Chapter IV Social life and management of organizations In recent years, the nature of human organizations has repeatedly become the subject of lively debate in business and management circles. The reason for this was the widespread opinion that modern business

39. Political system of society. The role of the state in the development of society. The main features of the state. Power and democracy The political system of society is a system of legal norms, state and civil organizations, political relations and traditions, as well as

45. Culture and spiritual life of society. Culture as a determining condition for the formation and development of personality Culture is the sum of the material, creative and spiritual achievements of a people or group of peoples. The concept of culture is multifaceted and absorbs both global

Chapter 18 SPIRITUAL LIFE OF SOCIETY The subject of this chapter is the rich kingdom of the spirit. Our goal here is to briefly analyze the essence of social consciousness, link it with the analysis of individual consciousness, consider various aspects and levels of social consciousness and their

5. Biology and social life If we limit ourselves to the framework of the outgoing century, we will find that, first of all, criticism from a moral standpoint inflicted tangible injections on physics. Discussion of responsibility and duty of scientists, ethical foundations of science, statement

Chapter XI. Social structure of society and ethnic communities of people To understand the essence of society, the complex and diverse processes occurring between people, the analysis of its social structure and ethnic

Social life Work plan: Introduction. The structure of human nature. Biological and social in man. The role of biological and geographical factors in the formation of social life. Social life. Historical types of social life. Social connections, actions and interactions as a basic element of social life. Motivation for social action: needs, interests, value orientations. Social development and social change. Social ideal as a condition for social development. Conclusion. Introduction. There is nothing more interesting in the world than the person himself. V. A. Sukhomlinsky Man is a social being. But at the same time, the highest mammal, i.e. biological being. Like any biological species, Homo sapiens is characterized by a certain set of species characteristics. Each of these characteristics can vary among different representatives, and even within wide limits. The manifestation of many biological parameters of a species can also be influenced by social processes. For example, the normal life expectancy of a person is currently 80-90 years, given that he does not suffer from hereditary diseases and will not be exposed to harmful external influences, such as infectious diseases, road accidents, etc. This is a biological constant of the species, which, however, changes under the influence of social laws. Like other biological species, man has stable varieties, which, when talking about man, are designated by the concept of “race”. Racial differentiation of people is associated with the adaptation of various groups of people inhabiting different regions of the planet, and is expressed in the formation of specific biological, anatomical and physiological characteristics. But, despite the differences in certain biological parameters, a representative of any race belongs to a single species, Homo sapiens, and has biological parameters characteristic of all people. Each person is individual and unique by nature, each has his own set of genes inherited from his parents. The uniqueness of a person is also enhanced as a result of the influence of social and biological factors in the process of development, because each individual has a unique life experience. Consequently, the human race is infinitely diverse, human abilities and talents are infinitely diverse. Individualization is a general biological pattern. Individual-natural differences in humans are supplemented by social differences, determined by the social division of labor and differentiation of social functions, and at a certain stage of social development - also by individual-personal differences. Man is included in two worlds at once: the world of nature and the world of society, which gives rise to a number of problems. Let's look at two of them. Aristotle called man a political animal, recognizing in him a combination of two principles: biological (animal) and political (social). The first problem is which of these principles is dominant, determining in the formation of a person’s abilities, feelings, behavior, actions and how the relationship between the biological and the social in a person is realized. The essence of another problem is this: recognizing that each person is unique, original and inimitable, we, nevertheless, constantly group people according to various characteristics, some of which are determined biologically, others - socially, and some - by the interaction of the biological and the social. The question arises, what significance do biologically determined differences between people and groups of people have in the life of society? In the course of discussions around these problems, theoretical concepts are put forward, criticized and rethought, and new lines of practical action are developed that help improve relationships between people. K. Marx wrote: “Man is a directly natural being. As a natural being... he... is endowed with natural powers, vital forces, being an active natural being; these forces exist in him in the form of inclinations and abilities, in the form of drives...” This approach found justification and development in the works of Engels, who understood the biological nature of man as something initial, although not sufficient to explain history and man himself. Marxist-Leninist philosophy shows the importance of social factors along with biological ones - both play qualitatively different roles in determining human essence and nature. It reveals the dominant meaning of the social without ignoring the biological nature of man. Disregard for human biology is unacceptable. Moreover, the biological organization of a human being is something valuable in itself, and no social goals can justify either violence against it or eugenic projects for its alteration. Among the great diversity of the world of living beings living on planet Earth, only one person has a highly developed mind, largely thanks to which he, in fact, was able to survive and survive as a biological species. Even prehistoric people, at the level of their mythological worldview, knew that the cause of all this was something that was located in man himself. They called this “something” the soul. Plato made the greatest scientific discovery. He established that the human soul consists of three parts: reason, feelings and will. The entire spiritual world of a person is born precisely from his mind, his feelings and his will. Despite the innumerable diversity of the spiritual world, its inexhaustibility, there is, in fact, nothing else in it except the manifestations of intellectual, emotional and volitional elements. The structure of human nature. In the structure of human nature one can find three components: biological nature, social nature and spiritual nature. The biological nature of humans was formed over a long, 2.5 billion years, evolutionary development from blue-green algae to Homo Sapiens. In 1924, English professor Leakey discovered in Ethiopia the remains of an Australopithecus, which lived 3.3 million years ago. From this distant ancestor descend modern hominids: apes and humans. The ascending line of human evolution went through the following stages: Australopithecus (fossil southern monkey, 3.3 million years ago) - Pithecanthropus (ape-man, 1 million years ago) - Sinanthropus (fossil "Chinese man", 500 thousand years ago) - Neanderthal (100 thousand years ) - Cro-Magnon (Homo Sapiens fossil, 40 thousand years ago) - modern man (20 thousand years ago). It should be taken into account that our biological ancestors did not appear one after another, but stood out for a long time and lived together with their predecessors. Thus, it has been reliably established that the Cro-Magnon lived together with the Neanderthal and even... hunted him. The Cro-Magnon man, therefore, was a kind of cannibal - he ate his closest relative, his ancestor. In terms of biological adaptation to nature, humans are significantly inferior to the vast majority of representatives of the animal world. If a person is returned to the animal world, he will suffer a catastrophic defeat in the competitive struggle for existence and will be able to live only in a narrow geographical zone of his origin - in the tropics, on both sides close to the equator. A person does not have warm fur, he has weak teeth, weak nails instead of claws, an unstable vertical gait on two legs, a predisposition to many diseases, a degraded immune system... Superiority over animals is biologically ensured to a person only by the presence of a cerebral cortex, which no animal has. The cerebral cortex consists of 14 billion neurons, the functioning of which serves as the material basis for a person’s spiritual life - his consciousness, ability to work and to live in society. The cerebral cortex abundantly provides scope for endless spiritual growth and development of man and society. Suffice it to say that today, over the course of a person’s entire long life, at best, only 1 billion - only 7% - of neurons are activated, and the remaining 13 billion - 93% - remain unused “gray matter”. General health and longevity are genetically determined in human biological nature; temperament, which is one of four possible types: choleric, sanguine, melancholic and phlegmatic; talents and inclinations. It should be taken into account that each person is not a biologically repeated organism, the structure of its cells and DNA molecules (genes). It is estimated that 95 billion of us people have been born and died on Earth over 40 thousand years, among whom there was not at least one identical person. Biological nature is the only real basis on which a person is born and exists. Each individual, each person exists from that time until his biological nature exists and lives. But with all his biological nature, man belongs to the animal world. And man is born only as the animal species Homo Sapiens; is not born a man, but only a candidate for a man. The newborn biological creature Homo Sapiens has yet to become a human being in the full sense of the word. Let's begin the description of the social nature of man with the definition of society. Society is a union of people for the joint production, distribution and consumption of material and spiritual goods; for the reproduction of one’s species and one’s way of life. Such a union is carried out, as in the animal world, to maintain (in the interests of) the individual existence of the individual and for the reproduction of Homo Sapiens as a biological species. But unlike animals, the behavior of a person - as a being who is characterized by consciousness and the ability to work - in a group of his own kind is governed not by instincts, but by public opinion. In the process of assimilating the elements of social life, a candidate for a person turns into a real person. The process of a newborn acquiring elements of social life is called human socialization. Only in society and from society does man acquire his social nature. In society, a person learns human behavior, guided not by instincts, but by public opinion; zoological instincts are curbed in society; in society, a person learns the language, customs and traditions developed in this society; here a person perceives the experience of production and production relations accumulated by society. .. The spiritual nature of man. The biological nature of a person in the conditions of social life contributes to his transformation into a person, a biological individual into a personality. There are many definitions of personality, identifying its signs and characteristics. Personality is the totality of a person’s spiritual world in inextricable connection with his biological nature in the process of social life. A person is a being who competently (consciously) makes decisions and is responsible for his actions and behavior. The content of a person’s personality is his spiritual world, in which the worldview occupies a central place. The spiritual world of a person is directly generated in the process of activity of his psyche. And in the human psyche there are three components: Mind, Feelings and Will. Consequently, in the spiritual world of man there is nothing else except elements of intellectual and emotional activity and volitional impulses. Biological and social in man. Man inherited his biological nature from the animal world. And biological nature steadily demands from every animal being that, having been born, it satisfies its biological needs: eat, drink, grow, mature, mature and reproduce its own kind in order to recreate its kind. To recreate one’s own race—that’s what an animal individual is born for, comes into the world. And in order to recreate its species, a born animal must eat, drink, grow, mature, and mature in order to be able to reproduce. Having fulfilled what was laid down by biological nature, an animal creature must ensure the fertility of its offspring and... die. To die so that the race continues to exist. An animal is born, lives and dies to continue its species. And the life of an animal no longer has any meaning. The same meaning of life is embedded by biological nature in human life. A person, having been born, must receive from his ancestors everything necessary for his existence, growth, maturity, and, having matured, he must reproduce his own kind, give birth to a child. The happiness of parents lies in their children. Washed away their lives - to give birth to children. And if they don’t have children, their happiness in this regard will be detrimental. They will not experience natural happiness from fertilization, birth, upbringing, communication with children, they will not experience happiness from the happiness of children. Having raised and sent children into the world, parents must eventually... make room for others. Must die. And there is no biological tragedy here. This is the natural end of the biological existence of any biological individual. There are many examples in the animal world that after completing the biological cycle of development and ensuring the reproduction of offspring, parents die. A one-day butterfly emerges from the pupa only to die immediately after being fertilized and laying eggs. She, a one-day butterfly, does not even have nutritional organs. After fertilization, the female cross spider eats her husband in order to use the proteins of the body of “her beloved” to give life to the fertilized seed. Annual plants, after growing the seeds of their offspring, calmly die on the vine... And a person is biologically programmed to die. Death for a person is biologically tragic only when his life is interrupted prematurely, before the completion of the biological cycle. It is worth noting that biologically a person’s life is programmed for an average of 150 years. And therefore, death at 70-90 years old can also be considered premature. If a person exhausts his genetically determined life span, death becomes as desirable to him as sleep after a hard day. From this point of view, "the purpose of human existence is to go through the normal cycle of life, leading to the loss of the life instinct and to a painless old age, reconciled with death." Thus, biological nature imposes on man the meaning of his life in maintaining his existence for the reproduction of the human race for the reproduction of Homo Sapiens. Social nature also imposes criteria on a person to determine the meaning of his life. Due to the reasons of zoological imperfection, an individual person, isolated from a collective of his own kind, cannot maintain his existence, much less complete the biological cycle of his development and reproduce offspring. And the human collective is a society with all the parameters unique to it. Only society ensures the existence of man both as an individual, a person, and as a biological species. People live in society primarily in order to biologically survive for each individual and the entire human race in general. Society, and not the individual, is the only guarantor of the existence of man as a biological species, Homo Sapiens. Only society accumulates, preserves and passes on to the next generations the experience of a person’s struggle for survival, the experience of the struggle for existence. Hence, in order to preserve both the species and the individual (personality), it is necessary to preserve the society of this individual (personality). Consequently, for each individual person, from the point of view of his nature, society is more important than he himself, an individual person. That is why, even at the level of biological interests, the meaning of human life is to take care of society more than one’s own, individual life. Even if in the name of preserving this, your own society, it is necessary to sacrifice your personal life. In addition to guaranteeing the preservation of the human race, society, in addition to this, gives each of its members a number of other advantages, unprecedented in the animal world. So only in society does a newborn biological candidate for a person become a real person. Here it must be said that the social nature of man dictates that he see the meaning of his own, individual existence in serving society, other people, even to the point of self-sacrifice for the good of society and other people. The role of biological and geographical factors in the formation of social life The study of human societies begins with the study of the basic conditions that determine their functioning, their “life”. The concept of “social life” is used to denote a complex of phenomena that arise during the interaction of humans and social communities, as well as the joint use of natural resources necessary to satisfy needs. The biological, geographical, demographic and economic foundations of social life differ. When analyzing the foundations of social life, one should analyze the peculiarities of human biology as a social subject, creating the biological possibilities of human labor, communication, and mastering the social experience accumulated by previous generations. These include such an anatomical feature of a person as an upright gait. It allows you to better see your surroundings and use your hands in the process of work. An important role in social activity is played by such a human organ as the hand with the opposable thumb. Human hands can perform complex operations and functions, and the person himself can participate in a variety of work activities. This should also include looking forward and not to the sides, allowing you to see in three directions, the complex mechanism of the vocal cords, larynx and lips, which contributes to the development of speech. The human brain and complex nervous system provide the opportunity for high development of the individual’s psyche and intelligence. The brain serves as a biological prerequisite for reflecting the entire wealth of spiritual and material culture and its further development. By adulthood, the human brain increases 5-6 times compared to the brain of a newborn (from 300 g to 1.6 kg). The inferior parietal, temporal and frontal areas of the cerebral cortex are associated with human speech and labor activity, with abstract thinking, which ensures specifically human activity. The specific biological properties of humans include the long-term dependence of children on their parents, the slow stage of growth and puberty. Social experience and intellectual achievements are not fixed in the genetic apparatus. This requires the extragenetic transmission of moral values, ideals, knowledge and skills accumulated by previous generations of people. In this process, the direct social interaction of people, “living experience,” acquires enormous importance. It has not lost its significance in our time, despite the colossal achievements in the field of “materialization of the memory of mankind, primarily in writing, and recently in computer science.” memory." On this occasion, the French psychologist A. Pieron noted that if our planet were to suffer a catastrophe, as a result of which the entire adult population would die and only small children would survive, then, although the human race would not cease to exist, cultural history humanity would be thrown back to its origins. There would be no one to set culture in motion, to introduce new generations of people to it, to reveal to them the secrets of its reproduction, while affirming the enormous importance of the biological basis of human activity, one should not absolutize some stable differences in the characteristics of organisms, which are the basis of division. humanity into races, and supposedly predetermining social roles and statuses of individuals. Representatives of anthropological schools, based on racial differences, tried to justify the division of people into higher, leading races, and lower ones, called to serve the first. They argued that people's social status corresponds to their biological qualities and that it is the result of natural selection among biologically unequal people. These views have been refuted by empirical research. People of different races, brought up in the same cultural conditions, develop the same views, aspirations, ways of thinking and acting. It is important to note that education alone cannot arbitrarily shape the person being educated. Innate talent (for example, musical) has an important impact on social life. Let us analyze various aspects of the influence of the geographical environment on human life as a subject of social life. It should be noted that there is a certain minimum of natural and geographical conditions that are necessary for successful human development. Beyond this minimum, social life is not possible or has a certain character, as if frozen at some stage of its development. The nature of occupations, type of economic activity, objects and means of labor, food, etc. - all this significantly depends on human habitation in a particular zone (in the polar zone, in the steppe or in the subtropics). Researchers note the influence of climate on human performance. A hot climate reduces the time of active activity. Cold climates require people to make great efforts to maintain life. Temperate climates are most conducive to activity. Factors such as atmospheric pressure, air humidity, and winds are important factors that affect human health, which is an important factor in social life. Soils play a major role in the functioning of social life. Their fertility, combined with a favorable climate, creates conditions for the progress of the people living on them. This affects the pace of development of the economy and society as a whole. Poor soils hinder the achievement of a high standard of living and require significant human effort. The terrain is no less important in social life. The presence of mountains, deserts, and rivers can become a natural defensive system for a particular people. J. Szczepanski, a famous Polish sociologist, believed that “democratic systems developed in countries with natural borders (Switzerland, Iceland), and that in countries with open borders susceptible to raids, a strong, absolutist power arose in the early stages.” At the stage of the initial development of a particular people, the geographical environment left its specific imprint on its culture, both in its economic, political, and spiritual-aesthetic aspects. This is indirectly expressed in certain specific habits, customs, and rituals, in which the features of the people’s way of life associated with their living conditions are manifested. The peoples of the tropics, for example, are unfamiliar with many customs and rituals characteristic of the peoples of the temperate zone and associated with seasonal work cycles. In Rus', there has long been a cycle of ritual holidays: spring, summer, autumn, winter. The geographical environment is also reflected in the self-awareness of peoples in the form of the idea of ​​​​the “native land”. Some of its elements are either in the form of visual images (birch for the Russians, poplar for the Ukrainians, oak for the British, laurel for the Spaniards, sakura for the Japanese, etc. ), or in combination with toponymy (the Volga river for the Russians, the Dnieper for the Ukrainians, Mount Furzi for the Japanese, etc.) become a kind of symbols of nationality. The influence of the geographical environment on the self-awareness of peoples is also evidenced by the names of the peoples themselves. For example, the coastal Chukchi call themselves “an kalyn” - “sea inhabitants”, and one of the groups of Selkups, another small northern people - “leinkum”, i.e. "taiga people" Thus, geographical factors played a significant role in the formation of culture in the initial stages of the development of a particular people. Subsequently, reflected in culture, they can be reproduced by the people regardless of the original habitat (for example, the construction of wooden huts by Russian settlers in the treeless steppes of Kazakhstan). Based on the above, it should be noted that when considering the role of the geographical environment, “geographical nihilism”, a complete denial of its impact on the functioning of society, is unacceptable. On the other hand, one cannot share the point of view of representatives of “geographical determinism”, who see an unambiguous and unidirectional relationship between the geographic environment and the processes of social life, when the development of society is completely determined by geographical factors. Taking into account the creative potential of the individual, the development of science and technology on this basis, and cultural exchange between peoples create a certain independence of man from the geographical environment. However, human social activity must fit harmoniously into the natural geographic environment. It should not violate its basic eco-connections. Social life Historical types of social life In sociology, two main approaches to the analysis of society as a special category have developed. Proponents of the first approach (“social atomism”) believe that society is a collection of individuals and the interaction between them. G. Simmel believed that the “interaction of parts” is what we call society. P. Sorokin came to the conclusion that “society or collective unity as a set of interacting individuals exists. Representatives of another direction in sociology (“universalism”), as opposed to attempts to sum up individual people, believe that society is a certain objective reality that is not exhausted by the totality of the individuals within it, E. Durkheim was of the opinion that society is not a simple sum of individuals, but a system formed by their association and representing a reality endowed with special properties. V. Soloviev emphasized that “human society is not a simple mechanical collection of individuals: it is an independent whole, has its own life and organization.” The second point of view prevails in sociology. Society is unthinkable without the activities of people, which they carry out not in isolation, but in the process of interaction with other people united in various social communities. In the process of this interaction, people systematically influence other individuals and form a new holistic entity - society. In the social activity of an individual, persistently repeating, typical features are manifested, which form his society as an integrity, as a system. A system is a set of elements ordered in a certain way, interconnected and forming some kind of integral unity, which is not reducible to the sum of its elements. Society, as a social system, is a way of organizing social connections and social interaction, ensuring the satisfaction of people's basic needs. Society as a whole is the largest system. Its most important subsystems are economic, political, social, and spiritual. In society, there are also subsystems such as classes, ethnic, demographic, territorial and professional groups, family, etc. Each of the named subsystems includes many other subsystems. They can mutually regroup; the same individuals can be elements of different systems. An individual cannot but obey the requirements of the system in which he is included. He accepts its norms and values ​​to one degree or another. At the same time, in society there are simultaneously various forms of social activity and behavior, between which a choice is possible. In order for society to function as a single whole, each subsystem must perform specific, strictly defined functions. The functions of subsystems mean satisfying any social needs. Yet together they are aimed at maintaining the sustainability of society. Dysfunction (destructive function) of a subsystem can disrupt the stability of society. The researcher of this phenomenon, R. Merton, believed that the same subsystems can be functional in relation to some of them and dysfunctional in relation to others. In sociology, a certain typology of societies has developed. Researchers highlight traditional society. It is a society with an agrarian structure, with sedentary structures and a tradition-based way of regulating relations between people. It is characterized by extremely low rates of production development, which could satisfy needs only at a minimum level, and great immunity to innovation, due to the peculiarities of its functioning. The behavior of individuals is strictly controlled and regulated by customs, norms, and social institutions. The listed social formations, sanctified by tradition, are considered unshakable; even the thought of their possible transformation is denied. Carrying out their integrative function, culture and social institutions suppressed any manifestation of personal freedom, which is a necessary condition for the creative process in society. The term "industrial society" was first introduced by Saint-Simon. He emphasized the production basis of society. Important features of an industrial society are also the flexibility of social structures, allowing them to be modified as the needs and interests of people change, social mobility, and a developed communication system. This is a society in which flexible management structures have been created that make it possible to intelligently combine the freedom and interests of the individual with the general principles governing their joint activities. In the 60s, two stages in the development of society were complemented by a third. The concept of post-industrial society appears, actively developed in American (D. Bell) and Western European (A. Touraine) sociology. The reason for the emergence of this concept is structural changes in the economy and culture of the most developed countries, forcing a different look at society itself as a whole. First of all, the role of knowledge and information has sharply increased. Having received the necessary education and having access to the latest information, the individual received an advantage in moving up the social hierarchy. Creative work becomes the basis for success and prosperity of both individuals and society. In addition to society, which in sociology is often correlated with the boundaries of the state, other types of organization of social life are analyzed. Marxism, choosing as its basis the method of production of material goods (the unity of the productive forces and the production relations corresponding to them), defines the corresponding socio-economic formation as the basic structure of social life. The development of social life represents a consistent transition from lower to higher socio-economic formations: from primitive communal to slaveholding, then to feudal, capitalist and communist. The primitive-appropriating mode of production characterizes the primitive communal formation. A specific feature of the slave-owning formation is the ownership of people and the use of slave labor, feudal - production based on the exploitation of peasants attached to the land, bourgeois - the transition to the economic dependence of formally free wage workers; in the communist formation it was assumed that everyone would be treated equally to the ownership of the means of production by eliminating private property relations. Recognizing the cause-and-effect relationships between economic, political, ideological and other institutions that determine production and economic relations. Socio-economic formations are distinguished on the basis of what is common to different countries within the same formation. The basis of the civilized approach is the idea of ​​the uniqueness of the path traveled by peoples. Civilization is understood as the qualitative specificity (originality of material, spiritual, social life) of a particular group of countries or peoples at a certain stage of development. Among the many civilizations, Ancient India and China, the states of the Muslim East, Babylon, European civilization, Russian civilization, etc. stand out. Any civilization is characterized not only by a specific social production technology, but also, to no lesser extent, by its corresponding culture. It is characterized by a certain philosophy, socially significant values, a generalized image of the world, a specific way of life