In the previous paragraph, we examined social changes based on their content component. But social changes are so diverse that many criteria can be chosen to typologize them.
One of the most important criteria for typologizing social changes is the speed of their occurrence and the degree to which they cover the elements and structures of society. Based on these criteria, two main forms of social change are distinguished: evolution And revolution.
Evolution(from lat. echoSh"yu - deployment) - in a broad sense, a synonym for development, in a narrow sense - a gradual quantitative change (increase, decrease). Evolution, in fact, is one of the characteristic features of society as a system and an indispensable condition for its existence. Evolution means latent social changes imperceptible at first glance. A society with this form of social change is characterized as stable. Stable society - This is a developing and at the same time maintaining its stability society, in which the process and mechanism of changes have been established that maintain its stability, excluding such a struggle of social forces that leads to the weakening of the very foundations of society. Stability in society is achieved not through immutability and immobility, but through social changes that occur at the right time and in the right place.
That is, evolution can manifest itself through social stability, which is such stability of social structures, processes and relationships that, despite all changes, preserves their qualitative certainty and integrity as such.
Social stability also has three levels: 1) stability of the entire society; 2) internal stability of social institutions and organizations; 3) stability of relationships and interactions.
To the concept social evolution concept comes close social reform.
Social reform(from lat. reformo- transform) - transformation of any aspect of social life that does not affect the foundations of the social system. In other words, social reform is one of the manifestations of evolutionary social changes. However, unlike evolution, the reform is carried out legislatively, has a targeted nature and a limited time frame.
Social reforms form the basis of the process modernization. Concept social modernization used in three meanings:
- 1) as the internal development of the countries of Western Europe and North America, which determined their transition from a traditional society to an industrial one (modern society);
- 2) the process of development of states that do not belong to the group of developed countries, but are guided by them as a model for their development, striving to reach their level (catch-up modernization);
- 3) as a kind of permanent process carried out through reforms and innovations and with the goal of constant improvement of all aspects of society.
The need for modernization in modern societies is dictated, firstly, by the rapid growth of innovative technologies, which bring changes to all spheres of social life and require its regulation; secondly, the globalization processes that characterize modern reality determine the need within specific states to carry out profound transformations to avoid a civilizational lag.
Modernization is mainly non-violent.
However, a situation often arises in society when difficult-to-solve social problems arise, which lead to a disruption of the established interactions and relationships existing in it, i.e. social instability arises. Under social instability refers to such changes in the structure, functions or processes of social systems that deform these systems and threaten their integrity. Instability can be at the level of individual social systems or at the level of the entire society.
And if, with social stability, social changes most often take place in an evolutionary form and in the form of social reforms, then social instability can give rise to both forms of social changes we are considering - evolution and revolution.
An unstable society with many difficult-to-solve social problems can give rise to the need for a qualitative change in the social system, i.e. in social revolution. Revolution(from lat. getcho1iyo - turn, revolution) - a deep qualitative change (change in the basis).
Social revolutionary changes differ from social evolutionary changes in the following: firstly, by their extremely radical nature, implying a radical breakdown of the social object; secondly, by its generality and even universality, affecting (immediately or gradually) the entire society as a whole; thirdly, they often rely on violence.
Revolutions may be concentrated in certain areas, but at the same time they change other aspects of people's lives.
Revolutionary transformations can: 1) be global; 2) concern one or more companies; 3) be short-term or long-term.
The greatest changes in the life of society are made by global revolutions. There are two types of global revolutions. Revolutions first type, caused by fundamental changes in technology, affect all spheres of society in many countries, radically change the face of society and are always long-lasting.
Their result, ultimately, is a qualitative change in the entire human society.
There are few such long-term global revolutions that radically changed all of humanity. First, there is the Neolithic Revolution, which represented the transition of human societies from primitive hunter-gatherer economies to agriculture based on crops and/or livestock. It gave birth to classes, cities, states and cultures. The Neolithic Revolution began 10 thousand years ago and lasted 3000 years. During this time, advanced agricultural-urban civilizations emerged in Mesopotamia, Egypt, India, Greece and the Middle East.
The second global revolution is the industrial revolution of the 18th-19th centuries. It led to the replacement of one technical structure (manufacture) by another (machine production), which entailed the replacement of one socio-economic system (feudalism) by another (capitalism) or, in other words, there was a transition from traditional society to industrial society. As a result of the Industrial Revolution, the political image of Europe radically changed (bourgeois democracy arose) and the social structure of many countries (hereditary privileges and rigid class barriers were destroyed, equal civil rights were proclaimed). The industrial revolution is associated with the disappearance of one type of social structure (class) and the emergence of another (class).
The third global revolution is a revolution that means a transition from an industrial to a post-industrial society based on information technology. The third global revolution is still far from completion, and before our eyes, dramatic changes are taking place in all spheres of social life, in social institutions, in the interactions of individuals.
Co. second type global revolutions include revolutions that began in one country, then spread to other countries and covered large regions. They are short-term, usually caused by the deterioration of the socio-economic living conditions of the population and the political situation, and are carried out using violent methods. In fact, global revolutions of the second type resolve the most acute contradictions of global revolutions of the first type, which are difficult to eliminate nonviolently. This happened with the bourgeois revolution of 1848-1849, which swept various European countries. The main reason for this revolution was the unresolved conflict between the rapid growth of capitalist relations and the remaining feudal remnants, which was objective in nature.
At the same time, the so-called socialist revolution that occurred in Russia in October 1917, although it led 30 years later to the creation of a number of socialist states and countries of the “socialist camp,” cannot be classified as a global revolution. In the countries that joined the “socialist camp” there were no objective reasons for the socialist revolution; in fact, these were coups carried out with the military assistance of another country - the Soviet Union, and in the conditions of the latter's fateful victory over fascism.
The concept " social change“denotes various changes that occur over a period of time within social systems and in the relationships between them, in society as a whole as a societal system.
