, on the goals and objectives of the study.

The dynamic characteristics of systems: functioning, behavior, feedback, are revealed in the works of L. Bertalanffy, N. Wiener, A. Bogdanov, S. Beer, D. Forrester, R. Ackoff, etc. The functioning of a system is the implementation of its function, according to Ackoff “ system mission." The behavior of a system is understood as its movement and functioning in time. If the system moves towards a specific goal, then goal-directed behavior occurs. Feedback is the impact of the results of the functioning of the system on the nature of this interaction over time. Positive feedback strengthens the results of functioning, while negative feedback weakens it. A. Bogdanov emphasized that for the development of any system, the presence of negative and positive feedback is necessary. From a dynamic perspective, an economic system is a system of multi-purpose functioning.

We emphasize that change, growth, development and evolution are dynamic characteristics inherent in systems. Based on previous definitions, change will be understood as processes of transformation of the structure, behavior and functioning of the system. Note that changes in the external environment (identification space) have a probabilistic impact on changes in the internal environment, i.e. are not sufficient. This is what the concept of homeostasis is based on - maintaining state, supporting functioning, maintaining the identity of the system in a changing environment

In our opinion, structural changes are basic in any system, i.e. changes in composition, internal and external connections, relationships between system elements, which necessarily lead to changes in behavior and functioning.

Development is any qualitative change in the system, i.e. a qualitative change in the composition of elements, connections between them, a qualitative change in the behavior and functioning of the system. We emphasize that the modern interpretation of development includes both an increase and a loss of quality, as a necessary condition for maintaining the identity and integrity of the system. In this context, development is opposed to degradation, the complete destruction of the system.

In systems analysis, system growth is understood as quantitative changes in the composition and interconnections of the system, which diverges from the traditional definition of growth in economic theory, where growth is an economic category that is filled with ambiguous content in different conditions of its manifestation. In economic theory, growth is a component of economic development, the period preceding a recession, an alternative to crisis. In our opinion, most concepts of economic growth (W. Rostow, R. Solow, S. Freeman, S. Kuznets) describe the impact of an increase or decrease in quantitative parameters (capital, products, technology, income, labor, etc.) or their combinations to form a new quality. Therefore, economic growth, as well as development, is associated with a qualitative change in the parameters of the system. We propose to consider economic growth as a factor of economic development that has a significant, but not sufficient impact for a qualitative change in the economic system.

Considering the dynamics of economic changes, in this work we rely on a broad definition of evolution as changes in the structure of a system over time. In our opinion, this definition is most consistent with modern evolutionary concepts, which do not consider evolution as a gradual, continuous, cumulative process. The nature of evolution can be either long-term and gradual, or spasmodic and fleeting. In a broad sense, evolution is not opposed to revolution, involution and emanation (movement from higher forms to lower ones), but includes these processes over time, at different levels of research. In the modern perspective, evolution is opposed only to reversibility, and evolutionary changes in a system are irreversible and multilinear (nonlinear).

Thus, from the perspective of studying socio-economic systems, we propose to understand the evolutionary method (approach):

Firstly, as a study of the essence, sources, factors, driving forces of economic changes;

Secondly, as an analysis of the dynamics of the structure and behavior of socio-economic systems;

Thirdly, as an understanding of the multi-level, non-repetitive, non-linear and irreversible processes of economic change.

Considering the complexity of the concept and the variety of manifestations of evolutionary changes, we believe it would be advisable to review existing theoretical concepts on this issue in various branches of scientific knowledge.

Evolutionary theory as a scientific doctrine originates in biology from the works of Charles Darwin and A. Wallace. The discovery of the fundamental principle: variability (variation), heredity, natural selection gave impetus to a radical revision of ideas about the driving forces of the development of living nature. We emphasize that the significance of the theory of natural reproduction has gone far beyond biology - it has become the main argument in the confrontation between theosophical and natural scientific worldviews. The concepts of de Vries and Mendel about random changes in heredity (mutations) revealed another significant aspect of the evolutionary process - the replacement of species due to the influence of environmental factors.

