100 RUR bonus for first order
Select the type of work Diploma work Course work Abstract Master's thesis Practice report Article Report Review Test work Monograph Problem solving Business plan Answers to questions Creative work Essay Drawing Essays Translation Presentations Typing Other Increasing the uniqueness of the text Master's thesis Laboratory work On-line help
Find out the price
Social life can be represented as a process of purposeful preservation, reproduction and development of individuals and communities. Its occurrence presupposes the presence of subjects, their setting of appropriate goals, the search and application of methods and means adequate to them, the necessary prerequisites and conditions, the activity of relationships, obtaining planned results, their assessment based on special criteria and correlation with goals. The specificity of the criteria is one of the arguments to prove a certain autonomy of social life in relation to political, economic, spiritual and ideological life. If previously the degree of maturity of a society was judged by economic indicators, now such a criterion is increasingly taken to be a “person-based” approach.
Recently, indices have been developed that are not reflected in GDP indicators or are distorted by them. The most famous is the Human Development Index (HDI), proposed by UN experts. HDI is an integral indicator that includes three basic components: 1) life expectancy, 2) adult literacy and the total share of students in primary, secondary and higher educational institutions, 3) real per capita income based on purchasing power. “International comparisons based on this index have revealed the absence of a strict correlation between indicators of social (human) development and economic growth. In some cases, a country's rank in terms of HDI is higher - and sometimes significantly - than its rank in terms of GDP per capita; in others, the picture is the opposite.
The HDI, firstly, reflects the level of development of spheres of society in their relationship to each other. Secondly, it is a criterion for both the preservation of individuals (real income and life expectancy) and their development (literacy, education). Thirdly, the increase in HDI is the result not so much of spontaneous inertial development, but of conscious, purposeful efforts of individuals, society and its various institutions.
The HDI is linked to the criteria of social stratification of modern society. If earlier social stratification was determined by an economic criterion - the attitude to the means of production, now the amount of income, the level and quality of education, the prestige of professional occupations, the degree of entry into power structures, etc. act as differentiating characteristics along with it. We are talking about the transition from economic man to social man, a subject of self-sufficient activity and the relationships corresponding to it. This shows the advantages of those social systems in which the proportion of middle strata, which most fully represent the subjects of social life, is large.
Social life does not receive theoretical expression adequate to its role in society. As a rule, it is interpreted narrowly and comes down to either the functioning of individual spheres or state assistance to children, disabled people, pensioners, etc. In both cases, the bulk of the population falls out of its orbit. In addition, the main attention is paid to the preservation of individuals and communities, while the process of their development remains in the shadows. However, one cannot judge the whole by one component. A fragmented approach to the social life of society does not allow us to reveal its essence, content, various forms of manifestation and development trends.
Sociology is experiencing a crisis; compared to other sciences, it has turned out to be an outsider. In content, sociology is fragmented into countless theories, between which it is difficult to see the connection. There is a gap between the abundance of empirical material and its theoretical generalization. It cannot boast of major achievements, the effectiveness of performing epistemological, methodological and social functions, or the effectiveness of interaction with other branches of knowledge. In many ways, this state of sociology is due to the fact that its subject has not been sufficiently disclosed, since the latter is a system-forming factor in relation to the content of science. If it is not defined deeply and completely enough, it is impossible to imagine science as a system and to identify its integrative properties and functions. The idea of methodological trauma was put forward, which is understood as a situation of confusion among researchers in front of the abundance of sociological theories, methodologies, and methods in the decision-making process on the choice of means of cognitive activity. We can probably talk about the substantive trauma of sociologists, especially teachers, who, finding themselves in conditions of atomization, excessive differentiation and fragmentation of sociological knowledge, clearly feel the difficulty of its holistic comprehension and therefore “go away” into locality - into the absolutization of some theories and the ignoring of other theories.
When it comes to presenting sociology as a system, this does not mean “squeezing” all the diverse knowledge into one. The point is different - overcoming the inconsistency of different theories, in identifying their proportionality and commensurability as components of one science, in revealing its unity, manifested in the diversity of elements, in highlighting their connections in interactions.
The desire to clarify the subject of sociology is due to the need to present this science as a system that produces specific knowledge. Only thanks to the latter, sociology can fully perform economic and social functions. It seems that from these positions it is necessary to approach the search for the subject of sociology, undertaken recently by a number of theorists. One of the concepts according to which sociology turns into the sociology of life. The basic concepts of which are “consciousness” and “behavior”, etc.