Forms of social change:
Evolution in a broad sense, it is synonymous with development; more precisely, these are processes that in social systems lead to complexity, differentiation, and an increase in the level of organization of the system (although it happens the other way around). Evolution in the narrow sense includes only gradual quantitative changes, as opposed to qualitative changes, i.e. Revolutions.
Reform- transformation, change, reorganization of any aspect of social life or the entire social system. Reforms involve gradual changes in certain social institutions, spheres of life or the system as a whole. Reform may also be spontaneous, but it is always a process of gradual accumulation of some new elements and properties, as a result of which the entire social system or its important aspects change. As a result of the process of accumulation, new elements are born, appear and strengthen. This process is called innovation. Then comes the selection of innovations, consciously or spontaneously, through which elements of the new are fixed in the system and others are, as it were, “culled out.”
Revolutions represent the most striking manifestation of social change. They mark fundamental changes in historical processes, transform human society from the inside and literally “plow up” people. They leave nothing unchanged; old eras end and new ones begin. At the time of revolutions, society reaches its peak of activity; there is an explosion of its self-transformation potential. In the wake of revolutions, societies seem to be born anew. In this sense, revolutions are a sign of social health.
Revolutions differ from other forms of social change in their features. 1. They affect all levels and spheres of society: economics, politics, culture, social organization, daily life of individuals. 2. In all these areas, revolutionary changes are radical, fundamental in nature, permeating the foundations of the social structure and functioning of society. 3. The changes caused by revolutions are extremely rapid, they are like unexpected explosions in the slow flow of the historical process. 4. For all these reasons, revolutions are the most characteristic manifestations of change; the time of their accomplishments is exceptional and therefore especially memorable. 5. Revolutions cause unusual reactions in those who participated in them or witnessed them. This is an explosion of mass activity, this is enthusiasm, excitement, uplifting mood, joy, optimism, hope; a feeling of strength and power, of fulfilled hopes; finding the meaning of life and utopian visions of the near future. 6. They tend to rely on violence.
Social modernization. Modernization refers to progressive social changes, as a result of which the social system improves the parameters of its functioning. For example, the process of transforming a traditional society into an industrial one is usually called modernization. The reforms of Peter I, as a result of which Russia was supposed to reach the level of development of Western countries, also implied modernization. “Modernization” in this sense means achieving certain “world standards” or a “modern” level of development.
40CLASSIFICATION OF SOCIAL PROCESSES
Social processes are closely related to changes in society. Thus, any progress can be considered as a social process consisting of a certain number of social and cultural changes.
By social process we mean a set of unidirectional and repeating social actions that can be distinguished from many other social actions. The processes taking place in society are extremely diverse.
For example, there are global processes (death, birth, etc.), processes relating to certain types of human activity, and many others.
From the whole variety of social processes, it is advisable to highlight those processes that are universal and are constantly present in all or many types of human activity. Such processes include the processes of cooperation, competition, adaptation, assimilation, mobility, conflict, etc.
One of the most important processes in human society is the processes cooperation and competition .
During the processes of cooperation, members of a society or social group structure their actions in such a way as to contribute to the achievement of both their goals and the goals of other individuals. The nature of the process of cooperation lies in the social nature of man; joint actions of people were a necessary condition for the survival of each member of the social group. The basis of any cooperation process is the coordinated actions of people and the achievement of common goals. This also requires such elements of behavior as mutual understanding, coordination of actions, and the establishment of rules of cooperation. The main meaning of cooperation is mutual benefit. Of great importance for successful cooperation is the ability of individuals to engage in cooperative relationships with other people. Every modern organization includes management actions to create acceptable conditions for cooperation between members of this organization.
Competition is an attempt to achieve greater rewards by alienating or outpacing a rival striving for identical goals. Competition, as a rule, occurs in conditions of scarcity of resources or unequal distribution of resources between members of society. In this regard, competition is one of the methods of distributing rewards in modern society. Competition can manifest itself both at the personal level and be impersonal. This social process is based on the fact that people always strive to satisfy their desires to a greater extent. Modern society is trying to develop certain rules in which competition should take place. If there are no rules of competition, competition can easily turn into social conflict, which greatly complicates the management of the social process.
Social movements: ways to study them
A special type of social processes are social movements. According to the definition of the American sociologist R. Turner, a social movement is a set of collective social actions aimed at supporting social change or supporting resistance to social change in a society or social group.
This definition brings together a wide range of social movements, including religious, emigrant, youth, feminist, political, revolutionary, etc. Thus, even by their definition, social movements differ from social institutions or organizations.
When studying social movements, scientists examine:
conditions for the development and spread of social movements, which include cultural trends in society, the degree of social disorganization, social dissatisfaction with living conditions; structural preconditions for the emergence of social movements;
types and characteristics of social movements depending on the specifics of the group or society, as well as the nature of the changes occurring in society;
reasons for the involvement of the individual in social movements, including such phenomena as mobility, marginality of the individual, social isolation of the individual, change in personal social status, loss of family ties, personal dissatisfaction.
In modern society, any major social change is accompanied by the creation and subsequent activities of social movements. Thanks to social movements, many changes have been accepted in society and supported by a significant part of society members or social groups.
41 Socialization of personality
1. The concept of “socialization” is one of the key ones in the work of an organizer of work with youth. It is widely used in philosophy, psychology, sociology and pedagogy. However, an unambiguous definition has not been developed.
Socialization- the process, as well as the result of a person’s assimilation of the experience of social life and social relations, which provides him with adaptation in his contemporary society.
In the process of socialization, a person acquires beliefs, socially approved forms of behavior, and social interaction skills.
We can talk about a socialized and desocialized personality.
Socialization is a two-way process. On the one hand, the individual assimilates social experience by entering the social environment, on the other hand, he actively reproduces the system of social connections, transforming both the social environment and himself.
A person not only perceives social experience and masters it, but transforms it into his own values, attitudes, and positions.
Socialization essentially begins from the moment of birth and continues throughout life, as a person moves from one social group to another (unemployed, refugees, pensioners).