Let us note that the achievements of modern biological theories of development are used in economic concepts. Thus, the basic concepts of biological genetics are used by Yu. Yakovets and V. Mayevsky in defining the subject of economic genetics and the core of self-development of the economy; the industry-chromosome, company-gene analogies are used. In addition, such discoveries as the mutation period in a population, the genetic openness of a species, in our opinion, can also be productively used to analyze the mechanisms of development of economic systems.

Darwin's evolutionary ideas are widely used and developed in various areas of social philosophy. Evolutionary theories in sociology are characterized by the search for universal principles and mechanisms of long-term, long-term development of society. Social dynamics and the development of society include economic, political, ideological, cultural components, their mutual influences and interactions. In this context, we consider it appropriate to analyze some theoretical approaches to the study of the process of social evolution.

The evolutionary direction of social change was examined in detail in sociology by supporters of structural functionalism (G. Spencer, E. Durkheim, M. Weber, B. Malinovsky, T. Parsons). According to Spencer, social evolution is a movement from homogeneous to heterogeneous, the unity of differentiation and integration, the achievement of social equilibrium during the adaptation of the system to external and internal changes. Already in the works of G. Spencer, evolution is not identified with progress, but includes various forms of manifestation that are subject to evaluation.

Deepening and critically evaluating the ideas of G. Spencer, T. Parsons considers evolution not only in the social, but also in the personal dimension, adding the assimilation of a specialized system of values ​​to the process of social change. T. Parsons identifies four key mechanisms of social evolution: differentiation or complication of the structure of society, adaptation or a new way of relating to the environment, inclusion or an increase in the volume of membership in society and generalization, expansion of the value system.

In our opinion, the approach to social evolution as the interaction of cultural and social systems, where the cultural system, through values, sets the structure of individuals’ motivation, and the social system - the conditions for the implementation of motives, is of great practical importance for economic theory and the development of the principles of methodological individualism.

Analyzing the concepts of social change, one cannot help but note the emergence of a new postmodern paradigm, “non-rigid sociology” (A. Touraine, E. Giddens, P. Sztompka, M. Archer, etc.). The essence of the new understanding of social changes is that they are considered not “as a natural-historical, but as a socio-historical process in which the “social agent” plays an active transformative role”, i.e. the influence on the result of scientific knowledge of the active position of the researcher himself and his moral attitudes is recognized.

Modern applied sociology (J. Elster, R. Boudon, R. Hedström, A. Stinchcombe) places the main emphasis in research on identifying fundamental social mechanisms that simultaneously perform two functions: generating and explaining the course of social evolution.

From our point of view, two-level descriptions of mechanisms, where cause-effect models are used at the macro level (system level), and cognitive models of interaction between individuals and macro and micro levels at the micro level (level of elements) can be productively used in modeling and researching the dynamics of socio-economic systems .

The study of evolutionary changes in complex systems relates to the central problems of the theory of self-organization or synergetics (G. Haken, I. Prigozhin, N. Moiseev, S. Kurdyumov, B. Malinetsky). According to G. Haken's definition, synergetics is “a heuristic method for studying open self-organizing systems subject to a cooperative effect, which is accompanied by the formation of spatial, temporal or functional structures; or, briefly, processes of self-organization of systems of various natures.” Synergetics reveals evolution based on the apparatus of thermodynamics, through the formation of an intrasystem transformation potential (growth of negative entropy), which arises during the interaction of its elements. Based on the provisions of synergetics, the theory of change and the theory of catastrophes, using similar conceptual and mathematical apparatus, N. Moiseev puts forward the possibility of creating a theory of universal development or “universal evolutionism”.