with its own special life principle, the basis of which is the spirit of the people, its morality, conviction, which also determine a certain attitude towards oneself. The civilizational approach in sociology involves taking into account and studying what is unique and original in the organization of the social life of an entire region. Some of the most important forms and achievements developed by a particular civilization are gaining universal recognition and dissemination. Thus, the values ​​that originated in European civilization, but are now acquiring universal significance, include the following. In the sphere of production and economic relations, this is the achieved level of development of technology and technology generated by the new stage of the scientific and technological revolution, the system of commodity and monetary relations, and the presence of a market. In the political sphere, the general civilizational basis includes a legal state operating on the basis of democratic norms. In the spiritual and moral sphere, the common heritage of all peoples are the great achievements of science, art, culture, as well as universal moral values. Social life is shaped by a complex set of forces, in which natural phenomena and processes are only one of the elements. Based on the conditions created by nature, a complex interaction of individuals manifests itself, which forms a new integrity, society, as a social system. Labor, as a fundamental form of activity, underlies the development of diverse types of organization of social life. Social connections, social actions and interactions as a basic element of social life Social life can be defined as a complex of phenomena arising from the interaction of individuals, social groups, in a certain space, and the use of products located in it, necessary to satisfy needs. Social life arises, reproduces and develops precisely because of the presence of dependencies between people. To satisfy his needs, a person must interact with other individuals, enter a social group, and participate in joint activities. Dependence can be elementary, direct dependence on one’s friend, brother, colleague. Dependence can be complex and indirect. For example, the dependence of our individual life on the level of development of society, the effectiveness of the economic system, the effectiveness of the political organization of society, and the state of morals. There are dependencies between different communities of people (between urban and rural residents, students and workers, etc.). A social connection is always present, realizable, and really focused on a social subject (individual, social group, social community, etc.). The main structural elements of a social connection are: 1) subjects of communication (there can be two or thousands of people); 2) the subject of communication (i.e. what the communication is about); 3) a mechanism for conscious regulation of relationships between subjects or “rules of the game.” Social connections can be stable or casual, direct or indirect, formal or informal, constant or sporadic. The formation of these connections occurs gradually, from simple to complex forms. Social connection acts primarily in the form of social contact. The type of short-term, easily interrupted social connections caused by the contact of people in physical and social space is called social contact. In the process of contact, individuals mutually evaluate each other, select, and transition to more complex and stable social relationships. Social contacts precede any social action. Among them are spatial contacts, contacts of interest and contacts of exchange. Spatial contact is the initial and necessary link of social connections. Knowing where people are and how many there are, and even more so observing them visually, a person can choose an object for further development of relationships, based on his needs and interests. Contacts of interest. Why do you single out this person or that? You may be interested in this person because he has certain values ​​or traits that meet your needs (for example, he has an interesting appearance, or has the information you need). Contact of interest may be interrupted depending on many factors, but above all: 1) on the degree of mutuality of interests; 2) the strength of the individual’s interest; 3) environment. For example, a beautiful girl may attract the attention of a young man, but may turn out to be indifferent to an entrepreneur who is mainly interested in developing his own business, or to a professor looking for scientific talent. Exchange contacts. J. Shchenansky notes that they represent a specific type of social relationships in which individuals exchange values ​​without having the desire to change the behavior of other individuals. In this case, the individual is only interested in the subject of exchange; J. Szczepanski gives the following example characterizing exchange contacts. This example involves buying a newspaper. Initially, on the basis of a very specific need, an individual develops a spatial vision of a newsstand, then a very specific interest appears associated with the sale of the newspaper and with the seller, after which the newspaper is exchanged for money. Subsequent, repeated contacts can lead to the development of more complex relationships, aimed not at the object of exchange, but at the person. For example, a friendly relationship with the seller may arise. Social connection is nothing more than dependence, which is realized through social action and appears in the form of social interaction. Let us consider in more detail such elements of social life as social action and interaction. According to M. Weber: “social action (including non-interference or patient acceptance) can be oriented towards the past, present or expected future behavior of others. It can be revenge for past grievances, protection from danger in the future. "Others" can be individuals, acquaintances or an indefinite number of complete strangers." Social action must be oriented towards other people, otherwise it is not social. Not every human action is therefore social. The following example is typical in this regard. An accidental collision of cyclists may be nothing more than an incident, like a natural phenomenon, but an attempt to avoid a collision, an argument that follows a collision, a fight or a peaceful resolution of a conflict is already a social action. So, not every collision of people is a social action. It acquires the character of such if. involves direct or indirect interaction with other people: a group of acquaintances, strangers (behavior in public transport), etc. We are dealing with social action in the case when an individual, focusing on the situation, takes into account the reaction of other people, theirs. needs and goals, develops a plan of his actions, focusing on others, making a forecast, taking into account whether other social actors with whom he must interact will facilitate or hinder his actions; who is likely to behave and how, taking this into account, what option of action should be chosen. Not a single individual commits social actions without taking into account the situation, the totality of material, social and cultural conditions. Orientation towards others, fulfillment of expectations and obligations is a kind of payment that an actor must pay for calm, reliable, civilized conditions for satisfying his needs. In sociology, it is customary to distinguish the following types of social actions: goal-rational, value-rational, affective and traditional. M. Weber based the classification of social actions on purposeful, rational action, which is characterized by a clear understanding by the actor of what he wants to achieve, which ways and means are most effective. He himself correlates the goal and the means, calculates the positive and negative consequences of his actions and finds a reasonable measure of the combination of personal goals and social obligations. However, are social actions always conscious and rational in real life? Numerous studies show that a person never acts fully consciously. “A high degree of awareness and expediency, say, in the actions of a politician fighting his rivals, or in the actions of an enterprise manager exercising control over the behavior of subordinates, is largely based on intuition, feelings, and natural human reactions. In this regard, fully conscious actions can be considered an ideal model. In practice, obviously, social actions will be partially conscious actions pursuing more or less clear goals." More widespread is the value-rational action, subordinate to certain requirements, values ​​​​accepted in this society. For the individual in this case there is no external, rational -understood goal, action, according to M. Weber, is always subordinate to “commandments” or requirements, in obedience to which a given person sees duty. In this case, the consciousness of the actor is not completely liberated in resolving the contradictions between the goal and the orientation towards the other; There are also affective and traditional actions. Affective action is irrational; it is distinguished by the desire for immediate satisfaction of passion, thirst for revenge, and desire. Traditional action is carried out on the basis of deeply learned social patterns of behavior, norms that have become habitual, traditional, and not subject to verification. truth: All of the above types of social actions occur in real life. Some of them, in particular traditional moral ones, may generally be characteristic, typical for certain strata of society. As for the individual, in her life there is a place for both affect and strict calculation, accustomed to focusing on one’s duty to comrades, parents, and the Fatherland. The social action model allows us to identify qualitative criteria for the effectiveness of organizing social connections. If social connections allow one to satisfy needs and realize one’s goals, then such connections can be considered reasonable. If a given goal of relationships does not allow this to be achieved, dissatisfaction is formed, prompting a restructuring of this system of social connections. Changing social connections may be limited to minor adjustments, or may require radical changes to the entire system of connections. Take, for example, the transformations of recent years in our country. We initially sought to achieve a higher standard of living and greater freedom without making fundamental social changes. But when it became clear that solving these problems within the framework of socialist principles did not give the desired result, sentiment began to grow in society in favor of more radical changes in the system of social relations. Social connection acts as both social contact and social interaction. Social interaction is systematic, fairly regular social actions of partners, directed at each other, with the goal of causing a very specific (expected) response from the partner; and the response generates a new reaction of the influencer. Otherwise, social interaction is a process in which people react to the actions of others. A striking example of interaction is the production process. Here there is deep and close coordination of the system of actions of partners on issues for which a connection has been established between them, for example, the production and distribution of goods. An example of social interaction could be communication with work colleagues and friends. In the process of interaction, actions, services, personal qualities, etc. are exchanged. A large role in the implementation of interaction is played by the system of mutual expectations placed by individuals and social groups on each other before committing social actions. The interaction can continue and become sustainable, reusable, permanent. Thus, when interacting with work colleagues, managers, and family members, we know how they should behave towards us and how we should interact with them. Violation of such stable expectations, as a rule, leads to a modification of the nature of interaction and even to an interruption in communication. There are two types of interaction: cooperation and competition. Cooperation implies interrelated actions of individuals aimed at achieving common goals, with mutual benefit for the interacting parties. Competitive interaction involves attempts to sideline, outpace, or suppress an opponent who is striving for identical goals. If, on the basis of cooperation, feelings of gratitude, needs for communication, and a desire to give in arise, then with competition, feelings of fear, hostility, and anger may arise. Social interaction is studied at two levels: micro- and macro-level. At the micro level, the interaction of people with each other is studied. The macro level includes such large structures as government and trade, and such institutions as religion and family. In any social setting, people interact at both levels. So, in all subjects that are significant for satisfying his needs, a person enters into deep, connected interaction with other people, with society as a whole. Social connections thus represent a variety of interactions consisting of actions and responses. As a result of the repetition of one or another type of interaction, different types of relationships between people arise. The relationships that connect a social subject (individual, social group) with objective reality, and which are aimed at transforming it, are called human activity. Purposeful human activity consists of individual actions and interactions. In general, human activity is characterized by a creatively transformative nature, activity and objectivity. It can be material and spiritual, practical and theoretical, transformative and educational, etc. Social action is at the core of human activity. Let's consider its mechanism. Motivation for social action: needs, interests, value orientations. Understanding social action is impossible without studying the mechanism for its improvement. It is based on a motive - an internal urge that pushes an individual to action. The motivation of the subject to activity is related to his needs. The problem of needs, considered in the aspect of the driving forces of human activity, is important in the management, education, and stimulation of labor. Need is a state of lack, a feeling of need for something necessary for life. Need is the source of activity and the primary link of motivation, the starting point of the entire incentive system. Human needs are diverse. They are difficult to classify. It is generally accepted that one of the best classifications of needs belongs to A. Maslow, an American sociologist and social psychologist. He identified five types of needs: 1) physiological - in the reproduction of people, food, breathing, clothing, housing, rest; 2) the need for security and quality of life - stability of the conditions of one’s existence, confidence in the future, personal safety; 3) social needs - for affection, belonging to a team, communication, care for others and attention to oneself, participation in joint work activities; 4) prestige needs - respect from “significant others”, career growth, status, recognition, high appreciation; 5) the needs of self-realization, creative self-expression, etc. A. Maslow convincingly showed that an unsatisfied need for food can block all other human motives - freedom, love, a sense of community, respect, etc., hunger can serve as a fairly effective means of manipulating people. It follows that the role of physiological and material needs cannot be underestimated. It should be noted that this author’s “pyramid of needs” has been criticized for attempting to propose a universal hierarchy of needs, in which a higher need in all cases cannot become relevant or leading until the previous one is satisfied. In real human actions, several needs result: their hierarchy is determined both by the culture of society and the specific personal social situation in which the person is involved, culture, and personality type. The formation of the system of needs of a modern person is a long process. During this evolution, through several stages, there is a transition from the unconditional dominance of vital needs inherent in the savage to an integral multidimensional system of needs of our contemporary. A person more and more often cannot, and does not want to, neglect any of his needs to please another. Needs are closely related to interests. Not a single social action - a major event in social life, transformation, reform - can be understood if the interests that gave rise to this action are not clarified. The motive corresponding to this need is updated and interest arises - a form of manifestation of the need that ensures that the individual is focused on understanding the goals of the activity. If a need is focused primarily on the subject of its satisfaction, then interest is directed at those social relations, institutions, institutions on which the distribution of objects, values, and benefits that ensure the satisfaction of needs depends. It is interests, and above all economic and material interests, that have a decisive influence on the activity or passivity of large groups of the population. So, a social object in combination with an actualized motive arouses interest. The gradual development of interest leads to the emergence of goals in the subject in relation to specific social objects. The emergence of a goal means his awareness of the situation and the possibility of further development of subjective activity, which further leads to the formation of a social attitude, meaning a person’s predisposition and readiness to act in a certain way in certain situations determined by value orientations. Values ​​are objects of various kinds that can satisfy human needs (objects, activities, relationships, people, groups, etc.). In sociology, values ​​are viewed as having a historically specific nature and as eternal universal values. The system of values ​​of a social subject may include various values: 1) life-meaning (ideas of good, evil, benefit, happiness); 2) universal: a) vital (life, health, personal safety, welfare, family, education, product quality, etc.); b) democratic (freedom of speech, parties); c) public recognition (hard work, qualifications, social status); d) interpersonal communication (honesty, selflessness, goodwill, love, etc. ); e) personal development (self-esteem, desire for education, freedom of creativity and self-realization, etc.); 3) particular: a) traditional (love and affection for the “small Motherland”, family, respect for authority); Social development and social change. Social ideal as a condition for social development. In all spheres of society, we can observe constant changes, for example, changes in social structure, social relationships, culture, collective behavior. Social changes may include population growth, increased wealth, increased educational levels, etc. If in a certain system new constituent elements appear or elements of previously existing relations disappear, then we say that this system undergoes changes. Social change can also be defined as a change in the way society is organized. Change in social organization is a universal phenomenon, although it occurs at different rates. For example, modernization, which has its own characteristics in each country. Modernization here refers to a complex set of changes occurring in almost every part of society in the process of its industrialization. Modernization includes constant changes in the economy, politics, education, traditions and religious life of society. Some of these areas change earlier than others, but all of them are subject to change to some extent. Social development in sociology refers to changes leading to differentiation and enrichment of the constituent elements of the system. Here we mean empirically proven facts of changes that cause constant enrichment and differentiation of the structure of organizing relations between people, constant enrichment of cultural systems, enrichment of science, technology, institutions, expansion of opportunities to satisfy personal and social needs. If the development occurring in a certain system brings it closer to a certain ideal, assessed positively, then we say that development is progress. If changes occurring in a system lead to the disappearance and impoverishment of its constituent elements or the relationships existing between them, then the system undergoes regression. In modern sociology, instead of the term progress, the concept of “change” is increasingly used. According to many scientists, the term “progress” expresses a value opinion. Progress means change in a desired direction. But in whose values ​​can this desirability be measured? For example, what changes do the construction of nuclear power plants represent - progress or regression? It should be noted that in sociology there is a view that development and progress are one and the same. This view is derived from the evolutionary theories of the 19th century, which argued that any social development by nature is also progress, because it is improvement, because an enriched system, being more differentiated, is at the same time a more perfect system. However, according to J. Szczepanski, when speaking about improvement, we mean, first of all, an increase in ethical value. The development of groups and communities has several aspects: enrichment of the number of elements - when we talk about the quantitative development of a group, differentiation of relationships - what we call the development of an organization; increasing the efficiency of actions - what we call the development of functions; increasing the satisfaction of organizational members with participation in social life, an aspect of the feeling of “happiness” that is difficult to measure. The moral development of groups can be measured by the degree of conformity of their social life with the moral standards recognized within them, but can also be measured by the degree of "happiness" achieved by their members. In any case, they prefer to talk about development specifically and adopt a definition that does not include any assessment, but allows the level of development to be measured by objective criteria and quantitative measures. The term “progress” is proposed to be left to determine the degree of achievement of the accepted ideal. A social ideal is a model of a perfect state of society, an idea of ​​perfect social relations. The ideal sets the final goals of activity, determines the immediate goals and means of their implementation. Being a value guide, it thereby performs a regulatory function, which consists in ordering and maintaining the relative stability and dynamism of social relations, in accordance with the image of the desired and perfect reality as the highest goal. Most often, during the relatively stable development of society, the ideal regulates the activities of people and social relations not directly, but indirectly, through a system of existing norms, acting as a systemic principle of their hierarchy. The ideal, as a value guide and criterion for assessing reality, as a regulator of social relations, is an educational force. Along with principles and beliefs, it acts as a component of a worldview and influences the formation of a person’s life position and the meaning of his life. A social ideal inspires people to change the social system and becomes an important component of social movements. Sociology views the social ideal as a reflection of trends in social development, as an active force that organizes the activities of people. Ideals that gravitate towards the sphere of public consciousness stimulate social activity. Ideals are directed to the future; when addressing them, the contradictions of actual relations are removed, the ideal expresses the ultimate goal of social activity, social processes are presented here in the form of a desired state, the means of achieving which may not yet be fully determined. In its entirety - with justification and in all the richness of its content - the social ideal can only be acquired through theoretical activity. Both the development of an ideal and its assimilation presuppose a certain level of theoretical thinking. The sociological approach to the ideal involves making clear distinctions between the desired, the actual and the possible. The stronger the desire to achieve an ideal, the more realistic the thinking of a statesman and political figure should be, the more attention should be paid to the study of the practice of economic and social relations, the actual capabilities of society, the real state of mass consciousness of social groups and the motives of their activities and behavior. Focusing only on the ideal often leads to a certain distortion of reality; seeing the present through the prism of the future often leads to the fact that the actual development of relationships is adjusted to a given ideal, because There is a constant desire to bring this ideal closer; real contradictions, negative phenomena, and undesirable consequences of the actions taken are often ignored. The other extreme of practical thinking is a refusal or underestimation of the ideal, seeing only momentary interests, the ability to grasp the interests of currently functioning institutions, institutions, social groups without analyzing and assessing the prospects for their development given in the ideal. Both extremes lead to the same result - voluntarism and subjectivism in practice, to the refusal of third-party analysis of objective trends in the development of the interests and needs of society as a whole and its individual groups. Ideals encounter resistance from reality, so they are not fully realized. Some of this ideal is put into practice, some are modified, some are eliminated as an element of utopia, and some are postponed for a more distant future. This collision of ideal with reality reveals an important feature of human existence: a person cannot live without an ideal, a goal; critical attitude to the present. But a person cannot live by ideals alone. His deeds and actions are motivated by real interests; he must constantly adjust his actions to the available means of translating the ideal into reality. The social ideal in all the multiplicity and complexity of its essence and form can be traced throughout the development of mankind. Moreover, the social ideal can be analyzed not only as an abstract theoretical doctrine. It is most interesting to consider the social ideal based on specific historical material (for example, the ancient ideal of the “golden age”, the early Christian ideal, the ideal of enlightenment, the communist ideal). The traditional view that developed in our social science was that there was only one true communist ideal, which was based on a strict theory of scientific development. All other ideals were considered utopian. Many were impressed by a certain ideal of future equality and abundance. Moreover, in the minds of each person this ideal acquired individual characteristics. Social practice proves that the social ideal can change depending on many circumstances. It may not necessarily amount to a society of equality. Many people, having observed the negative consequences of egalitarianism in practice, want to live in a society of extreme stability and a relatively fair hierarchy. Currently, according to sociological research, Russian society does not have any dominant idea about the desired path of social development. Having lost faith in socialism, the overwhelming majority of people never accepted any other social ideal. At the same time, in the West there is a constant search for a social ideal capable of mobilizing human energy. Neoconservatives and social democrats present their vision of the social ideal. According to the “new right” (1), representing the first direction, in a market society, where the entire value system is focused on economic growth and the continuous satisfaction of ever-increasing material needs, a market mentality has formed. Man has turned into a selfish and irresponsible subject who can only put forward new socio-economic demands, unable to control himself and manage the situation. “A person lacks neither incentive to live nor ideals for which to die.” The “new right” sees a way out of the social crisis in the restructuring of social consciousness, in the targeted self-education of the individual based on the renewal of ethical forms. The “new right” proposes to recreate an ideal capable of ensuring the spiritual renewal of the West on the basis of conservatism, understood as a return to the origins of European culture. The conservative position consists in the desire, based on all the best that happened in the past, to create a new situation. We are talking about establishing a harmonious order, which is possible in a strict social hierarchy. An organized society is necessarily organic; it maintains a harmonious balance of all social forces, taking into account their diversity. The “aristocracy of spirit and character” is entrusted with the task of creating a new, “strict” ethics capable of giving existence a lost meaning. We are talking about restoring the hierarchy, about creating favorable conditions for the emergence of a “spiritual type of personality” that embodies aristocratic principles. The non-conservative social ideal is called the "scientific society." Social democrats, justifying from various points of view the need to put forward a social ideal in modern conditions, associate it with the concept of “democratic socialism”. Democratic socialism usually means a continuous process of reformist social changes, as a result of which modern capitalist society acquires a new quality. At the same time, Social Democrats never tire of emphasizing that such a society cannot be created in one country or several countries, but arises only as a mass phenomenon, as a new, highest moral stage in the development of human civilization. Democracy acts as a universal means of realizing the social democratic social ideal. In modern conditions, a new type of civilization appears as a social ideal, designed to save humanity; to ensure harmony with nature, social justice, equality in all spheres of human life. Thus, world social practice shows that society cannot develop successfully without defining the basic principles of social structure. Conclusion. Man exists through metabolism with the environment. He breathes, consumes various natural products, and exists as a biological body within certain physicochemical, organic and other environmental conditions. As a natural, biological being, a person is born, grows, matures, ages and dies. All this characterizes a person as a biological being and determines his biological nature. But at the same time, it differs from any animal and, first of all, in the following features: it produces its own environment (dwelling, clothing, tools), changes the surrounding world not only according to the measure of its utilitarian needs, but also according to the laws of knowledge of this world, as well as and according to the laws of morality and beauty, it can act not only according to need, but also in accordance with the freedom of its will and imagination, while the action of an animal is oriented exclusively towards satisfying physical needs (hunger, procreation instinct, group, species instincts, etc.); makes his life activity an object, treats it meaningfully, purposefully changes it, plans it. The above differences between man and animal characterize his nature; it, being biological, does not lie in the natural life activity of man alone. He seems to go beyond the limits of his biological nature and is capable of such actions that do not bring him any benefit: he distinguishes between good and evil, justice and injustice, is capable of self-sacrifice and posing such questions as “Who am I?”, “For what am I living for?”, “What should I do?” etc. Man is not only a natural, but also a social being, living in a special world - in a society that socializes man. He is born with a set of biological traits inherent to him as a certain biological species. A person becomes a reasonable person under the influence of society. He learns language, perceives social norms of behavior, is imbued with socially significant values ​​that regulate social relations, performs certain social functions and plays specifically social roles. All his natural inclinations and senses, including hearing, vision, and smell, become socially and culturally oriented. He evaluates the world according to the laws of beauty developed in a given social system, and acts according to the laws of morality that have developed in a given society. New, not only natural, but also social, spiritual and practical feelings develop in him. These are, first of all, feelings of sociality, collectivity, morality, citizenship, and spirituality. All together, these qualities, both innate and acquired, characterize the biological and social nature of man. Literature: 1. Dubinin N.P. What is a person. – M.: Mysl, 1983. 2. Social ideals and politics in a changing world / Ed. T. T. Timofeeva M., 1992 3. A.N. Leontyev. Biological and social in the human psyche / Problems of mental development. 4th edition. M., 1981. 4. Zobov R. A., Kelasev V. N. Self-realization of a person. Tutorial. – St. Petersburg: Publishing house. St. Petersburg University, 2001. 5. Sorokin P. / Sociology M., 1920 6. Sorokin P. / Man. Civilization. Society. M., 1992 7. K. Marx, F. Engels / Collected Works. Volume 1. M., 1963 ----------------------- Marx K., Engels F. Op. T. 1 P.262-263