Socialization is both typical and isolated:
Socialization in one or another social group proceeds in a similar way
Socialization is influenced by a person’s individual characteristics.
The concept of “socialization” does not replace the concepts of “education”, “personal development”, etc., although they are quite close. According to Anatoly Viktorovich Mudrik, socialization is a broader concept than education. Education is a process of pedagogically organized, purposeful influence on a person. According to Galina Mikhailovna Andreeva, socialization is closer to personality development than to education. Adjacent to socialization is the concept of socio-psychological adaptation as the individual’s adaptation to changes in the environment, mastering a role in a different social situation. This is one of the mechanisms of socialization.
2. Structure of socialization:
Breadth, i.e. the number of spheres to which a person was able to adapt; determines how socially mature and developed a person is.
3. Socialization of the individual is carried out as a result of its inclusion in various social groups, interaction with other people and the acquisition of relevant skills. Therefore, the starting point for socialization is the presence of a person’s need for communication.
Three main areas in which socialization occurs:
Activity (selecting types of activities, their hierarchy, identifying the leading type, mastering the corresponding roles),
Communication (inextricably linked with activity, dialogue forms become more complex, the ability to focus on a partner and adequately perceive him is developed),
Self-awareness (formation of the image of the Self - “Self-concept”).
4. The main criterion of socialization is not the degree of opportunism, conformism, but the degree of independence, confidence, independence, and initiative. The main goal of socialization is to satisfy the need for self-actualization (Abraham Maslow), to develop abilities, and not to level the personality.
5. Stages of socialization
According to Freud:
Primary (oral, anal and phallic),
Marginal (intermediate) – socialization of a teenager, essentially pseudo-stable,
Stable – associated with a stable position in society, acquiring a certain status and set of roles,
The latter is associated with the loss of status and a number of roles, and is associated with maladjustment.
Early (before school),
- learning stage,
Labor,
Post-work (discussion: desocialization?), according to Erik Erikson, is the stage of maturity when a person can gain wisdom.
According to Lawrence Kohlberg:
Pre-conventional level of moral development (up to 7 years) – behavior is determined by the desire to avoid punishment and receive encouragement,
Group (about 13 years old) - the action is assessed from the point of view of the reference group,
Post-conventional (reaches only 10% of children over 16 years of age) – a universal level of identity is manifested.
6. Factors of personal socialization are usually divided into macro- (determined by living in large communities - country, etc.), meso- (nation, region, village or city) and micro factors (small groups), reflecting socio-political, economic, historical, national and other features of personality development.
Specific groups in which the individual is introduced to the system of social norms and values are called institutions of socialization:
School (in a broad sense – the entire education system),
For adults - work collective,
- unorganized environment (from “street” phenomena to television),
Public associations of various kinds,
Sometimes there is also a leisure system - cultural institutions. (??)
The influence of the historical stage on socialization (Gumilev Lev Nikolaevich).
7. Features of socialization in conditions of a social crisis, with a violation of “ideological integrity” (Erik Erikson).
42Russia's place in the world community
The problem of Russia's self-determination and its search for its place in the world is not new. Whenever Russia found itself on the threshold of change, intellectual debate about its future development was renewed and inflamed.
Question about place Russia in the world has traditionally been essentially a question of its geopolitical and civilizational self-identification. Problem roles Russia in the world was discussed on the basis of the characteristics of the internal state of Russian society and was reflected in the opposition of pessimistic and optimistic forecasts regarding its status in the world community: a world power or a regional state, in other words, a subject or object of world development.
The modern round of discussions, which began along with “perestroika” in the mid-80s of the last century, followed traditional Russian lines: on the question of Russia’s place in the modern world, Westerners, anti-Westerners and Eurasians emerged; on the issue of status - supporters of global and regional positioning.
Anti-Western position comes from ideas about the cultural “originality” of Russia and represents a vision of its further development relying on its own strengths - the path autarchy, those. the existence of the system only due to internal resources. It was the autarky of the Soviet Union that prevented the dynamic and innovative development of its economy and contributed to its weakening in confrontation with the West. In the context of globalization, closure is almost impossible, and given our historical experience, this path is completely unpromising.
"Westerners" or "Easterners" They think of Russia's development within regional groupings - the European Union or the Asia-Pacific Economic Community. Today, posing the question of Russia’s place in the world only in the linear-planar dichotomy “West-East” is outdated. In essence, Russia retains the objective geopolitical potential of the axis, that is, the system-forming principle for a new grouping of many countries and peoples. In addition, no matter how strong the European or Asian regional unions are, they will not be able to painlessly master the Russian scale and heterogeneity.
Eurasians they proceed from the special civilizational principle of Russia as a synthesis of European and Asian development factors and imagine its future in the vast space of the continental bloc of European and Asian countries. Russia is a unique Eurasian civilization that unites East and West, and through East and West - the whole world. Objectively, geopolitically and civilizationally, Russia is destined for an axial, unifying, global role.
The objective possibilities of globalization create an environment in which geopolitical, economic, cultural and, very importantly, subjective Russia's potential in modern world development. But Russia now has a lot of internal development problems.