The approach to social life as a subject of sociology is confirmed by the process of emergence and development of this science. Awareness of the specifics of social life was difficult and contradictory. Naturalism, evolutionism and phenomenology were its characteristic features at that time. At the same time, O. Comte, having separated “logos from myths,” raised the question of the need to create a science that would study the statics and dynamics of society, would provide “positive” knowledge, contributing to the establishment of order and progress in it. Many subsequent sociologists also saw the main task in weakening and relieving social tension in society, minimizing conflicts, and establishing harmony and solidarity between people. The subsequent empirical research seemed to distance sociology from this issue. However, they were essentially devoted to the study of phenomena and processes (various forms of social manifestations: crime, conflicts, risks, etc.) that limit and deform the social life of people and pose a danger to their existence. The progress of mankind turns into a mass of social pathologies that “feed” the negative branch of sociology. However, the latter, it seems, should be considered in line with the positive direction of this science as a theory of social life, including the study of not only the processes of preservation and reproduction, but also the development of individuals and communities.
Let us take a closer look at social life as a subject of sociology, highlighting the three most significant, in our opinion, aspects: subjects, processes of interaction between them, main goals and orientations.
The subjects of social life are different entities: individuals, groups and communities, individual societies and the world community. It seems unlawful to focus attention on some and exclude others from social life and, therefore, from the orbit of sociological vision. Meanwhile, this approach takes place when determining the status of sociology. Of course, the degree of people's involvement in social life is not the same, which is reflected in the social structure and stratification of society. Some eke out a miserable existence below the poverty line, others are busy struggling for survival, the life strategy of others is aimed at development, etc. The differentiation of individuals and communities is also characteristic of other forms of life, where there also exists a core and a periphery, active layers.
The sociological approach to individuals and communities as integral entities is logically transformed into an analysis of them as subjects of activity, ultimately oriented towards their own preservation and development. This idea is expressed in various forms by many authors. In this regard, in Marxism, the analysis of the objective position of the proletariat as a class is brought to the justification of the activities that it was forced to conduct for the sake of survival. It is no coincidence that K. Marx’s position about “class in itself” and “class for itself” is reproduced in modern literature. The transformation of a community from the first state to the second is carried out through its activities.
There are three important points to note. Firstly, the specificity of sociology is not simply that it pays attention to the activities of individuals and communities, but in the study of its social content, which is a manifestation of their activity as social units. In this regard, it should be noted: M. Verber’s typology is social in nature, because it is directly related to the state of the individual as a social being. The dominance of various elements in an individual’s structure also determines the corresponding type of action. Naturally, the increasing diversity and complexity of technical forms of activity cannot but affect their social content.
Secondly, sociology is interested in activity as one of the forms of social interaction, organically connected with its other types: relationships, communication and behavior. In modern society it is increasingly dominant relative to other forms. However, in order to reveal the social life of society, it is important to take into account the entire set of types of interaction, bearing in mind, first of all, their social content. Thirdly, an essential feature of social life is the connection between all forms of interaction of social units with the process of their preservation, reproduction and development. Abstraction from this circumstance means the elimination of any criteria for interaction processes, which in practice turns into arbitrariness, permissiveness, leading to the degradation of both individuals and society. The history of sociology is nothing more than the development of various theories that reveal the boundaries of the possible and impossible, norms, permissible and impermissible, which is reflected in the concepts of conflictology, risk theory, etc.
Coming to the forefront of social life means a qualitatively new level of development of society compared to those states when politics and economics play the main role. In the latter cases, the process of purposeful preservation and development of individuals covers only a minority. With leadership in social life, it extends to the majority of the population, which places new demands on different spheres and institutions.
A holistic vision of social life allows us to better understand the diversity and unity of the world, the past and the present. It highlights various aspects of today's society and helps bring it out of a state of uncertainty.
(1798-1857) in his work “A Course in Positive Philosophy” (1842). Adapting this concept to the Russian language, one of the outstanding founders of world sociology, our compatriot Pitirim Sorokin, noted that sociology is “the word about society.” The entire totality of people living together, their mutual relationships, he emphasized, is society or social life, which is studied by sociology. In other words, sociology is a science that studies human relations in all forms of their manifestation.
The basis of these relationships is not the momentary impulses and moods of people (although sociologists also pay due attention to their study), but the fundamental needs of life itself and, above all, the need to achieve a reasonable (scientific) organization of any form of social activity - politics, trade, business, management, economics, culture, education, science - everything where both individual individuals and their various associations act in pursuit of their goals. Hence, sociologists are qualified teams of people who unite to comprehensively solve specific social problems. Each individual specialist, for example a psychologist, lawyer or manager, can, if necessary, quite effectively identify the weak or strong sides of his “technological chain” of social relations. However, the development of the entire space under study (workshop, plant, industry, region, country, nation, civilization), taking into account the totality of social factors operating in this space - developing, hindering or destroying - can only be achieved with the help of a specialist with sociologically developed thinking. In this sense, sociology promotes a deep understanding of the social essence and meaning of human activity, which, undoubtedly, cannot but affect its effectiveness and quality.