BASICS OF SOCIAL LIFE

The study of human societies begins with the study of the basic conditions that determine their functioning, their "life." The concept of “social life” is used to denote a complex of phenomena that arise during the interaction of humans and social communities, as well as the joint use of natural resources necessary to satisfy needs. The biological, geographical, demographic and economic foundations of social life differ.

When analyzing the foundations of social life, one should analyze the peculiarities of human biology as a social subject, creating the biological possibilities of human labor, communication, and mastering the social experience accumulated by previous generations. These include such an anatomical feature of a person as an upright gait.

It allows you to better see your surroundings and use your hands in the process of work.

An important role in social activity is played by such a human organ as the hand with the opposable thumb. Human hands can perform complex operations and functions, and the person himself can participate in a variety of work activities. This should also include looking forward and not to the sides, allowing you to see in three directions, the complex mechanism of the vocal cords, larynx and lips, which contributes to the development of speech. The human brain and complex nervous system provide the opportunity for high development of the individual’s psyche and intelligence. The brain serves as a biological prerequisite for reflecting the entire wealth of spiritual and material culture and its further development. By adulthood, the human brain increases 5-6 times compared to the brain of a newborn (from 300 g to 1.6 kg). The inferior parietal, temporal and frontal areas of the cerebral cortex are associated with human speech and labor activity, with abstract thinking, which ensures specifically human activity.