From the position of the world-system approach, Russia is now present in all three structures of the world-system according to various indicators. Based on historical tradition and the laws of political inertia, taking into account the territorial scale of the country (10% of the Earth’s territory), its powerful nuclear potential, high intellectual capabilities, Russia They are still included in the circle of great powers, that is, in the world “core”. There are also external attributes of this affiliation: Russia is a permanent member of the UN Security Council, a participant in the Russia-EU summits, part of the G8, a member of the Russia-NATO Council, there is progress towards joining the WTO (World Trade Organization). In terms of economic potential, quality of life, economic and social development, Russia now ranks 64th in the world (the USSR occupied 35th place). These criteria position Russia closer to the lower part of the semi-periphery. According to the parameters of representation in the global economic and information space, Russia is still in the third, peripheral structure of the world-system. At the same time, this real position very much does not coincide with the unrealized potential of Russia. Russia - one of the richest powers in the world. According to calculations by the State Statistics Committee of the Russian Federation and the Russian Academy of Sciences, the national wealth of Russia is 340-380 trillion dollars, and per capita national wealth here is twice as much as in the USA, and 22 times more than in Japan. More than 21% of the world's reserves of raw materials are concentrated in Russia, including 45% of the world's reserves of natural gas, 13% of oil, 23% of coal. There is 0.9 hectares of arable land per resident of Russia - 80% more than in Finland, 30% more than in the USA. Russia has rich intellectual potential. A third of all the greatest scientific discoveries of the 20th century. made by scientists from the former USSR and Russia. Russia has the richest cultural traditions. Of the three recognized greatest peaks in the development of human civilization (Classical Greece, Italian Renaissance), one is inextricably linked with Russia and rightfully bears the name "RussianXIX century".
The decisive condition for Russia's inclusion in the processes of globalization is the successful solution of its internal problems. To make its full potential functional, it is now important for Russia to focus on innovative, rather than catch-up development.
Social change is one of the most general sociological concepts. Depending on the research paradigm, social change can be understood as the transition of a social object from one state to another, a change in socio-economic formation, a significant modification in the social organization of society, its institutions and social structure, a change in established social patterns of behavior, renewal of institutional forms, etc.
Social changes can be carried out in two ways: the first, evolutionary path, assumes that changes are the result of the natural, progressive development of society; the second, revolutionary path implies a radical reorganization of the social order, carried out at the will of social actors. In classical sociology, until the beginning of the 20th century, the evolutionary and revolutionary concept of the development of society was based on the recognition of the objectivity of social knowledge, which corresponded to the general scientific paradigm of the 18th–19th centuries, according to which scientific knowledge is based on objective reality. The difference was that thinkers - adherents of evolutionism believed that objective knowledge about the nature of social reality helps to intelligently navigate social actions and that social nature should not be violated, while supporters of revolutionary changes, on the contrary, proceeded from the need to reorganize the world in accordance with its internal patterns.
The evolutionary approach originates from the studies of Charles Darwin. The main problem of evolutionism in sociology was the identification of the determining factor of social change. Auguste Comte considered the progress of knowledge to be such a factor. The development of knowledge from its theological, mystified form to a positive form determines the transition from a military society based on submission to deified heroes and leaders, to an industrial society, which is carried out thanks to the human mind.
Herbert Spencer saw the essence of evolution and social change in the complication of the structure of society, the strengthening of its differentiation, which is accompanied by the growth of integration processes that restore the unity of the social organism at each new stage of its development. Social progress is accompanied by the complication of society, leading to an increase in the independence of citizens, to an increase in the freedom of individuals, to a more complete service of their interests by society.
Emile Durkheim viewed the process of social change as a transition from mechanical solidarity, based on the underdevelopment and similarity of individuals and their social functions, to organic solidarity, arising on the basis of the division of labor and social differentiation, which leads to the integration of people into a single society and is the highest moral principle of society .
Karl Marx considered the determining factor of social change to be the productive forces of society, the growth of which leads to a change in the method of production, which, being the basis for the development of the entire society, ensures a change in the socio-economic formation. On the one hand, according to Marx’s “materialist understanding of history,” productive forces develop objectively and evolutionarily, increasing man’s power over nature. On the other hand, in the course of their development, new classes are formed, whose interests come into conflict with the interests of the ruling classes, which determine the nature of existing production relations. Thus, a conflict arises within the mode of production formed by the unity of productive forces and production relations. The progress of society is possible only on the basis of a radical renewal of the method of production, and new economic and political structures can appear only as a result of a social revolution carried out by new classes against the old, dominant ones. Therefore, social revolutions, according to Marx, are the locomotives of history, ensuring the renewal and acceleration of the development of society. Marx's works presented evolutionary and revolutionary approaches to the analysis of social change.
Max Weber was opposed to the idea that social sciences could discover the laws of social development in a similar way to natural sciences. He believed, however, that generalizations could be made to characterize social change. Weber saw their driving force in the fact that a person, relying on various religious, political, moral values, creates certain social structures that facilitate social development, as has always happened in the West, or complicate this development, which Weber considered characteristic of the countries of the East.
Social revolution is a sharp qualitative change in the social structure of society; a way of transition from one form of socio-political structure to another. Social revolutions are divided into anti-imperialist, anti-colonial, national liberation, bourgeois and bourgeois-democratic, people's and people's democratic, socialist, etc.
The nature, scale and specific content of any revolution are determined by the conditions of the socio-economic formation that it is intended to eliminate, as well as the specifics of the socio-economic system for which it clears the ground. As we move to higher stages of social development, the scale expands, the content deepens, and the objective tasks of the revolution become more complicated. In the early stages of the history of society (the transition from the primitive communal system to the slave-owning one, from the slave-owning to the feudal one), the revolution occurred mainly spontaneously and consisted of a combination of sporadic, in most cases local, mass movements and uprisings. During the transition from feudalism to capitalism, the revolution acquires the features of a national process in which the conscious activity of political parties and organizations plays an increasingly important role.
Classes and social strata, which, by their objective position in the system of production relations, are interested in the overthrow of the existing system and are capable of participating in the struggle for the victory of a more progressive system, act as the driving forces of the revolution.
Most modern concepts of revolutionary social change, developed within the framework of the modernist approach, are based on Marx’s assessments and interpretation of the events of the Great French Revolution of 1789. The Marxist theory of revolutions focuses on radical changes in the economic and political organization of society, changes in the basic forms of social life. Today, the vast majority of researchers agree that revolutions lead to fundamental, comprehensive, multidimensional changes that affect the very basis of social order.