Analyzing the works of I. Prigozhin, S. Kurdyumov, N. Moiseev, one can identify a number of “growth points”, possibilities for applying the synergetic paradigm as a methodology for studying evolutionary changes in socio-economic systems, as open, non-equilibrium structures. In our opinion, these “growth points” include:

Studying the factors determining evolutionary processes from the future, recognizing the ambiguity of the future, studying the attractors of socio-economic systems, as spectra of their most probable states, the goals of their self-development;

Research into the possibilities of reducing the parameters for describing complex socio-economic systems by searching for order parameters, using nonlinear models for describing the dynamics of economic systems;

Awareness of the constructive role of dispersion, diversity of elements, creation of multi-level market conditions for the evolution of socio-economic systems;

Research into the possibilities of management, saving time, accelerating evolution, through “matrix principles of development”, studying the laws of self-organization of socio-economic systems.

In general, we believe that the synthesis of biological, synergetic and social, economic evolutionary concepts can become the core of the development of a general integrative theory of evolutionary changes.

The issues of studying the dynamics, movement, heterogeneity and uncertainty of the development of economic processes, despite their relevance, have a relatively short history of economic and theoretical research.

It should be noted that although there are versions about the influence of the theory of T. Malthus and A. Smith on the evolutionary teachings of Charles Darwin, classical and neoclassical economic approaches (L. Walras, A. Cournot, W. Jevons, A. Marshall, J. Hicks) consider economic processes for the most part in statics, from the point of view of balance, stability, order, homogeneity, “frozen diversity”.

The Keynesian school (J. Keynes, W. Beveridge, R. Harrod, J. Robinson), also representing the equilibrium paradigm of economic theory, is focused on analyzing the problems of sustainability, stability in a full-employment economy and does not explore the dynamic changes occurring in the economic system. In the neoclassical and Keynesian interpretation, changes are studied from the position of restoration or loss of equilibrium, as limiting values. Rationality of the subject?

For the first time, the factors and laws of development of the economic system were studied by K. Marx in Capital. Despite the high philosophical and economic value of the doctrine in matters of the role of crises and contradictions in development, the evolution of the form of value, etc., many postulates of the concept turned out to be erroneous due to a large number of assumptions, utopian assumptions, underestimation of internal potential and the variety of ways of development of economic systems.

K. Marx's teaching on the change of economic formations was one of the first in the whole spectrum of concepts of long-term, wave development of socio-economic systems, studying the patterns of cyclical movement (rise-crisis-recession) and its crisis factors. Such concepts include the works of N. Kondratiev (long waves of the market), I. Schumpeter (business cycles, multicyclical theory), W. Rostow (levels of technical development), S. Glazyev (technological structures), S. Kuznets (construction cycles) . Despite the different perspectives and time frames of research in these concepts, the following common features characterizing economic development can be identified:

• The cyclical nature of economic development processes is determined by profound changes in technology, discoveries, innovations, priority of the technological factor.
• The wave nature of development is due to the tendency towards synchronization of macroeconomic fluctuations and technological changes, unidirectionality, multifactorial nature, and irreversibility of economic processes.
• During the same period of time, several cycles operate in the economy in different phases of development, several technological structures.
• Economic development follows the path of constant increase in the variety of forms of production, types of property, distribution of labor, and cooperation.

From our point of view, a significant drawback of cyclical theories is the difficulty of constructing reliable long-term time series of any macroeconomic indicators, and, consequently, the complexity of measurement and reliable forecasting.

It should be emphasized that it was in the works of N. Kondratiev and I. Schumpeter that the foundations of the modern theory of evolutionary economics were laid. The influence and wave nature of the interaction of factors of technological change, structure and organization of production, price dynamics, wages, etc., discovered by N. Kondratiev; mechanisms for the destruction of ineffective forms of management, heterogeneity of economic entities, endogenous mechanisms of economic cycles, analyzed in the works of I. Schumpeter, are recognized as fundamental and innovative, and are researched and developed by modern scientific schools.