The specific biological properties of humans include the long-term dependence of children on their parents, the slow stage of growth and puberty. Social experience and intellectual achievements are not fixed in the genetic apparatus. This requires the extragenetic transmission of moral values, ideals, knowledge and skills accumulated by previous generations of people.

In this process, the direct social interaction of people, “living experience,” acquires enormous importance. It has not lost its significance in our time, despite the colossal achievements in the field of “materialization of the memory of mankind, primarily in writing, and recently in computer science.” memory." On this occasion, the French psychologist A. Pieron noted that if our planet were to suffer a catastrophe, as a result of which the entire adult population would die and only small children would survive, then, although the human race would not cease to exist, cultural history humanity would be thrown back to its origins. There would be no one to set culture in motion, to introduce new generations of people to it, to reveal to them the secrets of its reproduction.

When affirming the enormous importance of the biological basis of human activity, one should not absolutize some stable differences in the characteristics of organisms, which are the basis for the division of humanity into races, and supposedly predetermine the social roles and statuses of individuals. Representatives of anthropological schools, based on racial differences, tried to justify the division of people into higher, leading races, and lower ones, called to serve the first. They argued that people's social status corresponds to their biological qualities and that it is the result of natural selection among biologically unequal people. These views have been refuted by empirical research. People of different races, brought up in the same cultural conditions, develop the same views, aspirations, ways of thinking and acting. It is important to note that education alone cannot arbitrarily shape the person being educated. Innate talent (for example, musical) has an important impact on social life.

Let us analyze various aspects of the influence of the geographical environment on human life as a subject of social life. It should be noted that there is a certain minimum of natural and geographical conditions that are necessary for successful human development. Beyond this minimum, social life is not possible or has a certain character, as if frozen at some stage of its development.

The nature of occupations, type of economic activity, objects and means of labor, food, etc. - all this significantly depends on human habitation in a particular zone (in the polar zone, in the steppe or in the subtropics).

Researchers note the influence of climate on human performance. A hot climate reduces the time of active activity. Cold climates require people to make great efforts to maintain life.

Temperate climates are most conducive to activity. Factors such as atmospheric pressure, air humidity, and winds are important factors that affect human health, which is an important factor in social life.

Soils play a major role in the functioning of social life. Their fertility, combined with a favorable climate, creates conditions for the progress of the people living on them. This affects the pace of development of the economy and society as a whole. Poor soils hinder the achievement of a high standard of living and require significant human effort.

The terrain is no less important in social life. The presence of mountains, deserts, and rivers can become a natural defensive system for a particular people. J. Szczepanski, a famous Polish sociologist, believed that “democratic systems developed in countries with natural borders (Switzerland, Iceland), and that in countries with open borders susceptible to raids, a strong, absolutist power arose in the early stages.”

At the stage of the initial development of a particular people, the geographical environment left its specific imprint on its culture, both in its economic, political, and spiritual-aesthetic aspects. This is indirectly expressed in certain specific habits, customs, and rituals, in which the features of the people’s way of life associated with their living conditions are manifested. The peoples of the tropics, for example, are unfamiliar with many customs and rituals characteristic of the peoples of the temperate zone and associated with seasonal work cycles. In Rus', there has long been a cycle of ritual holidays: spring, summer, autumn, winter.

The geographical environment is also reflected in the self-awareness of peoples in the form of the idea of ​​​​the “native land”. Some of its elements are either in the form of visual images (birch for the Russians, poplar for the Ukrainians, oak for the British, laurel for the Spaniards, sakura for the Japanese, etc.), or in combination with toponymy (the Volga rivers for the Russians, the Dnieper for the Ukrainians, Mount Furzi among the Japanese, etc.) become a kind of symbols of nationality. The influence of the geographical environment on the self-awareness of peoples is also evidenced by the names of the peoples themselves. For example, the coastal Chukchi call themselves “an kalyn” - “sea inhabitants”, and one of the groups of Selkups, another small northern people - “leinkum”, i.e. "taiga people"

Thus, geographical factors played a significant role in the formation of culture in the initial stages of the development of a particular people. Subsequently, reflected in culture, they can be reproduced by the people regardless of the original habitat (for example, the construction of wooden huts by Russian settlers in the treeless steppes of Kazakhstan).

Based on the above, it should be noted that when considering the role of the geographical environment, “geographical nihilism”, a complete denial of its impact on the functioning of society, is unacceptable. On the other hand, one cannot share the point of view of representatives of “geographical determinism”, who see an unambiguous and unidirectional relationship between the geographic environment and the processes of social life, when the development of society is completely determined by geographical factors. Taking into account the creative potential of the individual, the development of science and technology on this basis, and cultural exchange between peoples create a certain independence of man from the geographical environment. However, human social activity must fit harmoniously into the natural geographic environment. It should not violate its basic eco-connections.

The functioning of social life is greatly influenced by demographic processes that affect the entire population as a whole. Important demographic categories are birth rate, natural increase, increasing population density, the percentage of people of a certain age in the population (number of children, youth or old people), which are different for different societies.

In modern conditions, the lowest birth rate is in the countries of Southern Europe (from 1.3 to 1.5 births per woman of reproductive age), and the highest in the African countries of Rwanda, Malawi and Cote d'Ivoire (from 8.5 to 7 ,4). In Russia, the population in 1994 amounted to almost 149 million people, having decreased by 300 thousand people in 1993. A decrease in the population was observed in 49 regions of the country (in 1992 - 41 times, in 1991). - 33 times). The number of births during the year decreased by 13%, while the number of deaths was 18% more.

Life expectancy in Japan is higher than in the rest of the world. For Japanese women it is 83 years, and for men it is 76.3 years. Over the past 11 years in a row, Japan has consistently held the lead in this indicator. During this period of time, Switzerland, France, and Sweden also made it into the top three centenarians more often than others.

Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan are among the three countries with the highest infant mortality rates (30.2 and 26.7 per 1000 births), second only to the southern regions of Brazil (32.5). The situation is completely different in Japan (4.5), Finland ( 5.2), Singapore (5.4).

The above demographic characteristics influence economic and social processes (the development of production, living standards, labor supply and employment structure, cause migration, etc.). Population density has a dual impact on social life. Population density causes competition and promotes more frequent contacts between individuals and groups. It thereby favors the rapid spread of ideas, increases the intensity of invention, and is thus a factor in cultural development. At the same time, excessive population growth is the cause of backward economic development, impedes the growth of living standards, is the cause of hunger, and a source of social unrest. Rapid population growth is creating a problem for the entire globe.

Demographic processes are an important factor in social life, which together with others determine the functioning of society.

It should be noted that the biological characteristics of the organism and the processes occurring in it, geographical conditions and demographic processes constitute the necessary basis of social life, but do not unambiguously determine its processes. People with the same genetic inclinations and living in the same geographical environment can develop different forms of life together, develop different economies and cultures. Within the framework that nature has established for humans, there are opportunities for different behavior, activities and creativity. The organization of social life is shaped and largely determined by its economic foundations, i.e. primarily a set of branches of production and labor within society.

WORK AS A FUNDAMENTAL FORM OF HUMAN ACTIVITY

An essential characteristic of the economic foundations of social life is social labor. It becomes this way because in the process of work people enter into certain relationships, interactions, and relationships. Human labor is the unification of many types of labor into a common, unified labor process, the implementation of which requires its organization. Labor organization is the distribution of individuals and groups with specific tasks and their relationships in the work environment. The organization of labor is socially determined, because it is carried out in the specific conditions of certain forms of social life.

In modern society, several types of labor organization have developed. Let us dwell on the explanation of some of them. At the beginning of the twentieth century, the Taylorist labor organization became widespread. It is based on excluding workers from creative roles and limiting their activities to performance; exclusion of workers from the preparation and control of the labor process, exclusion of workers from the process of on-the-job training,

the worker does not have the opportunity to become familiar with labor technology, labor organization and enterprise management; on the exclusion of workers from the temporary regulation of the labor process (the work rhythm, norm and break are determined by the management of the enterprise), on the isolation of workers from employees - Taylorism limits contacts at work to contacts of superiors with subordinates, because contacts with other workers are considered dysfunctional; on the individualization of labor and income (individualization of work orders and pay).

Since the 60s of the twentieth century, another type of labor organization has become widespread - industrial democracy. This term refers to the democratization of relations in the management of production enterprises.

At the same time, such forms of workers’ participation in management as “participation in decision-making”, “workers’ control”, “production committees”, etc. are especially highlighted. It covers the system of bodies through which the right of workers to participate in decision-making on social, personnel and economic issues or forms of participation of worker representatives in the work of management and control bodies that make the most important decisions; includes employees to veto (prohibit) certain decisions related to the functioning of the enterprise, etc. However, it should be noted that employees participating in management are vested with only advisory functions.

Social labor has a dual nature. Sociologists view it as a process of transforming nature in order to satisfy social needs, as well as a process of reproduction of man himself.

Man, influencing nature, creates the material goods necessary to satisfy his needs. The production process consists of three main elements: 1) purposeful human activity, i.e. labor itself; 2) objects of labor that a person transforms through labor; 3) the means of labor with which a person acts on objects of labor. By changing the world around us, a person shapes himself as an individual and develops his abilities. Labor is a specific form of self-expression and self-affirmation of a person. Thus, labor is a conscious, universal and organized human activity, the content and nature of which are determined by the degree of development of the means of labor and the characteristics of social relations within the framework of which it is carried out.

The social essence of labor is revealed in the categories of “content of labor” and “nature of labor”. The concept of “content of labor” reveals labor in the unity of its material (object, means, product of labor) and personal aspects and expresses the specific labor activity of the worker.

The content of labor expresses the composition and distinctive features of labor functions, predetermined by the level of development of objects of labor and the functions of participants in the labor process, their level of qualifications, intellectual and other abilities; the measure of transformation of science into a direct productive force (this is expressed in the achievement of the level of mechanization and automation of labor and the place of the worker in the production process); level of labor organization, ratio of mental and physical energy costs; the presence of elements of creativity in the activity. It should be noted that routine elements of labor are present in any type of activity, even in creative work. They make up at least 50-70% of human labor activity. The remaining 30-50% (their share varies in different professions) falls on the creative elements of work associated with goal setting, choosing the optimal place of work from several alternative ones, and solving unexpected problems.

In the narrow sense of the word, the content of labor means the totality of operations performed by an employee and prescribed functions.

It should be noted that the labor process is characterized by a certain motivation of participants in labor relations. Motivation refers to the internal incentives for action in a certain individual; it is an internal factor that pushes and directs the behavior of an individual.

In connection with how the influence of motives on an individual’s activity in the work environment or in the labor process is understood, several theories of work motivation are distinguished. The need for achievement theory identifies one need - the need to achieve success. According to this theory, a person's desire to work is mainly explained by

the intensity of his need to succeed.

Representatives of the theory of justice, or social comparison, believe that the main thing in personal satisfaction in the work process lies in the degree of fairness or injustice that a person feels in his work situation. At the same time, the degree of justice is understood as the relationship between what a person puts into work (for example, effort) and what he receives in return from the enterprise (for example, payment) and a comparison of the ratio of these values ​​among other participants in the labor process. The individual analyzes what his contribution is, how it is valued, and compares this with how much others contribute and receive. Based on the conclusions from this comparison, he can reduce or increase his work activity.

Expectancy theory is based on the fact that the motive for achieving success in work is determined by the individual’s expectation of results in the future, that is, the increased value of a possible result. Proponents of the dual theory of motivation emphasize that there are two series of factors that affect labor productivity, and they are independent of one another. Achievement of results, recognition, responsibility and promotion are taken as satisfaction factors. Factors of dissatisfaction that arise from labor relations include the policy of enterprise management, forms of control by immediate managers (democratic or autocratic), working conditions, and remuneration.

According to the theory of the hierarchy of needs, individual behavior is determined by needs, which can be divided into five groups. The first (lower) group consists of needs, the satisfaction of which is the basis for maintaining life (the need for food, clothing, shelter, water, air, etc.). The second consists of the need for confidence, not only physical, but also socio-economic (job, status, authority). The third is a person’s needs to be in contact with other people (to belong to their society and be accepted by them). The fourth consists of the individual’s needs for self-esteem (a sense of self-worth), as well as the individual’s desire to be valued and respected by other members of the group. The fifth group consists of development needs, which are manifested in a person’s desire to develop, implement something new and thereby realize himself as an individual.

Theories of work motivation remain the basis for taking measures to enhance labor motivation and increase labor productivity, and on their basis certain motivational models have emerged: the traditional model, the human relations model, the human resources model. The traditional model is based on a pessimistic view of human nature and assumes that most people hate work, that what matters most to people is not what they do, but how much they get paid for it, and that only a few people can do it. creative work under self-control.

The human relations model is based on the assumption that people want to feel useful, to feel like they belong to a group, that they are accepted by the group. And this is more important to them in their motivation for work than material reward.

The human resources model is based on the premise that work itself is not distasteful to the individual and that most individuals can approach it creatively and improve themselves in their profession to a much greater extent than production conditions require of them. The human resource model does not neglect monetary motivation, but it recognizes the importance of other motivational factors.

The above motivation for work has been confirmed by specific studies by Western sociologists. They show that it is in the world of work that people most often experience a feeling of powerlessness and meaninglessness. Failure to satisfy the need for work to be interesting and provide more opportunities for independence has a negative impact on both work morale and productivity, and on the general psychological well-being and self-esteem of workers.

People value independence and the ability to make responsible decisions themselves. This is manifested in their attitudes towards society, themselves and their children. Specific working conditions are also important: more complex and independent work favors the development of more flexible thinking and an independent attitude towards oneself and society. Routine work, which limits the worker’s independence, makes his thinking more stereotypical. This leads to the formation of a conformist attitude towards oneself and society.

A person whose work activity is relatively autonomous, free from petty external supervision, better perceives and realizes the inner meaning and value of his work. On the contrary, scrupulous external control causes the employee to feel powerless, which is often transferred to the whole society, and sometimes causes neuropsychic disorders. Research indicates that the less a person has the opportunity to show initiative in work, the more inclined he is to focus on external authority in other areas of activity, and to consider the world around him as hostile and threatening.

The qualities developed in work also manifest themselves in the sphere of leisure and family life. People engaged in more complex and independent work are distinguished by greater intellectual leisure time. They also highly value independence and cultivate this in their children. There is also feedback. Complexity, flexibility and independence increase the level of individual requirements for the content and conditions of his work.

Sociological studies conducted in our country have revealed the differentiation of workers depending on the motives for participation in the labor process:

supernormative type; this group includes exclusively conscientious workers;

normative type; this category consists of fairly conscientious workers;

subnormative type; includes insufficiently conscientious employees;

non-normative type (unscrupulous workers). The number of identified typological groups, depending on their attitude to work, is distributed as follows: 5%, 60%, 30%, 5%.

The content of labor is closely related to the nature of labor. The latter reflects the socio-economic quality of social labor, the interaction of man and society, man and man in the labor process. In society, workers are assigned to economically and socially heterogeneous types of work. Belonging to a profession determines the individual’s place in the labor process. The nature of work creates differences between social groups in various spheres of life: in the cultural and technical level, participation in production management, level of material well-being, structure and ways of spending free time, etc.

The fundamentals of social life discussed above influence the functioning of society.

HISTORICAL TYPES OF ORGANIZATION OF SOCIAL LIFE

In sociology, two main approaches to the analysis of society as a special category have developed.

Proponents of the first approach (“social atomism”) believe that society is a collection of individuals and the interaction between them.

G. Simmel believed that the “interaction of parts” is what we call society. P. Sorokin came to the conclusion that “society or collective unity as a collection of interacting individuals exists.