Object of sociology
The object of sociological knowledge is society. But isolating the concept of “society” as a starting point for defining the subject of sociology is not enough. Society can be the object of all social and human sciences. The same can be said about the concept of “social reality”. The key to justifying the scientific status of sociology, as well as any other science, lies in the difference between its object and its subject.
The object of knowledge is everything that the researcher’s activity is aimed at. Any phenomenon, process or relation of objective reality can be the object of study of a wide variety of sciences. When it comes to the subject of research of a given specific science, then this or that part of objective reality (society, culture, man) is not studied in its entirety, but only from that aspect that is determined by the specifics of this science. Other aspects of a specific part of objective reality in this case are considered as secondary or as a condition for the existence of a given object (for example, the social context of the economy).
Often in scientific literature there is a confusion or identification of the concepts of “object” and “subject” of science. This confusion or identification of two concepts that are in semantic proximity could be ignored if it did not have a significant impact on the blurring of the boundaries of science.
An object is a separate part or a set of elements of objective reality that has a certain or specific property. At the same time, each science differs from another science in its subject. Physics and chemistry, biology and psychology, economics and sociology, etc. have their own subjects. All these sciences generally study objective reality, characterized by an infinite variety of phenomena and processes. However, each of them studies, firstly, a special side or sphere of objective reality; secondly, laws and patterns of development of this reality that are specific only to this science; thirdly, the special form of manifestation and mechanisms of action of these laws and patterns. Moreover, the same sphere of objective reality can be the object of study by many sciences. Thus, physical reality is the object of study of many natural and technical sciences, social reality is the object of study of social sciences and the humanities. Determining the specifics of science only by the object of research is not enough. There can be an infinite number of objects of research in any science, but its subject is always unambiguous, limited and specific.
The difference between various sciences from each other lies in the fact that even on the same object they study their specific laws and patterns, which govern the development and functioning of a given object. Thus, the development and functioning of society is determined by the requirements of economic, social, demographic, psychological and other laws and patterns that are the subject of the relevant sciences. In this regard, parts of this objective reality can be the object of study of various sciences. For example, work, everyday life, education, family, city, village, etc. are objects of research in economics, sociology, psychology, and demography.
The laws and regularities of any science can be traced in specific phenomena and processes of objective reality included in the mechanism of their action. Thus, biological laws and patterns are manifested in the diverse forms of living organisms, their structure, functions, evolution, individual development and relationship with the environment; social laws and patterns - in historically certain types of society or its individual systems, acting as results and as a condition for the social activity of people.
The subject of science cannot be identical to the object (or objects) that it studies. The object of science is a given reality that represents one or another fragment of the objective world. The subject of science is the reproduction of such reality on an abstract level by identifying the most significant, from a scientific and practical point of view, the logical connections and relationships of this reality. The subject of any science is not just a certain phenomenon or process of the objective world, but the result of theoretical abstraction, which makes it possible to highlight certain patterns of development of the object being studied, specific to this science. This kind of abstraction (building a model of the object being studied) precisely determines that “part”, “sphere”, “side”, “aspect” of social reality to which the sociologist’s activity is directed.
Definition of the subject of sociology
One of the most important reasons that determined the rather late spin-off of sociology from other sciences - from philosophy (France), political economy (Germany), social psychology (USA), criminology (Great Britain) - and its emergence as an independent scientific discipline, lies in the uncertainty of the subject sociological knowledge.
Usually, according to established tradition, when defining the subject of sociological knowledge, one or another social phenomenon is singled out as “key”. Such phenomena include: group interactions, social relationships, social organizations, systems of social action, social groups, forms of human communities, social processes, social life.
The International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences defines the subject of sociology as “the study of social aggregates and groups in their institutional organization, institutions and their organizations, and the causes and consequences of changes in institutions and social organization.” Webster's Dictionary defines sociology as the study of the history, development, organization, and problems of living together among people as representatives of social groups.
Some authors (R. Feris) believe that the starting concept of modern sociology is the concept of “social structure”, and the main content of the category “social” is the dichotomy “equality-inequality”. It is with the analysis of the “foundations of inequality in society” that the presentation of the theory and structure of sociological knowledge begins.
One can cite a number of similar definitions of the subject of sociology. A comparative analysis of these definitions will give a certain idea of what acts as the main objects of sociological knowledge. But sociologists have not yet come to a consensus about the subject of their science.
When isolating the social sphere of society's life, it is completely insufficient to point out the objects that are subject to sociological study, since there are no objects in society that sociology does not study. The same can be said about economics, demography and other social and human sciences. Consequently, when we are talking about the specific features of a particular science, from the most diverse objects of the surrounding reality, those connections and relationships must be isolated that are qualitatively different from other connections and relationships and which thereby become the subject of this particular science.