One of the first to use the concept of “socio-economic evolution” in his works was the founder of the institutional direction of economic theory, T. Veblen, who substantiated the principle of “cumulative causality”, according to which economic development is characterized by the causal interaction of various economic phenomena that reinforce each other. If T. Veblen's concept is more connected with the behavioral aspects of economic entities, then his followers W. Mitchell and J. Clark studied business cycles in the economy, linking them with the desire for profit, the development of the monetary system, and the need for government regulation of the economy.

Note that if the concepts of N. Kodratiev, I. Schumpeter, S. Glazyev practically do not explore socio-institutional factors, focusing on technological sources of economic changes, then modern institutional theory (R. Coase, H. Demsetz, O. Williamson, D. North et al.) examines economic changes at the level of institutions and institutional agreements. Understanding the institution as “rules and mechanisms that ensure their implementation,” the concept transposes the evolutionary principle (variability-heredity-selection) to the development of institutions.

According to the works of D. North, institutional changes (changes in rules) arise due to endogenous factors and exogenous factors, spontaneously based on the spontaneous interaction of individual economic entities - then the informal rules of the game change - and purposefully, for example, under the influence of the state changing certain formal rules of the game. The mechanism of heredity manifests itself in the dependence of the emergence of institutional innovations on the trajectory of previous development, the experience of the tradition of social groups and society as a whole. And selection is carried out thanks to meta-competition, the identification of more effective institutions that contribute to the creation of greater value.

A feature of the current stage of development of evolutionary economic theory (R. Nelson, S. Winter, J. Matthews, S. Metcalfe, J. Hodgson, V. Mayevsky, V. Makarov, M. Kazhdan, S. Kirdina, etc.) is the study of large socio-economic systems from the perspective of:

Dynamics, not equilibrium;

Studies of the trajectory of previous development, rather than the search for linear cause-and-effect relationships,

Assumptions of plurality of preferences, limited set of choices, and not the uniqueness of the criterion of “profit maximization” and the choice of the “best solution”;

Application of a mathematical apparatus that uses Markov processes, and not just the optimization apparatus of integration and differentiation.

All of the above positions lay the basis for evolutionary research, but at the center of these studies are either macro-level systems: national economies, industries, markets. Or organizations as “large systems”, i.e. in their industry and market aspects. Such restrictions, in our opinion, significantly impoverish the theory and reduce its applied nature. From our point of view, evolutionary changes at the micro level, as a structure-forming element of the economy, a key social and institutional formation, should be considered, if not more significant, then equivalent in studies of the dynamics of socio-economic relations.

Philosophical Dictionary./ Ed. I.T. Frolova-M.: Publishing House of Political Literature, 1981.

Kleiner. G. System paradigm and theory of enterprise..- Questions of Economics, 2002, No. 10.-pp.47-69.

Kornai Ya. System paradigm. - Issues of Economics, 2002, No. 4

See, for example, Korsuntsev I.G. Philosophy of development (experience of global epistemology). M.: Aspect Press, 1995, p. 15; Gumerov Sh.A. Development and organization // System concepts of development., 1985. Issue 4., pp. 70-75.

Glazyev S. Apocalypse for Russia.// http://www.zavtra.ru/cgi/veil/data/zavtra/00/361/21.html

See, for example, Sztompka P. Sociology of social changes. M.: Aspect Press, 1996..; Kostyuk V.N. Theory of evolution and socio-economic processes.-M: Editorial URSS, 2001.

Darwin Ch. On the origin of species through natural selection or the preservation of favored breeds in the struggle for life http://charles-darwin.narod.ru/origin-content.html

Veblen T. The Theory of the Leisure Class. M.: Politizdat, 1984.-202 p.

Clark J A Technical Factor in Economic Cycles Mitchell U Business Cycles. The Problem and its Setting

North D. Institutions and economic growth: a historical introduction//THESIS. T.1 Issue 2.1993-.p.73.

North D. Institutions, institutional changes and the functioning of the economy. M.:Nachala, 1997. -pp.100-122, Demsetz H. Toward a Theory of Property Rights // American Economic Review .1967. No. 57. p.347-359