Representatives of another direction in sociology (“universalism”), as opposed to attempts to summarize individual people, believe that society is a certain objective reality that is not exhausted by the totality of its constituent individuals. E. Durkheim was of the opinion that society is not a simple sum of individuals, but a system formed by their association and representing a reality endowed with special properties. V. Soloviev emphasized that “human society is not a simple mechanical collection of individuals: it is an independent whole, has its own life and organization.”

The second point of view prevails in sociology. Society is unthinkable without the activities of people, which they carry out not in isolation, but in the process of interaction with other people united in various social communities. In the process of this interaction, people systematically influence other individuals and form a new holistic entity - society.

In the social activity of an individual, persistently repeating, typical features are manifested, which form his society as an integrity, as a system.

A system is a set of elements ordered in a certain way, interconnected and forming some kind of integral unity, which is not reducible to the sum of its elements. Society, as a social system, is a way of organizing social connections and social interaction that ensures the satisfaction of people's basic needs.

Society as a whole is the largest system. Its most important subsystems are economic, political, social, and spiritual. In society, there are also subsystems such as classes, ethnic, demographic, territorial and professional groups, family, etc. Each of the named subsystems includes many other subsystems. They can mutually regroup; the same individuals can be elements of different systems. An individual cannot but obey the requirements of the system in which he is included. He accepts its norms and values ​​to one degree or another. At the same time, in society there are simultaneously various forms of social activity and behavior, between which a choice is possible.

In order for society to function as a single whole, each subsystem must perform specific, strictly defined functions. The functions of subsystems mean satisfying any social needs. Yet together they aim to maintain sustainability

society. Dysfunction (destructive function) of a subsystem can disrupt the stability of society. The researcher of this phenomenon, R. Merton, believed that the same subsystems can be functional in relation to some of them and dysfunctional in relation to others.

In sociology, a certain typology of societies has developed. Researchers highlight traditional society. It is a society with an agrarian structure, with sedentary structures and a tradition-based way of regulating relations between people. It is characterized by extremely low rates of production development, which could satisfy needs only at a minimum level, and great immunity to innovation, due to the peculiarities of its functioning. The behavior of individuals is strictly controlled and regulated by customs, norms, and social institutions. The listed social formations, sanctified by tradition, are considered unshakable; even the thought of their possible transformation is denied. Carrying out their integrative function, culture and social institutions suppressed any manifestation of personal freedom, which is a necessary condition for the creative process in society.

The term "industrial society" was first introduced by Saint-Simon. He emphasized the production basis of society. Important features of an industrial society are also the flexibility of social structures, allowing them to be modified as the needs and interests of people change, social mobility, and a developed communication system. This is a society in which flexible management structures have been created that make it possible to intelligently combine the freedom and interests of the individual with the general principles governing their joint activities.

In the 60s, two stages in the development of society were complemented by a third. The concept of post-industrial society appears, actively developed in American (D. Bell) and Western European (A. Touraine) sociology. The reason for the emergence of this concept is structural changes in the economy and culture of the most developed countries, forcing a different look at society itself as a whole. First of all, the role of knowledge and information has sharply increased. Having received the necessary education and having access to the latest information, the individual received an advantage in moving up the social hierarchy. Creative work becomes the basis for success and prosperity of both individuals and society.

In addition to society, which in sociology is often correlated with the boundaries of the state, other types of organization of social life are analyzed.

Marxism, choosing as its basis the method of production of material goods (the unity of the productive forces and the production relations corresponding to them), defines the corresponding socio-economic formation as the basic structure of social life. The development of social life represents a consistent transition from lower to higher socio-economic formations: from primitive communal to slaveholding, then to feudal, capitalist and communist.

The primitive-appropriating mode of production characterizes the primitive communal formation. A specific feature of the slave-owning formation is the ownership of people and the use of slave labor, feudal - production based on the exploitation of peasants attached to the land, bourgeois - the transition to the economic dependence of formally free wage workers; in the communist formation it was assumed that everyone would be treated equally to the ownership of the means of production by eliminating private property relations. Recognizing the cause-and-effect relationships between economic, political, ideological and other institutions that determine production and economic relations.

Socio-economic formations are distinguished on the basis of what is common to different countries within the same formation.

The basis of the civilized approach is the idea of ​​the uniqueness of the path traveled by peoples.

Civilization is understood as the qualitative specificity (originality of material, spiritual, social life) of a particular group of countries or peoples at a certain stage of development.

Among the many civilizations, Ancient India and China, the states of the Muslim East, Babylon, European civilization, Russian civilization, etc. stand out.

Any civilization is characterized not only by a specific social production technology, but also, to no lesser extent, by its corresponding culture. It is characterized by a certain philosophy, socially significant values, a generalized image of the world, a specific way of life with its own special life principle, the basis of which is the spirit of the people, its morality, conviction, which also determine a certain attitude towards oneself.

The civilizational approach in sociology involves taking into account and studying what is unique and original in the organization of the social life of an entire region.

Some of the most important forms and achievements developed by a particular civilization are gaining universal recognition and dissemination. Thus, the values ​​that originated in European civilization, but are now acquiring universal significance, include the following.

In the sphere of production and economic relations, this is the achieved level of development of technology and technology generated by the new stage of the scientific and technological revolution, the system of commodity and monetary relations, and the presence of a market.

In the political sphere, the general civilizational basis includes a legal state operating on the basis of democratic norms.

In the spiritual and moral sphere, the common heritage of all peoples are the great achievements of science, art, culture, as well as universal moral values.

Social life is shaped by a complex set of forces, in which natural phenomena and processes are only one of the elements. Based on the conditions created by nature, a complex interaction of individuals manifests itself, which forms a new integrity, society, as a social system. Labor, as a fundamental form of activity, underlies the development of diverse types of organization of social life.

SECTION 1. SOCIOLOGY

N.S. Smolnikov

Perm State Technical University

SOCIAL LIFE IS A FUNDAMENTAL FORM

THE BEING OF PEOPLE

The main features of people's social life are considered as an intrinsically valuable and obligatory form of human existence, its genesis in the context of history, and connections with other forms of human existence. The importance of social life for society and individuals is substantiated. An unconventional understanding of sociology as a science that studies the social life of people is given.

Key words: generic form of life of people, social life of people, varieties of social life, the meaning of social life, determinants of the historical process, the root cause of social development, social system.

There is a lot of talk about social life these days. This is explained by its extremely increased importance for people and the relevance of the problems associated with it. Meanwhile, the interpretation of social life remains far from ambiguous, which hinders its understanding. Usually, following tradition, it is interpreted as social life, i.e. is considered as a synonym for the latter. The adjective “social” began to be used together with the noun “life” in the sense of a special sphere of human existence only in recent decades. But it is precisely this understanding of social life that is of growing interest, especially in sociology, the subject of which, according to a number of scientists, it is. We share their opinion.

It must be said that there are very few works that consider social life from such a perspective (as one of the spheres of society). On the contrary, publications continue to appear in which it appears identical to public life.

With our research we want to contribute to the discovery of the specifics of social life and its special importance for people. The second is inextricably linked with the first and follows from it: illuminating the meaning of social life is based on elucidating its features. However, before moving on to a consideration of social life, let us dwell on the words “social” and “life” that form it. Let's start with the second one. The word “life,” abstracting from its content, which is constantly being clarified, denotes a state of mobility, flow, and not rest. This word covers all manifestations of the activity of a particular actor. From the same perspective, from the same angle, the word “social” means local, not general life. The latter is usually referred to as “societal”.

In literature, social life is interpreted in different ways. Most often, as already said, it is identified with the life of society. It is believed that the terms “social” and “public” are equivalent. It seems that such an understanding of social life appeared as a result of the existence in reality of its close connection, literally intertwining, with other forms of human existence. Many scientists interpret social life differently. So, A.G. Efendiev considers it identical to social reality, by which he understands “everything that is created is created by man,” i.e. neither society1, nor even any part of it. Much less often, social life is considered as one of the spheres of human existence. But at the same time, as a rule, it does not stand out among them in any way and is considered to be next to them. We believe that this is not so, that the social life of people plays a special role in social life. Moreover, it is fundamentally different, since it is one of a kind and the most important.

When considering social life, we proceed from a view of it according to which it and their economic, political and ideological life are the main structural parts of society. Taken together, they are necessary and sufficient for the existence of society today. Only if they are present can it function and develop. It seems that this is what K. Marx had in mind when he focused on the mode of production and economic, social, political and spiritual processes as the main components of society.

Many scientists adhere to the division of society into such spheres, for example V.S. Barulin is the author of a monograph specifically dedicated to social life. To the named parts of society, some of them add others. So, S.E. Krapivensky includes among them the ecological existence of people. Moreover, by the economic sphere of society, they all mean the material and production activities of people.

In this regard, three remarks should be made. Firstly, it seems that it is more appropriate to designate social life as a form rather than a sphere2. The sphere indicates the limits of the spatial distribution of social life, and the form indicates its substantive differences. This characteristic characterizing social life more accurately expresses its features. Secondly, we consider the consideration of material and production activity as one of the spheres of social life to be erroneous. It initially does not exist autonomously from social life; it is its most important variety. And subsequently, as it develops, material production does not cease to be a necessary part of social

1 Modern science interprets society as “the sum of those connections and relationships in which individuals are in relation to each other” (Marx K., Engels F. Soch. T. 64. 4.1. P. 214), engaging in joint activities “aimed at the reproduction material conditions of existence and satisfaction of needs" (Sociological Encyclopedic Dictionary. M.: INFRA-M NORMA, 1998. P. 212).

2 An example of characteristics of the social sphere is the work of: G.I. Osadchaya. Sociology of the social sphere. M.: Academic project, 2003.

life, does not become such that it can be considered as existing separately from it. And thirdly, the form of human existence, instead of material production, is the economic life of people, which consists in ensuring the profitability of their economic activities and in their communication with each other in connection with different attitudes towards ownership of the means of production. So, in our opinion, it is more correct to divide society into economic, social, political and ideological life. This is, so to speak, a family of basic forms of life for people in society, in the presence of which they can exist in it. It is appropriate to say here that these forms can be considered as types of reality, the real existence of society. As a result, each of them appears as independent, allowing it to be comprehended autonomously.

What is social life? Before dwelling on this, we need to look into its history, imagine what it was like at the initial stage of people’s lives, when they had a primitive communal system. At that time, society was not the same as it is today. It lacked the fullness that it has at the present stage of its development. People in ancient times had neither political, nor ideological, nor truly economic life; they led only a social life. It consisted of people collecting fruits and roots together, and later engaged in hunting and fishing, farming and cattle breeding; they lived in clans and tribes, and subsequently as families in increasingly complex structures. Already at that historical time in their lives, people were engaged in both industrial and household activities, entered into sexual, ethnic, family relationships with each other, related to the characteristics of their age. All this made up their social life.

Primitive society was characterized by syncretism - the inseparable, united implementation of different activities by people. Moreover, the leading role in it was given to production, which all people were engaged in. It was precisely this that was the focus of people’s lives at that time - their actions and relationships were carried out by them mainly in connection with it.

Production was characterized not only by people making something, but also by their relationships regarding it and the products they produced, their exchange, distribution and consumption. Based on this, they later received the name “production”. With the transition to the slaveholding stage of historical development, economic relationships between people appeared, which constituted an independent form of their life. These include the necessarily developing connections of people, which are determined by their different attitudes towards ownership of factors of production: land, tools, labor, etc. They form the core of production relationships. Other such relationships include others. So, in the opinion of one scientist, this is the participation of people in production activities, in its organization, in the delivery of products to the consumer, etc. . But these, it seems, are not manifestations of production relationships, but varieties of production

military activity. According to other scientists, industrial relations differ by the subjects of the relationship, by the objects of appropriation, by the degree of proximity to the technological basis, etc. . They all refer them to economic relationships and, in essence, do not distinguish production relationships, which have their own characteristics.

There really are many industrial relationships. In our opinion, they are at a minimum technological, social3 and economic, carried out by people in connection with participation in production activities, then in connection with ethnic, gender, family and other characteristics of them as workers, and finally, in connection with people’s different attitudes towards property on tools and means of labor.

Many thousands of years passed before economic, political and ideological forms of life arose among people in a slave society. All of them arose on the basis of social life. And in a certain sense, not out of nowhere, since their germs were in the social life of that time. They were the governing bodies that people had (elders, military leaders), corporate (tribal, tribal) structures of consciousness, and the property differences that appeared among them.

The emergence of private property had a decisive influence on the emergence of new forms of life. It was she who was the reason for their qualitative transformation.

With the emergence of societal forms of life, the situation changed. Social life, despite its paramount importance for people, was crowded out by other forms of their life. If history is considered from a formational perspective, then under the conditions of slavery, political life became dominant, playing the leading role (and as a result having the strongest influence on other forms of human life), under the conditions of feudalism - ideological, and under the conditions of capitalism - economic. The emergence of socialism in a number of countries in the 20th century was associated with the actualization and real elevation of social life. Today this is also typical for countries of developed capitalism. The importance of social life in the conditions of the modern phase of its historical development is increasingly increasing (table).

Nowadays, social life is the activity of people in the production of material and spiritual goods, serving themselves and loved ones, in recreation (entertainment), it is characterized by their gender and age, ethnic and family relationships, and their place of residence. These occupations of people form work, household, leisure, gender, age, ethnic, family and settlement varieties of social life. We first pointed them out in 1997. A similar vision of the composition of social life is shared by S.E. Krapivensky, G.E. Zborovsky.

3 Today it is not customary to call social relationships that way. But the fact that production has a social component is quite obvious.

Dominance in social history (formational cross-section) of forms of human life

Direction of historical development Type of society Dominant form of human life in society Explication

to Socialist SJ Social life is carried out in various connections with other forms of human existence

Capitalist EJ... SJ Social life occupies one of the last three places in society

Feudal IZH... SZH

Slave-owning PJ... SJ

Primitive SJ Social life is identical to society

SZh - social life, EZh - economic life, PZh - political life, IZh - ideological life.

All types of social life are divided into three groups. The first is characterized by gender, age and ethnic characteristics dating back to the emergence of man, the second by their various activities that allow them to engage in the production and consumption of material and spiritual goods, entertainment, the third by their existing marital ties and places of residence. In social life, the spatial and temporal limits of human existence, the mechanism for the continuation of the human race, and the basic forms of human life reveal themselves.

Work, household and leisure varieties of social life are distinguished in connection with the activities of people on strangers, their own and themselves. Their activities differ in the degree of freedom to carry them out. Other varieties of social life are distinguished in connection with the interactions carried out by people. They are the relationships between people: gender - giving an idea of ​​the sexual differences of people, the roles of men and women in different communities and groups; age - characterized by how many years of their lives people spend obtaining education (professional qualifications), participating in work and retiring; ethnic - testifying to the tribal differences of people that have existed for a long time; settlement ones - giving an idea of ​​the places of residence of people, and family ones - on the characteristics of their existing marital ties. The social life of people includes activities and communication that are necessary and sufficient for their existence. It is characterized by paramount parameters of human existence.

Meanwhile, it has become customary to associate the specifics of social life with communities allegedly participating in the existence of the entire society or with the social structure of the latter. But it should be borne in mind that, firstly,

unities of people, called communities4, carry out only social life and that, secondly, the social structure does not give an idea of ​​​​the content of social life, which follows from the characteristics of its varieties.

Each of the varieties of social life is manifested in the activities of people and their communication with each other, i.e. in subject-object (8^O) and subject-subject (8^8") connections. In this case, activities are divided into those whose object is nature and artifacts (8^O), and those whose object are people (8^ O(8")). This is the so-called “productive” and “social” activity. The latter includes educational activities, lectures, related to work in the media, etc. Ethnic, gender, age, family and other communication between people is their verbal and practical contacts with each other. People's actions, as a rule, are characterized by their relationship to the objects of their activity and the subjects of their communication.