A detailed analysis of concepts that can be attributed to the “modernist” direction in the study of revolutions is given by Peter Sztompka. He identifies four theories of revolution:
1. behaviorist, or behavioral - a theory proposed in 1925 by Pitirim Sorokin, according to which the causes of revolutions lie in the suppression of the basic instincts of the majority of the population and the inability of the authorities to influence the changing behavior of the masses;
2. psychological - represented by the concepts of James Davis and Ted Gurr, who see the cause of revolutions in the fact that the masses are painfully aware of their poverty and social injustice and, as a result, rise to revolt;
3. structural – when analyzing revolutions, it focuses on the macrostructural level and denies psychological factors; a modern representative of this trend is Ted Skocpol.
4. political - considers revolutions as a result of an imbalance of power and the struggle of rival groups for government (Charles Tiley).
In some modern studies, revolutionary changes in society are considered as a “moment of social evolution.” Thus, the original meaning of the term “revolution” in the natural and social sciences (revolvo – Latin “return”, “circle”), forgotten since the time of Marx, is restored.
From the point of view of social progress, it is more preferable to implement reasonable economic, social and political reforms in the state in accordance with its inherent patterns of development. If the reforms undertaken are contrary to the nature of society, if they are not corrected as a result of “feedback”, then the likelihood of revolution increases. Although revolution is a more painful means in comparison with social reforms, in some cases it should be considered as a positive phenomenon; Ultimately, it helps prevent the process of disintegration of society and its destruction.
Social reform is a transformation, reorganization, change in any aspect of social life that does not destroy the foundations of the existing social structure, leaving power in the hands of the former ruling class. Understood in this sense, the path of gradual transformation of existing relations is contrasted with revolutionary explosions that sweep away the old order, the old system to the ground. Marxism considered the evolutionary process, which preserved many relics of the past for a long time, too painful for the people.
Today, great reforms (i.e., revolutions carried out “from above”) are recognized as the same social anomalies as great revolutions. Both of these ways of solving social contradictions are opposed to the normal, healthy practice of “permanent reform in a self-regulating society.” A new concept of reform-innovation is introduced. Innovation is understood as an ordinary, one-time improvement associated with an increase in the adaptive capabilities of a social organism in given conditions.
Revolution as a form of social change.
Evolutionary changes. Social reforms .
Plan.
1. Introduction.
2. Social changes.
3. Revolution as a form of social change.
4. Evolutionary changes.
5. Social reforms.
6. Conclusion.
1. Introduction .
Society can change in the most unexpected, unpredictable ways. Most societies, despite temporary setbacks, develop progressively. Science stimulates technological progress. Hand tools are being replaced by machines, and their place is being replaced by automated systems. The lifestyle and standard of living of the population are changing, cities are being improved, turning into megacities. Traditional multigenerational families are divided into many families and do not include grandparents and other relatives.
Social change– one of the most general sociological concepts. Social change can be understood as the transition of a social object from one state to another; change of socio-economic formation; significant modification in the social organization of society, its institutions and social structure; changing established social patterns of behavior; updating institutional forms, etc. 1
Social change can be achieved in two ways:
first, evolutionary path assumes that changes are
the result of the natural, progressive development of society;
______________________________ ______________________________ __
second, revolutionary path implies a radical reorganization of the social order, carried out at the will of social actors.
The main problem of evolutionism in sociology was the identification of the determining factor of social change. Comte
considered the progress of knowledge to be such a factor. The development of knowledge from its theological, mystified form to a positive form determines the transition from a military society to an industrial society. Herbert Spencer saw the essence of evolution and social change in the complication of the structure of society and the strengthening of its differentiation. Social progress leads to increased independence and freedom of citizens, to more complete service of their interests by society. Karl Marx believed that the progress of society is possible only on the basis of a radical renewal of the method of production, and new economic and political structures can appear only as a result of a social revolution carried out by new classes against the former dominant ones. Therefore, social revolutions, according to Marx, are the locomotives of history, ensuring the renewal and acceleration of the development of society. Max Weber saw the driving force of social change in the fact that a person, relying on various religious, political, and moral values, creates certain social structures that facilitate social development (in the West) or complicate this development (in the East).
Social revolution– a sharp qualitative revolution in the social structure of society; a way of transition from one form of socio-political structure to another. Social revolutions are divided into:
anti-imperialist, anti-colonial, national liberation, bourgeois and bourgeois-democratic, popular and people's democratic, socialist, etc. The nature, scale and specific content of any revolution are determined by the conditions of the socio-economic formation that it is designed to eliminate, as well as the specifics of that social -the economic system for which it clears the ground.
The driving forces of the revolution are classes and social strata that are interested in overthrowing the existing system and are capable of participating in the struggle for the victory of a more progressive system. Most modern concepts of revolutionary social change are based on Marx’s assessments and interpretation of the events of the Great French Revolution of 1789. The Marxist theory of revolutions focuses on radical changes in the economic and political organization of society, changes in the basic forms of social life. Today, the vast majority of researchers agree that revolutions lead to fundamental, comprehensive, multidimensional changes that affect the very basis of social order.
From the point of view of social progress, it is more preferable to implement reasonable economic, social and political reforms in the state in accordance with its inherent patterns of development. If the reforms undertaken are contrary to the nature of society, if they are not corrected as a result of “feedback”, then the likelihood of revolution increases.
Social reform- this is a transformation, reorganization, change in any aspect of social life that does not destroy the foundations of the existing social structure, leaving power in the hands of the former ruling class.
Today, great reforms (i.e., revolutions carried out “from above”) are recognized as the same social anomalies as great revolutions. Both of these ways of solving social contradictions are opposed to the normal, healthy practice of “permanent reform in a self-regulating society.”
2. Social changes.
The concept of “social change” refers to various changes that occur over a period of time within social systems and in the relationships between them, in society as a whole as a social system.
The factors that cause social change are a variety of circumstances: changes in the environment, dynamics of the size and social structure of the population, the level of tension and struggle for resources, discoveries and inventions, acculturation.