The defining property of an object is that it represents the entire set of connections and relationships that are called social. The goal of sociology is to study these connections and relationships at the level of patterns, to obtain specific scientific knowledge about the mechanisms of action and forms of manifestation of these patterns in various social systems. So, the concepts of social, social connections and relationships, the method of their organization are the starting points for understanding the distinctive features of the subject of sociological knowledge, and social patterns for understanding its essence.
Concept of social
To better understand the content of the concept “social” and its difference from the concept “public”, let’s take a short historical excursion. In the works of K. Marx and F. Engels, when analyzing society, its processes and relations, two concepts are used - “social” (Gesel/ schaftlich) and "social" ( soziale). Marx and Engels used the concepts of “social” and “social relations” when talking about society as a whole, about the interaction of its parties - economic, political, ideological. When it came to the nature of the relations of people to each other, person to person, about their relationship to the factors and conditions of their life, to their own position and role in society and to society as a whole, Marx and Engels used the concept of “social” and accordingly they spoke of “social relations.”
In the works of Marx and Engels, the concept of “social” was often identified with the concept of “civil”. The latter was associated with the interaction of people within specific social communities (family, class, etc.) and society as a whole.
Since, when developing the theory of society, Marx and Engels paid main attention to the interaction of all aspects of its life activity - social relations, some Marxist scientists began to identify the concepts of “public” and “social”; The concept of “civil society” gradually disappeared from scientific circulation.
A different situation has developed in the countries of Western Europe and the USA, where empirical sociology has received significant development. As a result, in French and English the concept of “social”, being derived from the concept of society (society) , has traditionally been used in a narrow (empirical) meaning, which caused certain difficulties in designating phenomena and processes related to society as a whole. That is why at a certain stage of the development of sociology the concept of “societal” was introduced ( social), used to characterize society as a whole, the entire system of social relations (economic, socio-political, etc.).
In Russian science, the lack of a clear distinction between the concepts of “public” and “social” was to a certain extent due to certain established linguistic traditions. In Russian, the concepts “public” and “civil” were usually used. At the same time, the concept of “social” was considered as a synonym for the concept of “public”, and the concept of “civil” related to legal science. Gradually, with the development of sociology, the concept of “social” acquired an independent meaning.
Social- this is a set of social relations of a given society, integrated in the process of joint activity (interaction) by individuals or groups of individuals in specific conditions of place and time.
Any system of social relations (economic, political, etc.) is connected with the attitude of people to each other and to society. Therefore, each of these systems always has its own clearly defined social aspect.
The social is the result of the joint activity of various individuals, manifested in their communication and interaction.
The social arises in the course of interaction between people and is determined by the differences in their place and role in specific social structures, which is manifested, in turn, in the different attitudes of individuals and groups of individuals to the phenomena and processes 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. In 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. Efendiyev considers it identical to social reality, by which he means “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; it 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 least 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 by us. - N.S.), under which he, in our opinion,
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 in the way they please,” but only in the way that 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 stimulator 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 is not 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.
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 are designated, when it comes to man, 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 directly a 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 as a human being, but only as a candidate for a human being. 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 relentlessly 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 their 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 development cycle 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. 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 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 geographical 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 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. Addiction 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 oriented towards 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 random, 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, scolding that follows a collision, a brawl or a peaceful resolution of a conflict is already a social action. So, not every collision between 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, their 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 subordinated 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 orientation towards another, he completely relies on accepted values. There are also affective and traditional actions. Affective action is irrational; it is distinguished by the desire for immediate gratification of passion, thirst for revenge, attraction. Traditional action is carried out on the basis of deeply learned social patterns of behavior, norms that have become habitual, traditional, not subject to verification truth In real life, all of the listed types of social actions occur. 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 in favor of more radical changes in the system of social relations began to grow in society. 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 individual 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 toward 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 focused exclusively on satisfying physical needs (hunger, instinct of procreation, 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
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 are designated, when it comes to man, 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 directly a 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 as a human being, but only as a candidate for a human being. 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 relentlessly 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 their 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 development cycle 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. 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 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 geographical 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 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. Addiction 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 oriented towards 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 random, 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, scolding that follows a collision, a brawl or a peaceful resolution of a conflict is already a social action. So, not every collision between 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, their 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 subordinated 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 orientation towards another, he completely relies on accepted values. There are also affective and traditional actions. Affective action is irrational; it is distinguished by the desire for immediate gratification of passion, thirst for revenge, attraction. Traditional action is carried out on the basis of deeply learned social patterns of behavior, norms that have become habitual, traditional, not subject to verification truth In real life, all of the listed types of social actions occur. 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 in favor of more radical changes in the system of social relations began to grow in society. 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 individual 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 toward 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 focused exclusively on satisfying physical needs (hunger, instinct of procreation, 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
|
|