Social life is fundamentally different from other forms of human existence. In contrast to them, it is substantial - it represents the main form of human activity, it expresses the changeable nature and essence of people, the meaning of their existence5. It is also important that social life (somewhat paraphrasing M.V. Lashina) represents the objective existence of people, which is their true existence (more on this below). They are forced to engage in it, they simply do not have the opportunity not to participate in it.

Social life was primordial, primary in history and over time became the basis for the emergence of other forms of life. They arose as a continuation of social life and for its sake, so that people could successfully (productively) realize themselves in it. And until they ignored this and began to develop other forms of life on their own, these forms had their historical justification. The peculiarity of social life is that it is universal, all people participate in it. Social life is valuable in itself. This means that people lead it for its own sake.

It is the leading, main form of human activity, constituting the basis of human existence. Social life is all-encompassing. This is expressed in the fact that it is an indispensable side of all forms of human life. Other forms of life are realized by them only in connection with it. Without it, they themselves not only cannot exist, but also lose the meaning of their existence. And although societal forms of life today exist as independent ones, each of them is carried out by men and women, individuals of different nationalities, living in cities and villages, i.e. possessing social characteristics. This means that they cannot exist without connection with social life.

4 Societal life, in contrast to social life, is carried out by communities and various public entities.

5 The meaning of a person’s life, it is believed, is the self-realization of his essential powers, the core of which is formed by his tribal or social forces.

What has been said about social life gives grounds to consider it as the true life of people. So, obviously, was the opinion of F. Engels, who believed that “according to the materialist understanding, the defining moment in history is ultimately the production and reproduction of immediate

life" (emphasis added - N.S.), under which, in our opinion, he

nyu, meant social life.

These are the main signs of social life, indicating its specificity.

Social life is the practical implementation by people of their social properties. They are ethnic, gender, family and others of a biological nature, their characteristics and their corresponding needs, interests, and value orientations. They first appear as a potential social resource for people. But as they become involved, they turn into their social capital. It is expressed in the social activity of people. This is the form of their effective existence. It depends on the volume and degree of development of people's social resources. Social capital is characterized by the use by an individual of family, friendships, ethnic, fellow countrymen, neighbors, professional, gender, age (generational) connections that provide access to the resources he needs. Social capital shows how fully the social properties of people are embodied in their activities.

The most important characteristic of social life is the indicator of how people act in it. This is evidenced by their culture or the way people socially act in accordance with the standards of their performance accepted in society (group). If an individual’s realization of his social properties gives an idea of ​​the completeness of his life activity, then his mastery of culture gives an idea of ​​the effectiveness of his activities and communication.

Social life is carried out by its varieties, communities and groups of the same name, and by the people included in them. At different periods of history, they were, for example, clans, tribes, nationalities, nations, patriarchal and monogamous families, professional, neighborhood, and friendly groups of people. Particular importance in literature is given to such associations of people as classes. But at the same time, we somehow lose sight of the fact that the identification of the latter is carried out not in connection with their social, but primarily with their economic characteristics.

It should be said that there is a fundamental difference between social life and the societal forms of life that have emerged and matured on its basis. The first is predominantly of natural origin, arising spontaneously, as a result of the evolution of nature and human development, and the second - artificial, appearing as a result of the mental efforts of people. Therefore, social life is objective, and economic, ideological and political forms of life are subjective, and, in essence, one is basic, and the other is superstructural.

6 Used by Engels in this phrase in his letter of 21 September. 1890, the term “real life” gives even more reason to believe that he did not mean all of life at that time, but only that in which people were not forced to engage in the economy and politics generated by private property.

In connection with the above, it is necessary to more accurately characterize economic life. It consists of activities that ensure the profitability of production, and communication between people, due to their different connections with the means of production. Economic activities and relationships between people are carried out consciously. As for their emergence, economic activity (like any other) appears and is updated meaningfully, and economic relationships spontaneously, in a form unforeseen by people. Consequently, only the economic ties of people are objective in social life (and then only in their origin).

Social activities and communication of people are carried out in accordance with their existing knowledge, assessments, and norms1. People are guided by them when carrying out various actions and relationships. Their activity depends on the property, management, and worldviews existing in society. All this should be considered as elements (parts) of social life that ensure its existence. They play a service (instrumental) role in it and are subject to radical changes and qualitative transformations in the course of history.

People's lives are social, individual and public. Moreover, the first one is central among them. This follows from the fact that it corresponds to the changing nature and essence of man and is the matrix of his existence. Historically, initially people were engaged only in social life. Such was then the personal life of each individual. There were no significant differences between the first and second. With the advent of societal forms of human existence, they began to participate in public life. The economic, political, and ideological forms of human existence were not independent. They existed depending on social life and to ensure its functioning and development. Today, these forms of human existence have become so independent that their dependent position on social life has become poorly visible. As for individual life, it has become the embodiment in the interpretations of individual specific people of social and public life. It is important that the individual’s personal, essentially existential, interpretation of reality is carried out from the perspective of his social life.

In modern society, people carry out social life in close connection with societal forms of life. Social life is the reason for the existence of the latter, and they contribute to its development.

The social and public forms of life carried out by people have a mutual influence. It is influenced by the fact that social life is the stable core of society, and societal forms of being are its changing periphery. Therefore, the fields formed by societal forms of life are incomparably more mobile than the field of their social life. Social life humanizes

7 People use knowledge, assessments, and norms when they participate in societal forms of life.

societal forms of life, adapts their development to meet its needs. And they modernize social life, especially when their influence on it is assimilated and contributes to its development.

Social life does not remain pristine throughout historical evolution. It changes and develops. This occurs as a result of resolving the contradiction consisting in the need for people to simultaneously engage in social and societal lives that are different in nature and for this reason conflicting. The development of social life is expressed in the increase in its role and significance in the existence of people. At the same time, changes occur in all varieties of social life, but those that do not fundamentally change them. They do not lose their natural specificity, and changes in social life occur mainly due to the influence of social forms of existence on it. It seems that in the historical perspective, changes in social life will be associated with the renewal of those aspects, parts of the economic, political, ideological forms of people’s existence, on which the development of social life will depend.

The emergence of societal forms of life on the basis of social life, their formation as independent ones occurs as a result of the emergence of private property, and the economic factor in the implementation of this is of decisive importance.

This refers, first of all, to changes in social life that occur under the influence of economic relationships between people as a result of a radical renewal of productive forces. The latter are considered, in particular in Marxist teaching, as the root cause of the development of society.

In the 80s of the last century, this thesis was clarified: needs began to be considered as the determinants of human activity, without distinguishing from them economic needs, the importance of which was pointed out by the founders of Marxism. “Such determinants are needs and interests, the generation and satisfaction of which are themselves historically determined by the economic, social, political and spiritual circumstances of human activity.” “But in order to become an incentive to activity, needs and interests must be conscious.”

The above considerations affirm: 1) involvement in the determinants of any need; 2) the objectivity of needs generated by external reasons; 3) significance for the determination of perceived needs.

In our opinion, the main ones in the determination of human activity, which lies at the basis of the historical process, are not economic, but other needs, and they play a different role in it than those. Without rejecting the importance of the economic factor indicated by Marx in social development, we nevertheless note that its determination is carried out somewhat differently. Let us define it more clearly in order to imagine the place and role of social life in it.

We believe that social needs play a primary role in historical development. This follows from the fact that all technological changes in production, which entail a change in the economic relationships of people and all subsequent changes in society, are caused by the needs for improvement, primarily in social life.

By the way, this is the answer to G.V. Plekhanov’s question: what determines the development of the productive forces? He believed that “the development of productive forces is itself determined by the properties of the geographic environment surrounding people.” Their role is indeed great, especially at the early stage of social development. But it should be taken into account that natural conditions are the external cause of the development of productive forces and therefore it has a random influence on them. It is not clear why Marxist G.V. Plekhanov believed that the cause of historical movement lies outside of man. This contradicts the thesis of K. Marx, which he shares, that “circumstances create people to the same extent as people create circumstances.” He wrote about this, in particular, in his work “Basic Questions of Marxism.” The situation is different with the activities that people need to carry out. It is a deliberately internal reason for the improvement of productive forces and corresponds to the statement of K. Marx that “productive forces are the result of the practical energy of people”, the increasing use of “universal social knowledge as a direct productive force” 8. In this regard, the statement deserves attention G.V. Plekhanov that “every new step in improving the tools of labor requires new efforts of the human mind. The efforts of the mind are the cause, the development of productive forces is the effect. This means that the mind is the main engine of historical progress.” He believed that this judgment was “quite convincing,” but “not solid.”

So, the development of the productive forces depends on the people themselves; it is stimulated by their social needs, which are the root cause of the development of the productive forces. People engaged in social life initiate the emergence of new equipment and technology, with the help of which products that satisfy them are produced. Production fulfills, so to speak, a social order. Of course, this order to him is most often due to the achievements of the production itself. People fulfill this social order only to the extent of the achieved level of development of productive forces. This level predetermines the historical progress that can be achieved by people.

8 Only taking into account this consideration of K. Marx should one understand his idea that “the conditions of the social life process itself are subject to the control of the general intellect and are transformed in accordance with it.” And do not interpret it as evidence of the author’s initial commitment to an idealistic understanding of history, as Yu.V. does. Yakovets (Yakovets Yu.V. History of Civilizations. M.: Vlados, 1997. P. 28). To refute this statement of the author, it is enough to compare the time of writing by K. Marx of his quoted texts: manuscripts of 1857-58. and letters of 1846. Moreover, by “universal social knowledge” (Yu.V. Yakovets omitted this term in the quote from K. Marx), he meant science. But it is the most materialistic form of human consciousness, since its content is not the inventions of people, but the results of reflection and knowledge (understanding) of the reality around them.

Human activity, which underlies the development of society, is determined by objective and subjective factors. The first of these include spontaneously arising needs for improving social life; the second are the interests in which these needs are recognized and the motives for specific changes in production. The latter encourage people to take conscious actions to update equipment and technology.

It is important to emphasize that social life is not only a consequence of the influence of economic relationships between people, but it itself is primarily a source of changes in material production, under the influence of which changes occur in economic life, i.e. it is not so much the final link as the primary link in the chain of these factors of historical determination; the impulse for the development of society comes from social life. This reveals its determining role in history (Fig. 1).

Rice. 1. The role of social life in the development of society (SZ - social life, MP - material production,

EZh - economic life, PZh - political life,

IZH - ideological life)

Social life: 1) stimulates changes in production, leading to changes in economic life; 2) is exposed to the renewed economic life; 3) having been transformed, it again acts as the cause of conscious changes, now in political and ideological life.

The idea we put forward about the determining role of social life in the development of society, we think, echoes the well-known Marxist position that “people make their own history” 9. It expresses the essence of the materialist interpretation of history depending on the actions of people, opposed to the view of history as realized

9 This thesis means that people provide for their own existence. This happens due to their work activity, which they engage in while pursuing a social life. People themselves set their own development - their social needs stimulate the historical process, i.e. The social life of people is the cause and guarantor of the self-development of human activity.

the idea of ​​divine providence or ideas of a universal mind located outside people (its idealistic understanding). History, according to K. Marx, is made by people themselves, but “not as they please,” but only as the productive forces “already acquired [by them] before” allow them. This is the compulsion (or, according to K. Marx, “economic necessity”) for people to carry out activities and communicate in a certain way. Note that this does not negate the determining role of social life in history, in the development of productive forces. But if the significance of economic relationships between people is that they are, to varying degrees, conducive to the production of tools, then the significance of social relationships is that they, to varying degrees, initiate the emergence of a new technology for their production, and from them comes a different impulse for such changes. It depends on the maturity of social connections.

Social types of communication between people, like their economic relationships, are material, i.e. necessary, indispensable in human existence10. All connections between people and nature and their interrelations within varieties of social life that have a natural origin are considered to be material. They are the activities of people to produce everything necessary to ensure their biological

relationships between people. And finally, their industrial relations. All of them allow people to exist within the limits (parameters) determined by their generic nature and to preserve human continuity.

All people “have signs of material relations,” “arise according to the same pattern as production relations: activities related to the satisfaction of certain biological needs (for food, etc. or procreation) simultaneously generate social connections and dependencies, placing people in certain, necessary, independent relationships with each other, independent of their will.” It is characteristic that the founders of Marxism, back in The German Ideology (1846), drew attention to the fact that “the sum... of social forms of communication, which each individual and each generation finds as something given, is the real basis of what philosophers imagined in form of substance"12.

10 F. Engels also considered the economic relationships of people as the material living conditions of people, which he considered the primum agens (primary cause) of their existence.

11 We do not agree with A.A. Makarovsky, who believes that the material life of society develops in the process and result of people’s production activities (Makarovsky A.A. Social progress. M.: Politizdat, 1970. P. 229). And we believe that this activity of people, due to their being forced to engage in it in order to provide themselves with the goods necessary to satisfy their vital needs, is only an important part of the material life of society. K. Marx wrote about this: “Civil society is a social organization that at all times forms the basis of the state and other idealistic superstructure,” “embraces all material communication of individuals.”

12 Marx K., Engels F. Feuerbach. The contrast between materialistic and idealistic views. M., 1966. P. 52. (It seems that the above judgment of K. Marx indicates that its author cannot be unconditionally classified as an economic determinist, as P.V. Alekseev does).

Here it is important to note both the fundamental similarity of social relationships with economic ones, and their differences. The first is that both arise and change objectively, i.e. their renewal is the result of natural causes and occurs as a result of the emergence of needs for their changes. This indicates a certain homogeneity of these forms of human existence. Second, i.e. the difference is that the essence of economic relationships is more difficult to understand than social ones, which determines the different possibilities of people’s conscious participation in them.

We believe that social needs, considered as the root cause of the historical process, have the characteristics that they are spontaneous13 and impulsive, i.e. arise, firstly, as a result of the action of internal causes inherent in the social life of people and, secondly, spontaneously, as an unconscious stimulant of their social activity14.

In the study of social life, special importance is attached to its systemic analysis, which deepens the understanding of it and complements it with new knowledge15. Social life from the point of view of its systemic consideration has three levels of its existence (Fig. 2).

At the micro level, social life consists of a central labor variety that allows this life to exist, from the sphere of stable varieties - gender, family, household, leisure, from the sphere of mobile varieties - age, ethnicity, settlement (see Fig. 2). At the meso level, social life is the main part of society; it also includes the economic, political, ideological life of society. Social life at the macro level (like society as a whole) exists in connection with the surrounding natural, material and spiritual environments16, in interaction with which its development occurs. In Fig. 2 it is also clear (and this seems very important) that the social life of people is the core of the human world (society with its artificial environment).

13 These needs of people are their unconscious motivations for the renewal of social life. “Where do (these) needs come from,” G.V. wondered. Plekhanov answered: “They are generated in us. all by the same development of the productive forces." We believe that needs are generated by us ourselves, by human nature, capable of self-development due, first of all, to its social characteristics. The nature of people is a source of progressive self-propulsion, the nature of the natural world is a resource for human development, in particular, the renewal of their material productive forces.

14 “The primacy of conscious needs” in historical development comes from Yu.V. Yakovets. At the same time, it is important that the scientist, as he himself believes, adheres to the recognition of “spiritual primacy. in the movement of humanity" (Yakovets Yu.V. History of Civilizations. M.: Vlados, 1997. P. 32).

15 When considering a subject systematically, a special vision of it is given, “which requires highlighting: 1) the phenomenon of integrity and determining the composition of the whole, 2) the patterns of connecting parts into a whole. From now on, scientific knowledge about the subject of phenomena. should consist of many knowledge of different orders, taking it on the micro-, meso- and macroscales of reality” (Kuzmin V.P. Epistemological problems of systemic knowledge. M.: Znanie, 1983. P. 5-6, 9).

16 Each environment has a special significance for people leading a social life to satisfy their biological and civilizational needs.