Social changes can be caused by natural causes - changes in the physical environment of a person, cosmic rhythms of social activity, impulses of magnetic fields, etc. Natural disasters - such as a hurricane, earthquake, flood - influence social dynamics, making certain adjustments to the social organization of society. The impetus and driving forces of social change can be transformations in the economic, political, social and spiritual spheres, but with different speed and strength, fundamental impact. In accordance with the structure and main characteristics of any system, the following can be distinguished: kinds
______________________________ ________________
1 Kravchenko A.I. Three capitalisms in Russia. T.1. p.300
changes in general and social changes in particular:
Content changes -
This is a set of elements of a system, their emergence, disappearance, or change in their properties. Since the elements of the social system are social actors, this could be, for example, a change in the personnel composition of the organization (the introduction or abolition of some positions), a change in the qualifications of officials or a change in the motives for their activity, which is reflected in an increase or decrease in labor productivity.
Structural changes - these are changes in the set of connections of elements or the structure of these connections. In a social system, this is, for example, the movement of a person in the official hierarchy. At the same time, not all people understand that structural changes have occurred in the team, and may not be able to adequately respond to them, painfully perceive the instructions of the boss, who just yesterday was an ordinary employee.
Functional changes - uh These are changes in the actions performed by the system. Changes in the functions of a system can be caused by changes in its content or structure, the surrounding social environment, i.e., the external connections of a given system. For example, changes in the functions of government bodies can be caused by both demographic changes within the country and external influences, including military ones, from other countries.
Special type of change -
development. In science, development is considered to be a directed and irreversible change ,
leading to the emergence of qualitatively new objects. An object in development, at first glance, remains itself, but a new set of properties and connections forces us to perceive this object in a completely new way. Example: a child and a specialist in any field of activity who grows up from him are, essentially, different people; they are assessed and perceived by society differently, because occupy completely different positions in the social structure. Therefore, they say about such a person that he has gone through the path of development. Social changes are usually divided into 4 levels: social (global) level- these are changes affecting all spheres of society (economic and technical development, political revolutions, crises, global migrations, urbanization); level of large social groups- changes in the social structure of society (social stratification, social and professional mobility); level of institutions and organizations-changes occurring in individual social institutions (reforms and reorganization of individual spheres of public life); level of interpersonal relationships- changes in social connections between individuals.
Social changes at a higher level lead to changes at a lower level. Changes at a lower level do not usually lead to changes at a higher level unless the changes become widespread and cumulative.
All types of social changes, primarily social development, according to their nature, internal structure and degree of influence on society, can be divided into two large groups - evolutionary changes And revolutionary changes.These social change groups are described below. 3.Revolution as a form of social change.
Revolutions- This is the most striking manifestation of social change. Revolution (French, historical.) -
a radical and rapid revolution in the state and social system of the country, accompanied by armed struggle; which is not recognized as absolutely necessary. Revolution presupposes participation in the revolution by the broad masses of the people; The task of the revolution is to restructure the government of the state on more democratic and progressive principles. Revolutions represent fundamental changes in historical processes, transform human society from the inside and literally “plow up” people. They leave nothing unchanged, end old eras and begin new ones. Revolution -
This is a revolution from below. It sweeps away the ruling elite, which has proven its inability to govern society, and creates a new political and social structure, new political, economic and social relations .
At the moment of revolution, society reaches a peak of activity, societies are, as it were, born anew. In this sense, revolutions are a sign of social health. As a result of the revolution, basic changes occur in the social and class structure of society, in the values and behavior of people .
The features of the revolution are:
1) affect all levels and spheres of society - economy, culture, social organization, everyday life of people;
2) have a fundamental nature;
3) extremely fast, like unexpected explosions in the slow flow of the historical process;
4) revolutions are characterized by unusual reactions of participants: enthusiasm, excitement, high spirits, optimism, hope, a feeling of strength and power, finding the meaning of life;
5) revolutions, as a rule, rely on violence.
There are four theories of revolution:
behavioristic, or behavioral, – the causes of revolutions lie in the suppression of the basic instincts of the majority of the population and the inability of the authorities to influence the changing behavior of the masses;
psychological– reason: the masses are painfully aware of their poverty and social injustice and, as a result, rise to revolt;
structural- when analyzing revolutions, it focuses on the macrostructural level and denies psychological factors;
political- revolution as a result of an imbalance of power and the struggle of rival groups for government.
Along with relatively calm periods of social development, there are also those that are marked by rapidly occurring historical events and processes that make profound changes in the course of history. These events and processes are united by the concept social revolution. The social revolution, according to the teachings of socialists, should lead to the transfer of land and instruments of production into the hands of the working masses and to a more equitable distribution of the products of labor between the different classes of society.
Sociologists, in particular the French scientist Alain Touraine, believe that the main reason for the lack of revolutions in developed countries is the institutionalization of the main conflict - the conflict between labor and capital. They have legislative regulators of interaction between employers and employees, and the state acts as a social arbiter. In addition, the proletariat of the early capitalist society that K. Marx studied was absolutely powerless and had nothing to lose except its chains. Now the situation has changed: in the leading industrial states, democratic procedures in the political sphere are in force and strictly observed, and the majority of the proletariat is the middle class, which has something to lose. Modern followers of Marxism also emphasize the role of the powerful ideological apparatus of capitalist states in restraining possible revolutionary uprisings.
Social revolutions occur when the old socio-economic system, having exhausted the possibilities for its development, must give way to a new one. The economic basis of the social revolution is the conflict between productive forces and production relations that do not correspond to them. An important point in the revolution is the question of its driving forces, i.e. about the action of those classes and social groups that are interested in the victory of the revolution and are actively fighting for it. History knows revolution “from above,” i.e. radical changes in social relations, which were carried out on the initiative of forces capable of recognizing the need for urgent changes and taking the side of progress.
In general, revolution should be considered as a dialectical negation of the old. The rejection of old production relations must be accompanied by the preservation of everything positive that the people have accumulated over decades of previous development. Any attempts to forcefully solve socio-economic problems in the modern period, calls for any kind of extremism should be considered a crime against the people. In modern conditions, “soft”, “velvet” revolutions have become the most acceptable, in which economic and social transformations, the formation of qualitatively different production relations corresponding to the achieved level of scientific and technical progress, occur with the help of political means and methods, mechanisms of democracy, without allowing civil wars, that is in peaceful way.