Micro level

A way of being that best suits the nature and essence of people

social life:

T - labor,

G - gender,

S - family,

B - household,

D - leisure,

E - ethnic,

P - settlement, V - age

Meso level

The basic form of existence of society

Forms of social life:

S - social,

E - economic, P - political, I - ideological

Macro level

The core of the human world

Parts of the human world:

S - social life,

E - economic life, P - political life,

I - ideological life, N - natural environment,

B - material environment,

D - spiritual environment

Rice. 2. Levels of existence of social life

The totality of levels of social life forms a system that gives an idea of ​​the integrity of its existence. At the meso- and macro-levels, the existence of social life has features that are determined by interaction with its different environment. Level sections of the social life system guide the researcher towards solving the problems of life activity of social actors in these areas of reality. Thus, when considering social life itself, his attention is drawn to the features of the structural connections that form its varieties.

What is the significance of social life, what role does it play in society? We partially answered this question above, pointing out that it is the root cause of the motivation of the historical process. Let us also note a number of other features of social life:

1. Social life is substantial, since the true life of people is social life. Without it, their existence is simply impossible. The social life of an individual is his immediate life; he leads other forms of existence only in connection with it. Autonomization (and absolutization) of economic, political, ideological life leads, as history shows, to an underestimation of social life. Conducting social life corresponds to the meaning of people’s existence. Its implementation allows them to maintain human identity, conformity with their essence and generic nature. The social life of people throughout history has been and in the foreseeable future remains an identification matrix, in accordance with which they have lived and will live. Social life is fundamental in the existence of people, occupying

cabbage soup has a central place in it. It is characteristic that all other forms of their existence - both individual and social - arise and exist only in connection with social life: the first thanks to it, being its personal expression17, the second - for it, to maintain its well-being. In the latter case, we mean the purpose of the economic, political, ideological life of people, which is not articulated today.

It should be noted that social life is subject to influences that are fraught with a change in its role in the existence of people and the emergence of a different identity for them. This is expressed in the dominance of economic or political life, in the practice of replacing the family with same-sex marriage, in the excessive regulation of work activity to the detriment of its creativity.

2. Social life is mental, it is based on consciousness, which is characterized by such features as: group conviction - the presence of basic value orientations in communities, unconscious collectivity - general group attitudes of life, traditionalism - ingrained social ideas, peculiarity - their local spatial limitation, stability - the historical stability of the motives of social behavior. These are not meaningful signs of mentality, but its constructs; they give an idea of ​​the features of its structure. The mentality of social life allows generation after generation of people of certain communities to maintain the continuity of shared values, to move forward, remaining faithful to them. Thanks to this, each community has its own unique appearance.

The efforts undertaken in Russia in the 90s to radically change social values ​​led to the threat of the people losing their mentality. This could deprive it of its identity and its historical future, which had been developing over centuries.

3. The social life of people is the motivating reason for the emergence of societal forms of their existence, which act as a continuation of social life, existing as its other existence18. Here it is important to keep in mind that social life plays this role due to its primogeniture and the fact that it objectively needs social forms to ensure its own existence: societal forms of human existence arise on the foundation of social life in connection with its needs for these new driving forces of development. It is also noteworthy that the dominance of certain forms of societal life and thereby the prospects for historical development are largely determined by the characteristics of existing social life. Therefore, the social forms of people’s existence change as a result of their modernization or radical change, usually characterized by the retention in them of what can be used in the future for the functioning and development of society.

17 Individual life represents the unique participation of specific people in the forms of primordial (albeit changing over time) social and social existence acquired in the historical process.

18 By the way, this finds expression in the identification of the social and the public (and the traditional assertion that sociology studies society).

social life. So the upcoming changes in capitalist society will most likely occur in it in the interests of social life. She is the core of this society and sets the impetus for its development.

Societal forms of existence exist as a continuation of social life because they are carried out by the same people as it. There cannot be economic, political, ideological life without the participation in each of them of people with social characteristics and traits. This also applies to individual forms of human existence. They are also carried out by people with social characteristics. Thanks to this, social life plays a connecting and mediating role in the heterogeneous existence of people, preserving the continuity of their identity.

4. Social life plays a connecting and mediating role between individual and social forms of human existence. As a result, they form a single whole and, to the extent they adapt to social life, acquire a humanistic meaning that meets the needs and interests of people. This applies to human life at both of its levels; it is important to carry out the entire multi-level life of people in accordance with these requirements. Through social life, the mutual influence of social and individual forms of human existence will take place. In this way they influence each other, being humanized.

This allows people (or encourages them) to conduct their existence in accordance with the requirements of historically changing social life. These requirements are standards for the implementation of human life. The objective necessity of the historical process lies in their implementation.

Noteworthy is the abundance of literature devoted to economic, political, ideological life, and the almost absence of it about social life. It can be assumed that this is due to the presence of special sciences that study them - economics, political science, ethics, aesthetics, religious studies, etc. True, a number of scientists, as already noted, believe that social life also has its own science - sociology. We share this opinion. At the same time, we believe that sociology is engaged in the study of the entire society, only not theoretically, but empirically, through the study of all possible manifestations of people’s activity in society, for which their social identities (gender, age, ethnicity, family, etc.) are essential. ). Theoretical knowledge of each form of human life is carried out by the science that studies it.

So, sociology is the science of social life. Moreover, the cognitive areas of theoretical and empirical sociology do not coincide. If theoretical sociology is limited to the knowledge of social life, then empirical sociology goes beyond its boundaries and studies the influence of the social on the societal, i.e. understanding society from the perspective of the form of life studied by sociology. But this is evidence of sociology’s knowledge of not only social life, but also gives grounds for the assertion that it deals with everything

knowledge of society as a whole. This is a feature of this science, which creates difficulties in interpreting its subject. Unfortunately, this opinion has become prevalent in sociology.

We think that for this reason sociological research can be considered both intra- and interdisciplinary, while social research that is supposedly interdisciplinary19 does not exist at all20. Let us emphasize: everything that relates to the social is various manifestations of social life that are studied by sociology.

Therefore, Comte's interpretation of sociology as a science that studies society still retains its significance today, but only the empirical research procedure is meant. Social science or the theoretical vision of society, as V.I. correctly notes. Dobrenkov and A.I. Kravchenko, never existed and does not exist.

In the literature, the difference between social and sociological is associated with the existence of different research methods of the same name. This statement seems to us erroneous, since the difference between the social and the sociological lies in the fact that the first is an objective reality, which is independent of people, and the second is a subjective reality, existing as a creation of people, in which the first reality is reflected. It follows from this that sociology studies only the social. By the way, V.I. Dobrenkov and A.I. Kravchenko in another, previously published book, write: sociology, as a scientific discipline, “focuses on the study of the social sphere.”

Concluding our consideration of social life, we note that it was determined by the publication format. The work allowed us to dwell only on its characteristic features and significance, to draw attention to the fact that, in our opinion, sociology is called upon to study this leading form of human existence21.

Bibliography

1. General sociology / ed. A.G. Efendieva. - M.: INFRA-M, 2000.

2. Marx K., Engels F. Soch. - 2nd ed. - M.: Politizdat, 1969.

3. Barulin V.S. Social life of society. - M.: Politizdat, 1987.

4. Krapivensky S.E. Social philosophy. - M.: Vlados, 1998.

19 The book argues that “social research. this is interdisciplinary research” (p. 33).

20 The specificity of interdisciplinary research is that in some pair of sciences, using the methods of each of them, phenomena studied by another science are studied. This is what happens when other parts of society are studied through sociology and therefore sociological research. Or, for example, political science and economics are used to understand social life, and its study is carried out using the methods of the relevant social sciences. Sociological research is also interdisciplinary when the impact of economic, political, spiritual life on social life is clarified using the empirical method.

21 The results of such comprehension of social life, limited by the framework of the educational manual, are presented in the book: Smolnikov N.S., Kipriyanova M.A. Sociology. Perm: Perm Publishing House. state tech. University, 2009.

5. Balikoev V.Z. General economic theory. - Novosibirsk, 1998.

6. Smolnikov N.S., Kipriyanova M.A. Sociology: method. allowance / Perm. state tech. univ. - Perm, 1997.

7. Zborovsky G.E. General sociology. - Ekaterinburg, 1999.

8. Alekseev P.V. Social philosophy. - M.: Prospekt, 2003.

9. Lashina M.V. Patterns of politics as a social phenomenon // Politics as a social phenomenon. - M., 1972.

10. Marxist-Leninist theory of the historical process / ed. Yu.K. Pletnikova. - M.: Nauka, 1981.

11. Dialectics of social development. - L.: Publishing house Leningr. University, 1988.

12. Plekhanov G.V. Basic questions of Marxism. - M.: Politizdat, 1959.

13. Plekhanov G.V. On the question of the development of a monistic view of history. - M.: Politizdat, 1949.

14. Sheptulin A.P. System of categories of dialectics. - M.: Nauka, 1967.

15. Marx K., Engels F. Feuerbach. The contrast between materialistic and idealistic views. - M.: Politizdat, 1966.

16. Kelle V.Zh., Kovalzon M.Ya. Theory and history. - M.: Politizdat, 1981.

17. Dobrenkov V.I., Kravchenko A.I. Methods of sociological research. - M.: INFRA-M, 2006.

18. Dobrenkov V.I., Kravchenko A.I. Sociology. - M.: INFRA-M, 2001.

Received 05/06/2011

Perm state technical university SOCIAL LIFE AS A BASIC FORM OF HUMAN EXISTENCE

The article describes the main characteristics of social life as a self-valuable and essential form of human existence, its genesis in terms of history and links with other forms of human existence. The siginificance of social life for society and individuals is reasoned. A non-traditional understanding of sociology as a science that studies the social life of human beings is outlined.

Keywords: tribal form of human existence, social life of people, types of social life, significance of social life, historical process determinants, the initial cause of social development, social system.

1. In this topic, we continue to characterize social life and provide additional information about it; The topic talks about the main features of theoretical and empirical sociological knowledge.

It gives an idea of ​​the specifics of social life, its place and role in society.

The social life of people arose before the formation of society, which, along with it, also forms their economic, political and spiritual-ideological life. These forms of life arose on the basis of social life as its continuation for the sake of its maintenance. Their appearance was the result of conscious actions of people, caused largely by reasons that do not correspond to the nature of social life. Over time, within the framework of society, social life has undergone significant changes and passed through all the historical stages that characterize its development. But even today, despite the extremely increased influence of societal forms of life, it remains fundamental for society.

Social life is etymologically related to the concept sociality, which indicates the commonality of people's lives. However, this is how people lead their economic, political, ideological lives, and participate in all forms of social life. Therefore, indicating jointness to characterize the specifics of social life is not enough. The latter has other qualitative features.

Social life - substantive, it corresponds to the generic nature and essence of man. Its peculiarity is that it is for people necessary, Without their implementation of it, what constitutes their human existence is lost. When the existence of people is understood, it primarily means their social life. It is most often carried out by people as what constitutes their life, and societal forms of life as its necessary addition. Social life matters to people by her own- it is important for them not because of what they receive through it, but because it enriches them. This is her self-worth. The difference between social life lies in the high degree of solidarity in its implementation by people; there is no disunity between them that is inherent in their economic, ideological, and political life.

Social life exists primarily as common to all people, while societal forms of life exist as separate. This is explained by the fact that people’s participation in each of the societal forms of life is associated with their different, often class, interests. But they are actually united in their desire to realize themselves as everybody in social life: start a family, succeed at work, preserve your national identity, etc. This is the meaning and necessity for them of family and ethnic, labor and gender, settlement and everyday life. Moreover, the violation of each of them threatens homeostasis - the balanced, sustainable existence of people in society. Social life inclusive - it extends to people’s work, their everyday life and leisure time. Besides, people do it constantly, whereas economic, political, ideological only for a certain time. The life of people is continuous, constantly in need of manifestations of their social characteristics, and in societal ones -

only periodically. It seems important to note such a feature of social life as its close connection with the biological and physiological nature of people. Man first biosocial, and not a biosocietal being. Hence his primary needs are the needs to communicate with other people, to take care of them and them about him, to jointly carry out most social activities, etc.

The peculiarity of social life, unlike other forms of life, is that people become involved in it in many ways natural way, as if by itself, and to the societal necessarily through a special training.

All this reveals the specifics of social life.

At the same time, it must be remembered that modern social life, for all its importance, is only a part of the life of society and is strongly influenced by it. As a result, there are no varieties of social life in their original form. All of them exist, experiencing great influence from economic, political, and ideological forms of life.

2 . An in-depth study of social life is facilitated by its systemic analysis. It consists in considering social life in three planes: elemental, functional and historical. The analysis is aimed at finding out what main parts social life consists of, what functions they perform in relation to other parts and social life as a whole, and what stages social life goes through in its historical evolution. A feature of a systemic analysis of social life is also that it includes consideration of its as a social, participatory and eco-social education. The question arises what to count elements social system?

These include social actions, social statuses and individual roles. We believe that the first building blocks of the social life system are community all varieties of this life. They are primordial in the history of mankind and correspond to the generic nature of man. These are, first of all, communities of gender, ethnic, family, settlement varieties of social life, which have the greatest degree of natural properties. Communities of work, everyday life, and leisure varieties of social life have artificial origin, rely on the developed physical and intellectual abilities of people. It should be emphasized that without these varieties of social life, humanity loses its qualitative peculiarity. Therefore, they are all necessary. At the same time, their composition testifies to their sufficiency for the life of people in society, since it allows them, by participating in them, to satisfy all the needs determined by their nature and thereby fully realize themselves.

The modifications of the generalities are societies and social groups. Both of them have the characteristics of social communities. Only in the first

In the second case, their characteristics are generalized and synthesized, and in the second case, they are individualized and specified. Individual people in sociology are considered as representatives of communities, possessing their characteristics, and are called personalities.

The communities of varieties of social life are divided into activity-based(manifested in people’s activities - work, everyday life, leisure) and on interactive, characterized by interactions between people - gender, ethnic, family, settlement. Communities of working life play a central role among them. This is due to their direct connection with material production, which is of paramount importance for the social and entire life of society.

The varieties of social life and their communities are historically changeable. For example, such successive communities of ethnic life as clan, tribe, nationality, and nation are known.

The communities of varieties of social life are interconnected, mutually influence, and thereby influence each other. For this reason, they do not exist in a pure form, possessing the features of only one of the varieties. This leads to the fact that each of the communities is characterized by the characteristics of all the others. Let's say, the life of a family also depends on whether it lives in a city or in a village, what professions and nationalities the spouses have, whether they are young or elderly, that is, on all its social characteristics. In specific conditions, the influence of certain varieties of social life may be predominant. One of the important aspects of sociological analysis is identifying in one or another variety of social life the presence (signs) of its other varieties and the degree of their impact on it.

The communities considered are core social system, its first level.

The interactions of communities with societal formations constitute second- public level of the social system. Economic, political, ideological forms of society's life are carried out respectively through the interaction of people regarding property, power and ideas (knowledge). Each of them is general, extending to all varieties and communities of social life. Therefore, they exist as socio-economic (-political, -ideological) forms of life. The appeal of people leading social life to its societal forms is due to the fact that they often do not have enough of them for their existence in society; a need arises for economic, political, ideological life.

Sociology does not engage in special consideration of societal forms of life and the processes that characterize them. This is the prerogative of economic science, political science, scientific studies, art history, religious studies, etc. It deals with societal forms of life only in connection with the presence of a social aspect in them.

Social life is also manifested in the interactions of social formations with those around them. environments - natural, material And spiritual or some of their parts (fragments), during which it is ensured biological the existence of people, their vital (life) needs are satisfied. This third - ecosocial level of the system under consideration.

Nature- this is litho, hydro and atmosphere, flora and fauna of the Earth. Things - all the variety of material assets created by people to satisfy their needs and therefore having different functional purposes. These are buildings, vehicles, furniture, clothing, dishes. In their composition, a special place is occupied by tools and technical devices through which material values ​​are created. Spiritual values - the results of scientific, artistic, religious activity, existing in objectified form as books, sheet music, paintings, audio and video recordings.