Various revolutions are known in society: in the productive forces, science, technology and culture. These types of revolution refer to bloodless global processes that occurred spontaneously, without the deliberate intervention of parties or groups.
4.Evolutionary changes.
Evolutionary theory- this is a monistic worldview that recognizes that throughout the entire universe there is a great and united process of development, uncontrollably moving forward, the process of transforming simple forms into more perfect ones, to which all states and forms of phenomena are subordinated: the emergence and movements of celestial bodies; formation of the earth's crust and rocks; flora and fauna on earth; life of human societies; all the works of the human spirit: language, literature, religion, morality, law, art. 2
Evolutionary changes- these are partial and gradual changes that occur as fairly stable and constant trends towards an increase or decrease in any properties, qualities, elements in various social systems, and, in this regard, acquiring an ascending or descending direction.
There are a significant number of concepts, theories and trends in the sociology of social change. Most researched theories: evolutionist, neo-evolutionist, And cyclical theory. Predecessor evolutionist theories should be considered A. Saint-Simon. A widespread idea at the end of the 18th - beginning of the 19th centuries. about the life of society as an equilibrium, he supplemented it with a provision about the steady, consistent advancement of society to higher levels of development. O. Comte connected the processes of development of society, human knowledge and culture. All societies go through three stages: primitive, intermediate and scientific,
which correspond to the forms of human knowledge: theological, metaphysical and positive. The evolution of society for him is the growth of functional specialization of structures and improved adaptation of parts to society as an integral organism.
The most prominent representative of evolutionism, G. Spencer, represented evolution as an upward movement, a transition from simple to complex, not having a linear and unidirectional character. Spencer believed that the essence of evolutionary change and progress lies in the complication of society, in the strengthening of its differentiation, in the withering away of unadapted individuals, social institutions, cultures, and the survival and prosperity of the adapted.
Social change is seen as the result of a system adapting to its environment. Only structures that provide the social system with greater adaptability to the environment move evolution forward
The above evolutionist concepts mainly explained the origin of social changes as endogenous, i.e. internal reasons.
The processes occurring in society were explained by analogy with biological organisms. Classical evolutionism, in essence, excludes the human factor in social changes, instilling in people the inevitability of upward development.
Neo-evolutionism.
In the 50s XX century After a period of criticism and disgrace, sociological evolutionism again became the focus of attention among sociologists. Scientists such as G. Lenski, J. Stewart, T. Parsons and others, distancing themselves from classical evolutionism, proposed their own theoretical approaches to evolutionary changes. If classical evolutionism proceeds from the fact that all societies go through the same path of development from lower to higher forms, then representatives of neo-evolutionism come to the conclusion that each culture, each society, along with general trends, has its own logic of evolutionary development. The focus is not on the sequence of necessary stages, but on the causal mechanism of change. When analyzing changes, neo-evolutionists try to avoid assessments and analogies with progress .
Basic views are formed in the form of hypotheses and assumptions, and not in the form of direct statements. Evolutionary processes do not proceed uniformly along an ascending straight line, but spasmodically and are multilinear in nature. At each new stage of social development, one of the lines that even played a secondary role at the previous stage can become leading.
Theories of cyclical change.
The cyclical nature of various natural, biological and social phenomena was known already in ancient times. Thus, ancient Greek philosophers Plato, Aristotle and others developed the doctrine of the cyclical nature of political regimes. During the Enlightenment, the Italian court historiographer Giambattista Vico (1668-1744) developed a theory of the cyclical development of history. He believed that the typical historical cycle goes through three stages: anarchy and savagery; order and civilization; the decline of civilization and a return to new barbarism. Moreover, each new cycle is qualitatively different from the previous one, i.e., the movement proceeds in an upward spiral. The Russian philosopher and sociologist K. Ya. Danilevsky believed that every civilization, like a biological organism, goes through the stages of birth, maturity, decrepitness and death. In his opinion, no civilization is better or more perfect; each has its own values and thereby enriches the general human culture; each has its own internal logic of development and goes through its own stages. The theory of life cycles of civilizations was developed in the works of the English historian A. Toynbee: world history represents the emergence, development and decline of relatively closed discrete (discontinuous) civilizations. The main conclusions of adherents of this theory:
1) there are cyclic processes closed, when each complete cycle returns the system to its original (identical to the original) position; there are spiral-shaped,
when the repetition of certain stages occurs at a qualitatively different level (higher or lower);
2) any social system in its development goes through a number of successive stages :
origin, development (maturity), decline, destruction;
3) phases of system development have different intensity and time duration: accelerated processes of change in one phase can be replaced by long-term stagnation (conservation);
4) no civilization (culture) is better or more perfect;
5) social changes are the result of the natural process of development of social systems and the result of active transformative human activity .
A clear example of the cyclical nature of social change is the change of generations of people. Each generation is born, goes through a period of socialization, a period of active activity, followed by a period of old age and the natural completion of the life cycle. Each generation is formed in specific social conditions, therefore it is not similar to previous generations and brings into life something of its own, new, which has not yet existed in social life. In doing so, it brings about numerous social changes.
Another approach to studying the causes of social revolutions, exogenous, is presented diffusion theory - the leakage of cultural patterns from one society to another. The channels and mechanisms of penetration of external influences are placed at the center of the analysis here. These included conquest, trade, migration, colonization, imitation, etc. Any culture inevitably experiences the influence of other cultures, including the cultures of conquered peoples. This reciprocal process of mutual influence and interpenetration of cultures is called acculturation in sociology. For example, in the United States, immigrants from many different countries have played a vital role throughout history. We can talk about the strengthening in recent years of the influence of Spanish-speaking and African-American subcultures on the previously virtually unchanged English-speaking culture of American society.
The concepts of “evolution” and “revolution” help to understand the nature of social change. Often these concepts are viewed as opposite. Evolutionary processes are identified with gradual changes, revolutions - with radical changes in the development of natural and social phenomena. Revolutions contain significant evolutionary inclusions, in many cases they are carried out in an evolutionary form. In turn, evolution is not limited to gradual changes; it also includes qualitative leaps. Consequently, in society, gradual quantitative and qualitative changes are interdependent and interpenetrating links of the same development process.
Social revolutions play a progressive role: they resolve numerous contradictions in the evolutionary development of society; They raise social development to a new level and discard everything that is outdated. But in the twentieth century. attitudes towards revolutionary processes are being revised. The position of the English historian and philosopher A. Toynbee, who assesses the revolution as an inhibition of progress, is indicative. He believes that the revolution, destroying outdated orders, produces enormous destruction, negating the positive aspects of the revolution.
Modern science, without denying the revolutionary form of development, shifts the center of gravity in the analysis of social changes to an evolutionary, reformist form .
But one cannot equate evolution with progress, because Many societies, as a result of social changes, find themselves in a state of crisis and/or deteriorating. For example, Russia, as a result of what began in the early 90s. XX century Liberal reforms in terms of their main indicators (socio-economic, technological, moral and ethical, etc.) turned out to be set back many decades in their development. 5. Social reforms.
Reform- this is a transformation, change, reorganization of any aspect of social life or the entire social system. Reforms involve gradual changes in social institutions, spheres of life, or the system as a whole. Reform may also be spontaneous, but it is always a process of gradual accumulation of some new elements or properties, as a result of which the entire social system or its important aspects change. Reforms are usually understood as slow
evolutionary changes ,
not leading to mass violence, rapid changes in political elites, rapid and radical changes in the social structure and value orientations.
Reforms are carried out through new legislative acts and are aimed at improving the existing system without qualitative changes. The following types of reforms are distinguished: economic, political and social. The transition of the economy to market prices, privatization, the law on bankruptcy of enterprises, the new tax system - examples economic reforms. Changing the Constitution, forms of voting in elections, expanding civil liberties, transition from a monarchy to a republic - examples political reforms.
Social reforms relate to transformations in those areas of society (aspects of public life) that are directly related to people and affect their level and lifestyle, health, participation in public life, and access to social benefits. Thus, the introduction of universal secondary education, health insurance, unemployment benefits, a new form of social protection of the population does not just affect our interests, but concerns the social status of numerous segments of the population, limiting or expanding the access of millions to social benefits - education, healthcare, employment, social guarantees. That is social reforms change the existing system of public distribution.
Social reforms have two subtypes: social modernization and social transformation. Social modernization - progressive social change ,
improving parameters functioning social system (subsystem). Social modernization is the process of transforming a traditional society into an industrial one. Modernization has two types: organic - development on its own basis (the process of transforming a traditional society with a predominance of a subsistence economy with a class hierarchy into an industrial one, with developed mechanization and automation of labor and mass production of goods); organic- response to an external challenge in order to overcome backwardness (initiated
«
above »
). For example, the reforms of Peter I, as a result of which Russia was supposed to reach the level of development of Western countries.
Modernization analyzes patterns and models of possible social transformations on the way to an industrial and post-industrial society. At first, modernization was understood as “Westernization,” i.e. copying Western principles in all areas of life, and the American one acted as the prototype of modern society. Modernization was described as a form of “catch-up development,” and economic assistance from Western countries was considered the main means of reform. It was assumed that achieving a certain level of per capita income would automatically cause changes in all other spheres of society: political, social, cultural. This view has not stood the test of reality. In Afro-Asian, Latin American and other countries, liberalization resulted in corruption of officials, catastrophic stratification of the population, and conflicts in society. It became obvious that modernization could be carried out outside the Western democratic model. The main emphasis is on the national form of reform. And the decisive factor is recognized as a sociocultural factor, namely, personality type, national character.
Social transformation –
etc.................
The most studied forms of social implementation. changes are: evolutionary, revolutionary and cyclical.
1. Evolutionary social changes are partial and gradual changes that occur as fairly stable and permanent trends. These may be trends towards an increase or decrease in any qualities or elements in various social networks. systems, they can acquire an ascending or descending orientation. Evolutionary social changes have a specific internal structure and can be characterized as some kind of cumulative process, i.e. the process of gradual accumulation of any new elements, properties, as a result of which social changes. system. The cumulative process itself, in turn, can be split into two of its constituent subprocesses: the formation of new elements and their selection. Evolutionary changes can be consciously organized. In such cases, they usually take the form of social. reforms. But this can also be a spontaneous process (for example, increasing the level of education of the population).
2. Revolutionary social. changes differ from evolutionary ones in a radical way. Firstly, these changes are not just radical, but extremely radical, implying a radical breakdown of social life. object. Secondly, these changes are not specific, but general or even universal, and thirdly, they are based on violence. Social revolution is the center of fierce debate and debate in the field of sociology and other social sciences. Historical experience shows that revolutionary changes often contribute to more effective solutions to pressing social problems, intensification of economic, political and spiritual processes, activation of large masses of the population, and thereby accelerating transformations in society. Evidence of this is a number of social networks. revolutions in Europe, North America, etc. Revolutionary changes are possible in the future. However, in all likelihood, firstly, they cannot be violent, and secondly, they cannot simultaneously cover all spheres of social life, but should only apply to individual social groups. institutions or areas. Today's society is extremely complex and revolutionary changes can have devastating consequences.
3. Cyclical social. change is a more complex form of social. changes, because it can include both evolutionary and revolutionary social. changes, upward and downward trends. When we talk about cyclical social changes, we mean a series of changes that together form a cycle. Cyclical social changes occur according to the seasons, but can span periods of several years (eg, due to economic crises) and even several centuries (associated with types of civilizations). What makes the picture of cyclical changes particularly complex is the fact that different structures, different phenomena and processes in society have cycles of different durations.