Each environment performs specific functions. Nature is the natural basis and constant primary condition of social life. The things that people not only use, but also own, have a decisive influence on the nature of their relationships. The dominance of private ownership of things leads to the “reification” of relations between people. Spiritual values ​​perform educational, socialization, regulatory and other functions in the life of social communities.

Under the influence of three habitats and within the time frame of their historical action, different formational And civilizational types of society. The former are characterized mainly by the peculiarities of the method of production, the latter, in addition, by the peculiarities of social and spiritual life.

AND public, And ecosocial the levels of the social system have their own specific purpose within it. The first plays a role in giving social life one or another social form and mediates the impact of the surrounding natural, material and spiritual environment on it. This function is also performed by societal forms of life when people influence the environment in the process of their multi-species activities.

The ecosocial level acts as a factor determining the historical evolution of social life. The content, nature, rate of change in social and societal forms of life of society depends on the dominant influence on them of the natural or artificial (material and spiritual) environment. The alternating predominant influence of these three environments on social life is associated with the identification of the main stages (epochs) in its history. For tens of thousands of years, the life of peoples was determined by the influence of nature on them - soil, hydrographic, climatic, raw materials and other conditions of their residence. People's lives were extremely naturalized, subject to the forces of nature.

It was replaced by the material environment, which now determines the features of the historical process, manifested in the dominance of economic relations between people in society. The latter are a consequence of people’s different ownership of things and lead to reification - the reification of all human relations, including social ones, to the relations of people to each other as things.

At the turn of the third millennium, industrialized countries began to move into a post-industrial and information society, the characteristic features of which are determined by radical changes in the spiritual environment, in particular in the increasing role of such a component as science. It is associated with the creation of high-tech technologies and the electronicization of all human life. The scientization of all forms of life is a distinctive feature of the coming era of human history.

Social life, taken as a whole, taking into account the 3 levels of its system structure, is capable of teleonomic- goal-oriented, adaptive-adaptive, associated with both adaptation and transformation of the environment and to coevolutionary, self-development together with the environment.

3. The social life of people, taking place in interaction with the environment, should be considered as the ecological side of their existence, within the framework social ecology, which is one of the branches of sociological science. Ecology is the science of such interactions of people with the surrounding world, primarily with the natural world, on which their existence depends biological creatures Man is a biosocial, natural-social being. His biological properties form the foundation on which his social life arises and develops, first of all, and already on its basis all societal forms of life. The ecological aspect of social life is to ensure homeostasis - the stability of a person’s physical state. The activity of his social life, participation in work, everyday life, family and its other varieties depends on the favorable state of his natural properties. The peculiarity of the ecological side of people's social life is that it refers to the actions they carry out every day, actions that form the basis of human existence.

If general ecology focuses on studying the state of the environment, in other words, the conditions in which people live, then social ecology pays primary attention to the study of the characteristics of interaction with the environment of groups with different social positions in society, to clarify the role of social interactions regarding environmental problems. Sociology is most responsible for solving the problems of social ecology.

So, social ecology clarifies the characteristics and degree of activity of various social subjects in their interactions with natural, artificial

national and so-called social environments in order to ensure their biological existence.

Let us immediately emphasize that we are considering environmental aspect social life of people, which, in other forms of their life, has a different content. Of course, due to the fact that social life is part of society, its full comprehension is possible only within the framework of the latter, taking into account its typological (formational and civilizational) features. And social ecology takes this into account. In addition, the sciences about the economic, political and spiritual life of society pay great attention to the implementation of appropriate measures to solve environmental problems of social life.

Social ecology pays primary attention to clarifying the characteristics of the ecological interaction of people leading a social life, and the ecology of the social life of a particular social subject, which depends both on himself, on his ecological state, and on the external environmental impact of the environment on him. Here it is important to explain the following: the three main environments of social subjects - natural, artificial (all kinds of material and spiritual benefits) and social, in which they live; interactions of subjects with environments can have both positive and negative consequences for them (for example, contribute to the stability of the biological state of people or harm it); As a result of the ecological interaction of people with the natural and artificial environment, their material characteristics (natural and material) change.

At the center of social ecology is the ecological side of the social life of subjects, those connections that are ecological. In this regard, it must be said that social ecology studies not only socio-natural connections, but also those that exist between the subject and the artificial and social environment and have ecological significance for him, i.e. concern everything on which its physical and biological state depends. It depends on the influence of various factors - from people’s material well-being to their good or bad health, from people’s use of environmentally friendly things, to their healthy lifestyle. To a large extent, the ecological interaction of people with the environment depends on their social characteristics (gender, ethnic, professional) and status differences. In many ways, they determine its positive or negative meaning. Identifying them is an important task of social ecology.

Generally speaking, the ecological interaction of people with the environment assumes that the latter will not be polluted, that there will be no damage to the atmosphere, soil, water, and that environmentally harmful machines and things will not be created. All this is a consequence of violation of environmental regulations, the production of environmentally defective equipment and technology, all sorts of things. The deterioration of the natural and artificial environment results in negative consequences for the people themselves and affects their health.

“Pollution” of the natural and social environments is a consequence of the anti-ecological behavior of people in society. This is expressed mainly in the impact on consciousness, in changing the ecological thinking of people, which determines the nature of their interactions with the environment.

No less important is the ecological state of the subject’s social life. In many ways, it is a consequence of the positive or negative impact that the environment, especially natural and artificial, has on it. Human health depends on it. In a word, we are talking about such dependencies of social subjects on objects and phenomena of the artificial and social environment that determine their ecological state. But the ecological state of people’s social life also depends on themselves, on their awareness of the rules of interaction with the natural and artificial environment, on knowledge of the standards for their pollution, on the general ecological awareness of social life. The negative environmental impact of nature is a consequence not only of its depravity by people, but also of the changes that naturally occur in it.

4. All social communities have a systemic structure. Each of them is an association of people leading predominantly one type of social life. The community is formed by:

1. Subjects of social activity - people with ethnic, family, professional, labor, gender and other interests, views, values;

2. Social relationship individuals to each other and to the objects of their activity;

3. Social communications- different contacts of people forming a community with reality;

a. Activity of people; ) Two main types

b. Relationships between people; ) social activity

c. Culture- a perfect way for people making up a community to carry out various types of social actions;

4. An object impact of people;

5. results material and spiritual activity;

6. Environment communities - natural, artificial (material and spiritual) and societal environment, which act as conditions for their social activity, as well as objects of their activity or subjects of interaction (the latter applies only to the societal environment).

In social life, as in other forms of social life, people manifest themselves in three ways: they participate in 1) subject activity, 2) social activities and 3)in relationships together. The first represents the various actions of people in relation to nature and the things they have created in order to satisfy their various material needs.

mental and spiritual needs. The second is the actions of some people in relation to others in order to change their consciousness (for example, the speech of a speaker). These are often referred to as social interactions or interactions. The peculiarity of sociology is that it is interested in activity only in who is engaged in it and how, what social properties, features of the acting subjects are manifested in it. Sociology does not study the activities of people themselves. The content of any material and spiritual activity (what it is, how it differs from other activities) is studied by one or another technological Sciences. Still others are relationships, contacts between people due to their mutual dependence or need for each other.

Activity is subject-objective, this is what What S→O or on whom S→S’(O) activity is directed. In the first case it is objective, in the second it is social. In activity, the subject is active and the object is passive. Social relationships are subject-subject S↔S". In them, each party is active, makes contacts, realizes their social interests in them. Social relationships are not only one of the two main forms of human activity, but also an obligatory side, a component of all their activities. The latter exists only in unity with them.

The life of communities depends on the activity of the people within them. What motivates them, forces them to perform actions in relation to various kinds of objects and other people, to enter into interactions and relationships with them? The main motivating force is their need, their needs in something. Among them are social ones. However, there is no common understanding of the latter. Yes, for A. Maslow - These are the needs for belonging to a team, for attachment to other people, for communicating with them, caring for them, for attention to oneself.

Needs realized by individuals and groups become their social needs interests. The latter always expresses the desire of different communities and individuals to reproduce themselves, to maintain or change their social status. Social interests are the main driving force, the impulse of social actions of all social subjects. Social interests are the force that unites people into communities and groups. However, their participation in societal forms of life presupposes the existence of economic, political, ideological interests, or rather their synthesis - the presence of socio-economic (political, ideological) interests. For example, people's attitudes toward work are influenced by both their social and societal interests. Which of them will take the “top” will depend on specific circumstances, on the priority for the individual (group) of certain problems.

The presence of interests among social subjects only indicates their potential abilities for social action. The beginning of the subject’s practical implementation of his interests is expressed in his relationships to other subjects and objects of their actions. Relationships serve as foundations

for establishing social connections, those. their entry into various contacts with certain subjects or objects of the environment. The latter are objects of social activity. Social connections also arise as a result of the subjects fulfilling certain roles, responsibilities, and social functions assigned to them.

All social actions are characterized by a certain way of performing them. He points out that How people (social groups) act in contrast to What represent their social actions, what their content is. The exemplary way of activity and relationships of people is their culture.

5. We considered social life mainly in an unchanged state, in statics, but it lives (as its name indicates), changes, and develops. Its mobility and dynamism are expressed in social processes. They represent a change in the states of social life. There are many social processes. Their classification is based on different bases, in particular, taking into account the participation of different subjects. In accordance with it, social processes are distinguished micro level - as interpersonal interactions, at meso level - as the relationships between communities of all varieties of social life, on macro level - as the relationship of societies. Moreover, the interdependencies of each previous level are included in the composition of subsequent levels.

The peculiarity of the personal social process is that it is carried out by individuals, and the actions of individuals are observable and recorded, and thus make it possible to judge what goals they are pursuing. A distinctive feature of the process in which societies participate is that it is carried out by many people and consists of collisions and combinations of their actions, thereby making it possible to judge only trends social changes.

There are other classifications of social processes. Let us note among them the processes: integration(unification, rapprochement) and disintegration; adaptation(devices) and maladjustment; cooperation And conflicts, and, transformation- transition from one state of social life to another, modernization(updates, modernization).

Social processes can be andtrasocial And intersocial, that is, occurring within and between social entities (for example, ethnic, family and interethnic, interfamily).

Social life is evolving and is in the process of natural change. It has its own history, which is a cross-section of social history. This is due to her unity with society. Therefore, the stages of formational and civilizational development of humanity testify to the stages of history passed by social life. An important feature of a single historical process is its direction, indicating the progressiveness of changes in the content of social life, and the fact that people, making their own history, cannot act according to the whim of their interests, and are forced to reckon with the actions of natural and social forces, that is, with the determining influence on them of societal factors and the environment environment. At the same time, one cannot ignore the fact that history is carried out by social forces achieving different goals. This cannot but affect its direction, which is influenced (sometimes very strongly) by subjective factors - especially within relatively short-term periods.

An important aspect of the historical cross-section of social life is to clarify the prospects for its change. Various sociological theories predict three main options: finalist(the inevitability of the end of social and social development), pessimistic(uncertainty of their further changes), optimistic(the inevitability of the forward movement of history). To substantiate forecasts, natural scientific, environmental and humanistic foundations of the historical process are used. Consideration of the emerging post-industrial and information society in the world occupies a large place in the forecast argumentation.

Of particular interest for predicting the future is the one created by domestic scientists based on the teachings of V.I. Vernadsky on the transformation of the earth's biosphere into the noosphere and the socio-economic doctrine of K. Marx theory globalist society. The advantage of the theory of noospheric civilization is that it takes into account the recently identified limits of anthropogenic load on the biosphere associated with the environmental crisis of industrial growth and the use of non-renewable resources. The globalist society is based on such fundamental principles of its development as: the concept of sustainable development, the human development index (life expectancy, achieved level of education, per capita income of the population), the doctrine of the noosphere (the sphere of prosperous mind and spirit), ecological socialism (society , interacting with nature in the interests of the entire population).

6. Scientific knowledge has two main branches. The first is associated with the study of the natural (natural), and the second - the artificial world (general

of things created by people, man). Social life belongs to the second world, the knowledge of which is dealt with by the social sciences and humanities. The main feature of the latter is that they are used to study single, individual objects, phenomena, interesting for their uniqueness, whereas, with the help of natural ones - are common, under certain conditions, repeatable, regularly reproduced. For this, different methods of cognition are used, in the first case - ideographic, in the second - nomothetic. Despite the fact that sociology belongs to the social and human sciences, its peculiarity is nomology- in the desire to discover laws, i.e. to clarify necessary, essential, recurring, sustainable connections between people in social life. This gives reason to believe that among single and individual social objects, phenomena, value orientations of people, their relationships, the most characteristic, typical and necessarily representative ones are selected - corresponding to the characteristics of the population of people being studied, i.e. distinguished by the commonality of characteristics that provides the basis for the construction of laws. When studying social life, the nomothetic method of cognition is used, the same one that is used in the study of natural processes and phenomena.

Of course, there are differences between the natural and social sciences: the former find out how processes and phenomena occur, the latter - and how they should occur. This is due to the difference in the objects of knowledge of these sciences. Some study spontaneously, blindly occurring natural processes, others study human actions. The peculiarity of the latter is their goal-orientation and meaningfulness. This testifies to a certain freedom of his will, to his ability to choose his actions, whereas nature does not possess this. Thus, the necessity of natural phenomena, processes and human actions is fundamentally different. The expression of the first is ontological, dynamic laws that define unambiguous cause-and-effect relationships in the natural world, the conditionality of some phenomena and processes by others, the expression of the second is deontological, stochastic (probabilistic) laws that determine only the tendencies of social processes, due and eventual - possible only with certain communication circumstances. At the same time, the degree of certainty of social processes decreases as the level of their generalization decreases. The most unpredictable are the actions and interactions of individuals and small groups.

As for the ideographic method, with the help of which individual objects are studied, it is not contraindicated in sociology and is used in it to clarify the socio-psychological characteristics of individuals (their social portraits).

An important feature of the social and human sciences that study various manifestations of people’s life activity is that, as its resulting indicators, they deal with meaningful “traces”

mi of their actions." Each sphere of activity and relationships between people has its own traces, the reading of which is carried out by various social sciences and humanities, including sociology.

There are also features sociological knowledge of social life. It is based on certain theoretical and methodological foundations and principles. As the history of sociology shows, its different directions and schools have ontological and epistemological differences, which are reflected in scientists’ choice of subject, methods and principles for analyzing social reality.

In modern Russian sociology, priority is given to the materialistic method of cognition, which is dominated by the view of society as a self-developing organism that changes as a result of resolving its inherent contradictions. This fully applies to social life, the depth and completeness of understanding of which depends on its dialectical-materialistic knowledge. Identifying social contradictions, the opposing forces behind them and the nature of their interaction is the most important task of sociological research. Sociology examines the phenomena and communities of social life not so much in statics as in dynamics, in the processes of their change and development. This makes it possible to discover the peculiarities of their characteristic differences and opposites, the relationship between which in the form of rivalry and confrontation constitutes the essence of their contradictions.

Sociology is characterized by a predominant consideration of three aspects of social reality. They represent three directions of its knowledge. The first is related to the study composition And structures social life, the second - with the study of the features of the participation of social actors in multi-type activities; the third - with the study of all types of social relationships between people. It must be borne in mind that an integral part of structural analysis is stratification differentiation, and activity is considered as a result of interactions of social subjects with the surrounding natural, material and spiritual environments or some parts thereof. Moreover, it is being investigated subjective side of activity, features of the social influence of subjects on the objects of their activity.

The peculiarity of the epistemology used in modern sociology is that it is based on what, how and by whom is studied. The object of study is social life. It is known through research principles, including its explanation and understanding. At the same time, the results of the study reflect the social and humanitarian attitudes of the cognitive sociologist.

Some of the sociological principles include:

1. - study of what scientists believe significant what is in their interests. Related to this is the introduction of a personal perspective into their research;

2. - a look at the object of knowledge through the prism sociological imagination, allowing you to see it not as it appears to the ordinary consciousness of people, but anew, in the context of some sociological theory;

3. - use by the researcher reflections - his self-knowledge of those mental actions through which he cognizes social objects. Peculiarity